Latest bailout

[Fole_Penalt]

The pathetic handling continues. Several more trillion dollars and still no transparency.

You know why? Because they are favoring friends, family, and tribe. It is that simple.

Private Public partnership with no transparency. Code for giving money to friends, family, and tribe.

Will transparency be forthcoming? I hope so, but I am not holding my breath.

Has this quote by America's founding father ever been more relevant?

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

 

[ardy]

Holly molly...DOW is down 382 pts/4.6%.

 

[ardy]

btw, here is the new website for transparency:

http://financialstability.gov/

 

[Kaz]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d--WEM3vTw[/ame]

 

[Kaz]

LOL at one of the comments in that video:

"LET me translate Ben Bernanke for you...
" we want to keep screwing every single cent out of you, and you can give us the vaseline to do it with, bend over and enjoy it. My family and the owners enjoy living the high life on your money so shut up and keep the money coming""

 

[westwienmaskulin]

You know why? Because they are favoring friends, family, and tribe. It is that simple.

Private Public partnership with no transparency. Code for giving money to friends, family, and tribe.

 

[Bi-honar]

The pathetic handling continues. Several more trillion dollars and still no transparency.
You know why? Because they are favoring friends, family, and tribe. It is that simple.
Private Public partnership with no transparency. Code for giving money to friends, family, and tribe.
Will transparency be forthcoming? I hope so, but I am not holding my breath.
Has this quote by America's founding father ever been more relevant?

FP jaan, I'm really surprised to see you going from totally supporting the US model to saying things I was saying a year ago, in just a few short months. I'm a little concerned to be honest with you. I felt like you were tha Yin to my Yang, now we're just two lost sould swimming in a fish bowl (little Pink Floyd and Samad Behrangi reference)

 

[Kaz]

Behrou jan, actually, that's always been FP's ideology AFAIK.

 

[Fole_Penalt]

FP jaan, I'm really surprised to see you going from totally supporting the US model to saying things I was saying a year ago, in just a few short months. I'm a little concerned to be honest with you. I felt like you were tha Yin to my Yang, now we're just two lost sould swimming in a fish bowl (little Pink Floyd and Samad Behrangi reference)

LOL. I am not sure if you are serious in your statement that I support the US model. It has nothing to do with the US, Iran, Europe or this or that ism.

I support sole responsibility and ownership for each individual soul, thus maximum possible individual freedom. That is the very simple and clear matrix to measure every social organization against. The principle is as simple and clear as 1,2,3. It is irrefutable.

Whenever, wherever this fails regardless of whether it is in the past or present, in the US or in Iran, to the extent that it fails, missery follows, it just takes a little time for results to show.

In this respect the US constitution though imperfect, is the greatest human achievement ever. However, as exactly predicted by the authors of the constitution, the natural course of history is for liberty to yield and government to gain, should the people be complaicant, regardless of a peace of paper called the constitution. And sure enough, in the US, liberty has been greatly, greatly curtailed and simultaneously liberty has gained across the world in many countries.

Thus, presently, in many areas the US is better than others and in some it is worse. Slogans are irrelevant, facts against this one simple matrix are what matter.

Thus, for example, the US healthcare system as a whole has less individual freedom than that of Canada for example, despite the slogans. This is because government has laws instituted that greatly curtail individual choice for one side, consumers, while preserving that choice for the other side, the suppliers, this to allow usury profits. The results are as expected. The best choice is not Canada's, the best choice is removing laws that limit individual choices.

My current post on lack of transparency is another case in point. It is a bad choice to seed power to a few individuals to dispense trillions. However, when that is the reality, the next best choice is to ensure transparency to increase individual freedom. When there is transparency, there is freedom to access the information, to take people to court, to vote crooks out, to prevent similar future problems. Lack of transparency = less individual freedom.

It means that a few think that in their grand wisdom they know better to decide the best for the rest.

A few say, we will decide how to dispense trillions and we do not need to tell you who we are giving it to, cause trust us, we know better. Ya right! That is = great curtailing of individual liberties.

 

[Bi-honar]

Well, I was teasing a little bit FP jaan.

I know you are all about and a big advocate of individual freedoms and you're right, this issue is as simple as 1-2-3. But, I also know you are/were a big fan of the US constitution, as I was a huge fan of the Canadian constitution until about 9 years ago when I realized that much like you always say, individual freedoms are God granted rights. That consititions, however grand and complete can not and do not grant freedoms, rather take them away. They take them away by creating an entity that stands in between individuals, God and all those freedoms that are granted by God. No system, that creates an entity between man and God can grant or guarantee individual freedoms by default.

All these constitution do, is to a create the illusion of individual freedom and the more you want to excercise those freedoms, the more you will become disillusioned with the "system". Of course, this is nothing new or limited to the Western world in any way. These "systems" and structures have been in place since the time of the Egyptians. They are unfortunately the very basis that our civilization was founded upon. As you brilliantly put "it means that a few think that in their grand wisdom they know better to decide the best for the rest."

 

[Fole_Penalt]

Well, I was teasing a little bit FP jaan.

I know you are all about and a big advocate of individual freedoms and you're right, this issue is as simple as 1-2-3. But, I also know you are/were a big fan of the US constitution, as I was a huge fan of the Canadian constitution until about 9 years ago when I realized that much like you always say, individual freedoms are God granted rights. That consititions, however grand and complete can not and do not grant freedoms, rather take them away. They take them away by creating an entity that stands in between individuals, God and all those freedoms that are granted by God. No system, that creates an entity between man and God can grant or guarantee individual freedoms by default.

All these constitution do, is to a create the illusion of individual freedom and the more you want to excercise those freedoms, the more you will become disillusioned with the "system". Of course, this is nothing new or limited to the Western world in any way. These "systems" and structures have been in place since the time of the Egyptians. They are unfortunately the very basis that our civilization was founded upon. As you brilliantly put "it means that a few think that in their grand wisdom they know better to decide the best for the rest."

I think that it is important to be very clear on points.

It is true that the law from God on governing human relationships is very simple, very straightforward and irrefutable. It is exactly the same as the laws of motion or the law of gravity for example. Extremely simple and elegant. The reason is obvious, because their creator is one and the same. However the applications of these laws to a given real situation can become quite intricate and requires great discipline and steadfastness to do properly.

All the complexities you see in nature is nothing but the application of a few very, very simple laws. But seeing how they are at work is in fact not all that easy.

So for example, what does it mean that each individual has sole ownership and responsibility for his own soul when it comes to monetary policy?

The truth of the matter is that most would never be able to figure it out and will give up somewhere along the line. Just as most will never be able to figure out that the reason that the angle of reflection seems to be the same as angle of incident is nothing more than the application of the same law that governs the amount of friction that should be expected between a tire and the road.

The reason most cannot is not so much the complexity of the problem but the fact that most neither have sufficient belief in the principle itself nor in God to have the steadfastness and discipline required to carry it out through. To almost all, matters of government same as with nature, is at best a patch work of mysterious and independent phenomena for each of which they have inconsistent contradictory stories. A little bit of social"ism" with a little bit of Capital"ism" now and then in Iran we must have some Zoroastrian"ism" and so on. It is like confused potions for magic.

In this particular case, it is not the true that the current US problems for example is the result of the US constitution. The opposite is true. It is in fact largely because the US constitution has been violated that there is a banking crisis and an economic crisis.

For example, the US constitution expressly states that war can only be declared by congress and that the branches of government do not have the right to transfer a power given to them to some other branch. Now that is astonishing foresight! The Iraq war is thus most obviously unconstitutional. Had the constitution been followed such a war would have never occurred. It is because it was violated that it occurred.

And I give you many other examples.

Thus is it is not true that the US constitution was instituted to give the illusion of liberty. Not at all. It was the best effort, a very good effort, as valid 250 years ago as it is now and as flawed 250 years ago as it is now, to avoid tyranny. However as the authors of the constitution pointed out, some words on a peace of paper can never prevent tyranny, when the living people themselves are not just unwilling to strive for liberty but in fact insist on being slaves. That peace of paper is only a useful tool for those who choose to use it. The burden is always in the end on the shoulder of the living human being.

It is not also true that all systems are equally bad just because they are all imperfect. Some are far superior to others. The US constitution is incomparably superior to the Islamic Republic constitution. The current American governance is much better than the current Islamic Republic governance.

 

[westwienmaskulin]

cool stuff....

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/under-one-stress-test-big-banks-look-anemic/

 

[lordofmordor]

It is sickening that so many people lost their jobs due to these greedy ignorant rats and they still continue to make high salaries and bonuses. And I am not just talking about the executives who obama, the weak without balls, wants to cut their compensation to 500k (although from what I have read, for example, instead of 16.8 million, one will end up making 2.8 million in a year), but rather all the rest of the people in the companies who walk away with millions each year.

Will be nice to be in a job where you screw up and then you black mail the country and continue getting your high salary and bonuses. It works out great, as the rest suffer, you money is actually worth alot more.

 

[Bi-honar]

I think that it is important to be very clear on points.

It is true that the law from God on governing human relationships is very simple, very straightforward and irrefutable. It is exactly the same as the laws of motion or the law of gravity for example. Extremely simple and elegant. The reason is obvious, because their creator is one and the same. However the applications of these laws to a given real situation can become quite intricate and requires great discipline and steadfastness to do properly.

All the complexities you see in nature is nothing but the application of a few very, very simple laws. But seeing how they are at work is in fact not all that easy.

So for example, what does it mean that each individual has sole ownership and responsibility for his own soul when it comes to monetary policy?

The truth of the matter is that most would never be able to figure it out and will give up somewhere along the line. Just as most will never be able to figure out that the reason that the angle of reflection seems to be the same as angle of incident is nothing more than the application of the same law that governs the amount of friction that should be expected between a tire and the road.

The reason most cannot is not so much the complexity of the problem but the fact that most neither have sufficient belief in the principle itself nor in God to have the steadfastness and discipline required to carry it out through. To almost all, matters of government same as with nature, is at best a patch work of mysterious and independent phenomena for each of which they have inconsistent contradictory stories. A little bit of social"ism" with a little bit of Capital"ism" now and then in Iran we must have some Zoroastrian"ism" and so on. It is like confused potions for magic.

In this particular case, it is not the true that the current US problems for example is the result of the US constitution. The opposite is true. It is in fact largely because the US constitution has been violated that there is a banking crisis and an economic crisis.

For example, the US constitution expressly states that war can only be declared by congress and that the branches of government do not have the right to transfer a power given to them to some other branch. Now that is astonishing foresight! The Iraq war is thus most obviously unconstitutional. Had the constitution been followed such a war would have never occurred. It is because it was violated that it occurred.

And I give you many other examples.

Thus is it is not true that the US constitution was instituted to give the illusion of liberty. Not at all. It was the best effort, a very good effort, as valid 250 years ago as it is now and as flawed 250 years ago as it is now, to avoid tyranny. However as the authors of the constitution pointed out, some words on a peace of paper can never prevent tyranny, when the living people themselves are not just unwilling to strive for liberty but in fact insist on being slaves. That peace of paper is only a useful tool for those who choose to use it. The burden is always in the end on the shoulder of the living human being.

It is not also true that all systems are equally bad just because they are all imperfect. Some are far superior to others. The US constitution is incomparably superior to the Islamic Republic constitution. The current American governance is much better than the current Islamic Republic governance.

I agree with everything you say FP jaan. As you brought up the good example of the Iraq war being unconstitutional, the US constitution has never really been more than creating an illusion - this is what I was referring to and other than the Iraq war, there are tons of examples since the late 1700's.

For example, the statement "all men are created qual" used by Jefferson in the Declaration Of Independance was a great statement, but as you know it did not abolish slavery, nor did it come fully into effect until just recently (for black's until the 2nd half of the last century and women even later than that). And it would be difficult to argue that people of Middle Eastern origins are being treated as equal right about now (much like the case can be made about the Chinese in the early 1900's and the Japanese during WWII).

So, in reality the constitution has been ignored mostly, except maybe for a short period in the end of the last century and 9/11. And even during that period, as soon as the "sexual revolution" was over, the Controlled Substances Act was passed, which I can easily argue, goes against individual rights.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great constitution, but in reality I think it can be morphed and bent to serve the state, not the individuals. The state has unlimited funds, individuals most often don't. Therefore the equal applicability of the law is again just an illusion. I'd like you to watch A/K/A Tommy Chong if you haven't already seen it. As Roger Ebert said about the movie, "you do not haveto approve of drugs to be offended."

 

[Kaz]

I'm not sure I understand you Behrou jan. Are you saying the state should be morphed and bent into serving the state? Because I'm pretty sure the opposite was intended in the constitution...that the Individuals be served.

 

[Bi-honar]

I'm not sure I understand you Behrou jan. Are you saying the state should be morphed and bent into serving the state? Because I'm pretty sure the opposite was intended in the constitution...that the Individuals be served.

You said State twice there Kazam jaan. If your question is whether I'm saying that the state should be bent and morphed into serving individuals, the simple answer is yes. That would be the only way to at least attempt to uphold individual freedoms. This can not be achieved (as evident from the time of Cyrus to George W.) by individuals serving the state, rather the state serving individuals. And although most Western constitutions create the illusion that the state is serving the indvidual, the reality is and has always been that the indivdual is "locked" into a pyramidical system, whereby those on top of the pyramid exert their version of what is best for all individuals. In effect, this is an entity that stands between man and God (if we want to get philosophical about it and keep it very simple at the same time) and any such entity, be it religous or political takes away from individual freedom. The only way individual freedoms can be fully guaranteed is through a system in which the state ranks below the individual - not just on paper, but in reality.

In US's case and as related to this thread, the US taxpayer is not serving the system by making contributions to these bail-out's through their tax dollar. They have no "choice" and had no choice about getting to this point. The state is not serving the interest of the individuals (US citizens in this case), nor was it serving their interest by waging a war in Iraq, rather serving the interests of the "system" - an entity which in practicality is above all individuals.

 

[Kaz]

Yes, good catch, that's what I meant. Thanks, I agree.

 

[Fole_Penalt]

I agree with everything you say FP jaan. As you brought up the good example of the Iraq war being unconstitutional, the US constitution has never really been more than creating an illusion - this is what I was referring to and other than the Iraq war, there are tons of examples since the late 1700's.

For example, the statement "all men are created qual" used by Jefferson in the Declaration Of Independance was a great statement, but as you know it did not abolish slavery, nor did it come fully into effect until just recently (for black's until the 2nd half of the last century and women even later than that). And it would be difficult to argue that people of Middle Eastern origins are being treated as equal right about now (much like the case can be made about the Chinese in the early 1900's and the Japanese during WWII).

So, in reality the constitution has been ignored mostly, except maybe for a short period in the end of the last century and 9/11. And even during that period, as soon as the "sexual revolution" was over, the Controlled Substances Act was passed, which I can easily argue, goes against individual rights.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great constitution, but in reality I think it can be morphed and bent to serve the state, not the individuals. The state has unlimited funds, individuals most often don't. Therefore the equal applicability of the law is again just an illusion. I'd like you to watch A/K/A Tommy Chong if you haven't already seen it. As Roger Ebert said about the movie, "you do not haveto approve of drugs to be offended."

We are mostly in agreement Bi-honar jaan. I just believe that at any given time perfection or anything even close to it cannot be expected. It is the direction for improvment that is key. Most are confused on the direction such that the direction they would like to take the current state of affairs constantly shifts based on their prevailing prejudices or reaction to crisis of the day, and it is unjustifiable and miserable in and of itself.

On drugs, in all likelihood it is unconstitutional to ban their individual use, though I have not tried to parse it. But what is much more important to me is that banning use of drugs by force is against God's religion, the directioin that I am sure is right. No one has the right to by force stop the person who wishes to snort cocaine, drink alcohol, or smoke pot. Such a direction is supported by God's ayat, that is the Quran as well as empirical evidence. The reference in the Quran is this:

5:90 O you who believe, intoxicants, gambling, the altars of idols, and the games of chance are tools through which the devil works; keep way from each so that you may succeed.

note the list, they are all associated with high propensity to psychological dependence. Although the taking of intoxicants including alcohol is not forbidden religiously (haraam) it is best to keep way from taking them, except in certain clearly beneficial uses, in order to succeed. Note that staying away from Imam Reza Shrine is in the same rank as staying away from cocaine.

5:91 The devil wants to provoke animosity and hatred among you through intoxicants and gambling, and to distract you from remembering GOD, and from observing the Contact Prayers (Salat). Will you then refrain?

However,

5:92 You shall obey GOD, and you shall obey the messenger, and beware. If you turn away, then know that the sole duty of our messenger is to deliver the message openly and clearly.

The above phrase, that the sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message openly and clearly is repeated often throughout the Quran but is placed once again here immediately after the first two verses for a reason. It is to emphasize that if someone wants to knock his own self out it is not up to the state to take away his right by force.

Not surprisingly, empirical evidence supports this direction from God in the Quran. The banning of drugs in US has been a disaster bringing injustice to millions and increasing the misery of people.

Instead, what can and should be stopped is the consequential act of people after becoming intoxicated, for example, drunk driving.

 

[Kaz]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W49LcbGoCwA[/ame]

 

[Bi-honar]

Yes, I agree with you totally FP jaan that perfection should not be expected (i.e. reserved for God) and that it's the direction that is important. And I honestly hope we, as a specie, are at least heading in the right direction after 8 years of screw-up's by coke-sniffing Goergie boy promoting fear and terror in the world.

Thank you for the references from the Quran as always. I agree with your assessment there as well. As you have suggested the evidence is empirical as well and one does not necssarily have to read the Quran or believe in it, to see how destructive gambling and "intoxication" can be.

Of course, I have always associated the word "intoxication" with the use of any substance that alters one perception in a negative manner (i.e. one would be inclined to do negative things that he/she would not normally do under a normal state of mind). For example, I love the taste of beer (loved mau-shaeer since I was a kid ) and don't drink it to get drunk, but rather enojoy a couple of cold ones for the taste. That's obviously a long way from being intoxicated (as it does not affect my actions in the least bit - not in that quantity) amd I have never liked the drunk feeling. Frankly, I can't stand being around drunk (intoxicated) people, so, I can totally understand the intention behind these ayat in the Quran.