An opinion in the WSJ the other day reminded us that maturity involves seeing ourselves and others in the world and in reality. Some get trapped into their ownness, say some politicians, some stars (film and such, plus sports), some managers (ah, we could start naming) such that they're very good examples of non-sustainability.
That's the key. Right now, we're mortgaging future generations. Actually, that sort of thing has always happened (even now, some poor sell their kids' labor (and more), but one sign of civilization is cherishing, not exploiting, the young ones). It's that now we have the knowledge and resources to not do that or to do it more insightfully (as in, only by necessity - which will be discussed further).
Companies have the same problem though it can be traced back to the managers (includes the Boards, too). The colonization by globalization and outsourcing is an example even though it's couched in terms of economic theory - yes, as in the Pure Theory of International Trade and such.
Fact is, too often theory can be used to cover malfeasance (sort of indicating some talent there, I'll admit). Yet, we expect that those who govern know how to protect the little people. Obama goes to Africa and chides them for raking off the top.
What does he think goes on here? CEO's pad their wallets and those of their friend, the likes of Goldman Sachs (under the guise of high-speed trading - who the heck needs that, you guys?) bleed us to the state of dessication so that they can have their gigantic bonuses, special interest groups are allowed to lead those that make the law around by their noses (and, I'm not talking the discerning function here), and much more.
Okay, more about GS. First of all they have the knowledge and the tools to surgically remove our vitals (in the sense of our beans) just to the point of demise. Then, we're allowed to recover as they can then chase off after others - almost never-ending bunch of victims. We'll discuss this further, as those guys seem to think that they're the epitome of capitalism (oh yes, casino et al). Not that plenty of other people don't envy their state.
People write about the behemoths that we've bailed out (including GS who came home like the prodigal son to be under the extended wing of the American eagle) as they are too big to fail. If you don't say crap, then listen up to the discussion. What we have is a situation where there are sandboxes that we'd like to play in and to share. But, there are 300 lb bullies with their fat cat arses in the way.
You see, the government is supposed to keep those bullies in line. Does that happen? Only now and then. The government thinks that it needs them (as in Wall Street, et al, who get bailed out - the little folks get the shaft). It's a sorry state of affairs, folks.
12/08/2009 -- Consider Paul and current CEOs.
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.
Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.
Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?
07/23/2009 -- James B. Stewart, of the WSJ, says that we ought not 'hate Goldman for making money' of late. Well, he's right, in the sense that we're talking near-zero. So, for all those who lose, someone is raking it in. Of course, one may argue that some of the taxation discussions of late are about taking from the few for the many.
07/22/2009 -- We need to look at economic causes and their consequences.
07/16/2009 -- Oh, yes, GS says its for their clients. Too, WSJ did do some analysis on this recent pot-of-gold of GS as to its sustainability.
The idea is that we could drive finance (liquidity, et al) using a non-profit framework and volunteers. Yes, we'll discuss that further. Are the Grassos, et al essential (not talking function, talking the notion of entitlement to the beans)?
Must it be play the silly game (as if equity and other trading has some superior ability) or be a reasonable person and save?
We're months into meddling and do not know what's next. The whole concept of savers seems to have been trampled by the fat cat hordes after the big money. Too, those servicing the smaller people lose out while the fat cats relax and assume that their moral hazards are not so.