The information is knowingly obfuscated - we can't even find out what a country's debts are with that much reliability. Rather than accounting software I've come round to the view we'd have to conduct espionage to get the data! I'd almost propose such a jaunt if we could actually publish what we found.
On Feb 2, 7:37 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > they the accountant masters have no intention o releasing of the > information.. and want the system as dishonest as as the possibly can > make it.. that is not the fault of the accounting system ratherthee > souls that are extorting the honest system.. > > I might be interested as of now I do not have the programs to handle > the information.. could try but I really have not dealt with > accounting in an major form in the last thirty years > > do you know of the programs that will run in Android .. would like > to use my transformer.. let me know what I need and where I can get > it hopefully for free.. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > No problems with that analysis rigs and thinking about it I do gamble > > like that with real friends (usually bridge). I'd have to quibble on > > the dictionary definition - this isn't quite what "rents" are in > > economics. I'd have to go on a lot to explain in full. Rigs hits the > > key element anyway - 'systems that the average person cannot access or > > control'. Oil has been a classic example of economic rent - this was > > largely done by controlling distribution in order to extract a much > > higher price that production costs - this included preventing new > > sources of supply in the market until well after WW2. Barings Bank > > was involved in a typical example of false monopoly trading over > > cochineal in the 18th century (it was then a major commodity in > > leather tanning) - examples are legion - modern cases involve exchange > > traded funds attempting to monopolise silver, copper and food. > > > Accounts can't be read as Allan suggests - the notion of following the > > money could apply, but you soon discover the documentation is written > > to prevent this and find yourself in a world of transfer pricing and > > star burst wire transfers, 105 repos, channel stuffing and companies > > claiming profits of 2.5 billion reporting 3.5 billion tax loses > > (Enron). When I worked for Hanson very little attention was paid to > > formal accounts in valuing a prospective takeover victim - otherwise > > anyone with a copy of Moodys or the like could be an asset-stripper- > > style investor. The game involved private investigators and inside > > information on such matters as whether property portfolios were under- > > valued and how many LOMBARDS (lots of money but re right dicks) could > > be stripped out, how much tax could be avoided by new accounting > > techniques and so on. The sum was then how much the company was worth > > under new administration, less what it could be bought for - though > > even this involved deals with existing management to get it cheap > > through various pressures and whether we could be bought off through > > greenmail. > > > Capital itself is not neutral, let alone the system of accounting for > > it. In fact we allow utterly criminal activity such as private equity > > managers putting all the worthwhile firm assets in a fund worth > > millions they from and just happen to end up owning - with the rest > > written-off in terms of unemployment and tax payer liability for > > pensions, redundancy and loss of productive capacity. A way round > > this would be to make directors accountable to juries rather than > > register for Delaware protection. The test should be 'you have > > millions - the rest are left with debts bigger than your pot'. I > > suggest anyone thinking accounting neutral read the 2011 Wells Fargo > > stuff and ask themselves if they understood anything after the first 9 > > pages. On about page 261 you will find $273 million losses mentioned > > - try and follow that money! Allan, I think, describes what the > > situation should be, not what it is. > > > I think rigs' risk takers are in fact thieves who have found a way to > > eliminate criminal risk in a combination of writing the law and > > lawyers. A big problem remains on how we can get investment done > > decently without just shifting it to the hands of a politburo of state > > capitalism. We know some of the answers to this - but they are > > rarely discussed because the nightmare of Soviet Paradise is used to > > kill off debate. If this doesn't work we are told our wanted > > transparency will just make our businesses severely disadvantaged over > > global competition that can cheat. > > > I need to follow some money for a paper at the moment - its on how > > much money the UK and US tax payer has put up to save the financial > > institutions and where that is now. Fancy a bit of research Allan? I > > currently have very different accounts - our National Audit Office > > (for instance) shows a relatively small amount that has already be > > repaid in some fair measure. However, this doesn't include QE. > > Elsewhere I find much larger amounts, forever increasing that do > > include QE and other BoE and Fed dodges and severe doubts on how to > > value assets in the system. This is before I look at the 'opportunity > > costs' against investing this money in productive capacity, employment > > (etc) whether directly or just by giving the money to pay down private > > debt in a jubilee. I can't discover what accounts our governments are > > being fed through which they protect financial services - they > > presumably believe such in our national interests. I have done a lot > > of work but simply can't reach figures I can use other than in > > speculation. I suspect every household in the UK could have been > > given £120K and a higher amount in the US - but I also suspect the > > money has gone to banks to hide vast losses that are the product of a > > massive, unproductive bubble. > > > The lack of reliable (neutral) accounts is appalling. The money > > involved is clearly subsidy of the kind thrusting entrepreneurs claim > > not to need and clearly our alleged risk takers (who are getting > > richer) seems to have found a way to evade personal risk at our > > expense. Frankly, the more I feel I can claim to know in this mess, > > the more I think they do no more than use our money to be on the 3.30 > > p.m. and the rest of the card, keep the winnings and stiff us with the > > losses. I don't know the full story. If there was a neutral, full > > accounting system I suspect we all would. > > > Having fun is having fun Allan. I doubt any of rigs' guests who lost > > are now her indentured debt peons! > > > On 2 Feb, 12:55, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Interesting rigsy you found games that taught lying and cheating and > >> general dishonesty fun.. that is a strange sense of morality.. or is > >> it the preparation for loss of morality? > > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > My dictionary (Random House Collegiate) defines rentiers as those > >> > living on a fixed income, as from land or bonds. (French) Of course > >> > nothing is "fixed" anymore since there are many ways to impact any > >> > security one holds.//There many ways we gamble whether we define it > >> > that way or not. Frankly, it is a risk to be born when you come right > >> > down to it but what's the alternative? I don't gamble but did give a > >> > gambling dinner party for four couples many years ago that was a lot > >> > of fun- included liar's dice, roulette and ended with a live turtle > >> > race.//I think you are talking about all the middle men that stand > >> > between a person and his money/land and that would include governments > >> > who decide to throw a war or tax the pants off you or make sure you > >> > are dependent on their services.//Yes- politicians, lawyers and > >> > brokers along with other professionals are in the business of making > >> > money off your money by establishing systems that the average person > >> > cannot access or control. > > >> > On Feb 1, 11:32 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I tend to 'count the legs of nags' I back rigs (from time to time - I > >> >> don't gamble much). It's hard to tell the difference between a risk > >> >> taker and a moron. All gamblers lose unless they have an edge. One- > >> >> armed bandits are properly named. Given they are allowed to take 25% > >> >> it's very easy to work out how to run them at no risk at all. I don't > >> >> play cards for money with friends (because I win). Gamblers with edge > >> >> either have the rules stacked in their favour or inside information. > >> >> In most sports the idea is not to play the high risk game and get the > >> >> other team to take them. I'd love to know what you think risk is. > > >> >> The rentier-class is totally risk averse and practices usury - they > >> >> seek he bookmakers' position (there are some risks in some such > >> >> positions), preferably extracting fees rather than being at risk > >> >> should certain results flow. We continue to bail them out - so what > >> >> was at risk? As we bail them out, they get richer but don't offer > >> >> these riches up as at risk to pay us back.One does find more Americans > >> >> have swallowed the risk-thrusting-capitalist myth than across Europe - > >> >> but our oligarchies continue along very similar lines. I don't > >> >> remember being asked to allow bankers money creation or use asset > >> >> inflation to back Ponzi schemes. I think you have this one upside > >> >> down. They've turned what should be an investment system into a > >> >> gambling club that pays out stipends and privileges as surely as to > >> >> any nomenclature. > > >> >> On 1 Feb, 15:18, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Neither is capitalism an accounting system... Accounting is > >> >> > accounting and simply tells you where your money is going and where > >> >> > it is.. it is not an economic system accounting will work with > >> >> > any "ism" > > >> >> > Sorry about the delay answering Neil.. Over simplification of > >> >> > spiritual concept is a blessing not a curse.. It is meant and stated > >> >> > so that even a > > ... > > read more » -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
