It is only a matter of time until a government changes were they have a deal. Then they're going to face something that many in the West have, "what do you mean my country had a deal? I don't recall such a thing." Now it gets interesting, and one wonders how China will react. Meanwhile, China's shopping spree is fueled by their exporting, that is until domestic consumption can replace it. But even China admits that's a decade away at least.
Getting back to those resource deals, China is playing the same game we used to do decades back. Read up on Patrice Lumumba. Eventually, whatever dictator takes hold in those countries, they will be tied to China by the people. Do you know why there's a sense of despisement towards the US in Latin America or the Middle East? Because the folks know we put in many of those authoritarian regimes they either experienced now or in the past. China is doing no different and it will bite them in the ass. Actually, they're doing one worse. In many of the deals, in fact in most in Africa, Beijing isn't even employing the locals but importing Chinese labor. There are parts of Africa that are virtual Chinese colonies.
depressives who never cracked an econ text (shall this be our running joke?) One thing I note is how suddenly "country x" has "untapped geniuses" that "must be utilized" by "unlimited migration" and you hit upon a point that really needs to be closely watched. Are magically those whose great crime is having citizenship in a certain nation all going to be labeled lackeys, now that the cheap "investment" capital (read quick bubble) returns are no more?
We haven't seen an implosion yet on some of the U.S.'s "branded" offshore nations of opportunity" but I'm really curious to watch this one for a while new spin on the rhetoric to accompany the lack of returns.
Very perceptive of you JV. Anyone know EU's rules for staying in? I know they had a series of criteria for entry but what happens when one nation goes tumbling down, i.e. is that same set of criteria in place and thus enables the EU to revoke membership?
don't be all too surprise if this was the plan of some elitists to remove the "riffraff" in the periphery of their union. There have been talks of how volatile the economies of these nations, be it Ireland on one side to the various Eastern European nations on the other. When times were "good," these nations were eating the lunch of the more calcified older economies like France. How many stories of have there been of countries like Slovakia or such getting plants or "brain work," from one of the EU-big guys like Germany?
When times were good, they either were a source of relatively cheap labor or stunning capital growth. But now they're out lived their usefulness to the bankers in Frankfurt to the "Eurocrats" in Brussels. Not to mention that this would also aid those who aren't particularly fond of the EU in places like Britain. If Greece were to leave the EU, this may prove to be a severe blow for those wishing to abandon the Sterling for their continental counterpart.
At the end of the day, as you two have noted, the help from the IMF will be shallow at best. The nations falling into these debt problems in the far Eastern European region also have tepid relations with the EU's largest heating utility company....Russia. Do you not think there are those within Paris or Berlin or the Benelux nations who would like something more..ahem..."manageable"?
He actually has an account on here, but the only site I Know who really tracks the oil situation is The Oil Drum.
If you noticed, even though global oil demand is at a major low, the commodity reasonably low, you know that's going to heat up.
So check out the FNV this week. It's all about China grabbing every physical oil field they can and this has been going on for some time.
It's frightening because we know whoever controls the oil, controls the world.
Yeah, that was the discussion a civil war, sabotage but China has been very busy making a point to all sorts of rogue nations they don't give a rats ass what they are doing, including genocide.
draconian cuts and tax increases. and what is all of this shit over? A few multinational corporations selling shacks bets that were super overinflated and built on people who could not pay?
Thanks for the post, helps elucidate what's going on globally a tad and when I put the subject title what I was thinking of, was this happening in the U.S.
Dean Baker had a post claiming the next thing to be attacked, with Obama's assistance, will be Medicare and Social Security with the claim we cannot afford it.
I put up the oil post because in spite of the absurdity of going to war in Iraq in the first place, the U.S. is out trillions and is anyone paying the U.S. taxpayer back for any of that....esp. it's clear their oil fields are privatized and up to the highest bidder?
Is the U.S. seriously out all of that money and doesn't even get the real prize, the spoils of war?
(BTW: war, in terms of the geopolitical economics of it, the global oil markets and private contracts, the Profits of war (and obvious losses) are fair game for EP topics).
I mean don't ignore the loss to humanity and so on, that would be plain crass, but the focus should be on the $$.
First we need to realize, that this is to service the pipelines, with the possible potential of oil revenues. Saying that, this highlights the great geopolitical shift in mindset about the rise of new powers like China, and the relative decline of the US. Also, the majority of these contracts went to consortiums, and only China I believe was the outside player. This speaks volumes, first in that China had the cash to go it alone, but also the sense of urgency in their bid.
We all know that China needs fuel, and it hopes by servicing the sites that when Iraq allows foreign nations to pump oil for their demand, that Beijing gets a shot. Despite it's big moves, the Peoples Republic of China is a rookie at this, albeit a very aggressive and quick learning rookie that is eating everyone's lunch. Now this is all guess work, but my suspicion on the reason why the others (mainly European and US petrol firms) went the consortium route was for risk sharing.
Iraq, for all the talk of a new federal government, is still a country that is fragile. The peace is shaky at best, and no one truly knows what will happen when the Coalition forces (i.e. US) moves out. A new era of stability? Perhaps, but the folks in these companies believe something else could happen. Nobody wants to invest potentially billions only to find out it all went to dreck. We're living in an age where these agreements can disappear with a change of attitudes by the host government. One need only look at Venezuela. The big question centers on who truly owns what in northern Iraq. The Post article hinted at that, and if I were an oil executive I would want to know.
I just feel sorry for the poor foreign petroleum engineers out there in the field who may end up as targets in a pseudo civil war between Baghdad and Kurdistan.
Matt Yglesias is also pointing out that Congress is another huge problem.
So, it looks like Taibbi has stirred the blogosphere pot. My overall impression with the blogs and people generally is Obama is a huge disappointment and so is Congress.
I know Jeff Merkeley of OR ran on a very strong Populist rant and he also ran on "NO BAILOUTS" so his very first vote was....more bail outs....
and then he goes railing on some stupid tobacco product...
ya know what I mean, ignore health care, try to get nicotine banned as classified as heroin type...kind of like Pelosi, save some field mouse, screw the entire STEM occupational areas. I don't know if that's clear but there are a whole lot of liberals who will sell the middle class down the river on a dime, but use government money for their pet projects. It's like people who have fund raisers for poverty in the 3rd world, all billionaires and also stepping over the homeless on the stoop on the way to the ball, all the while going off on how awful 3rd world poverty is...(what's wrong with that picture?)
Anywho, in spite of the errors, basically Rubin's shadow is all over D.C. no doubt about it, that DLC type of corporate agenda is clearly everywhere. So good people are at least looking at it all by this major pot stir.
mainly because I don't think the drug market is enough money to keep banks afloat in total. What's the total global market? Also, what about the 9/11 changes to track on global deposits?
I did not actually read the original Taibbi article, although Robert Rubin's son being in the Obama camp, that's new, and I heard that during the campaign, so I guess it helped to really check original sources for that was reported in a lot of places and nice call out by these two...it was false.
So, ignoring these mistakes, the overall message from DeLong, that anyone bothering to read the actual Obama policies and votes would have realized he was more DLC than Hillary was and Bill was her hubby, so that's one hell of a surprise.
I'm not surprised at all by Obama's team, but more how people projected onto Obama whatever they wanted to believe and on trade, that was esp. disgusting for all one had to do was look in the Senate voting record to see Hillary, believe this or not, Ms. "I represent the Indian offshore outsourcing industry" herself Clinton, had a more progressive voting record on trade policy than Obama.
So, I see both sides of these criticisms, Taibbi, hey man, tighten it up, Delong, let Taibbi speak to all of those people who didn't quite read the fine print on Obama during the campaign.
But that's why EP exists and is officially non-partisan, so we put the focus on the fine print.
It's true the Treasury Secretary had superior derivatives regulation but the idea of Fed as "super regulator" overshadowed the dismantling of derivatives regulation I think. His proposal still had a lot of holes but now it's yet another "for show", like shareholders nonbinding voice vote on executive pay....
Pres. Obama's treasury department acquiesced in the dropping of the "plain vanilla" provision in the original CFPA. Its one thing to propose something and entirely another to propose something and actually fight/defend what you propose.
Obama ran on a platform of "Change". The word and theme was everywhere. It was very explicit - Candidate Obama was the going change Washington. Candidate Obama won the following demographics:
1) An overwhelming number of African-Americans and Latinos;
and
2) Young people.
This is what put him "over the top". This was because of his "message". However, as Taibbi, points out something happened after the election. He calls it a "sellout" other may call something more diplomatic. But the bottom line is that his appointments and his policy decisions after the election contradict his message:
1) Larry Summers and Tim Geithner appointments speak volumes;
2) Mortgage modification program that coddled mortgage lenders;
3) This idea of cajoling, pleading and persuading Wall Street and big banks to do something for the good of the country;
4) To a less extent, the strategy and structure of the stimulus plan;
5) Even the current alleged job creating proposals that rely heavily on tax credits.
I bet if you ask the people in the demographics who put Obama "over the top" whether they believe there has been any CHANGE in Washington they would say HELL no.
Here is the thing. He had a mandate for CHANGE and he chose instead to support the notion that "trickle down" works by his unwavering support of Wall Street. Too many carrots and not enough sticks.
But this lack of CHANGE should not be surprising based on who he chose as his advisers.
It doesn't matter whether it's called a sell-out or something more diplomatic one thing for sure is that it is NOT CHANGE.
Well, Volcker is accredited for ending stagflation but this also is credited with creating massive unemployment during that recession. It was insane to get any loan because they were at...well, still below our lovely credit card rates but in the high teens to 20%. These are commercial loans, mortgages at that time.
He also was basically fired by Reagan because he wasn't a "deregulation" guy.
So, hate 'em or love 'em, I'm not sure. I haven't studied that period to see if there was a kinder, gentler way to end stagfaltion.
I think the theory was to dump all of the pain on in one swift move and get it over quickly that drag it out.
But right now he sure is making a hell of a lot of sense. I just updated the post with my theory he's speaking out in Europe because in turn the EU can really put pressure on the United States for real global financial reforms.
due to the free flow of capital, etc. these days, reform does need to be consistent across nation-states....
and since we have a corrupt Congress (Dodd btw is now considered Dead Senator walkin' no way he will win re-election, now if only Barney Frank was in such a situation with his gerrymandered district) plus a "we love Wall Street" overseer during this building debackle, New York Fed chair of that time Tim Geithner, plus our favorite MNC puppet, Larry Summers...
Makes sense Volcker would be talking to other government leaders.
Guy has got a pair, one must say that regardless and so glad he does.
His overall point was that our economy has serious structural problems that will slow growth. IMO, he is frustrated because he sees it but nothing is being done to address these structural defects.
I re-read all of the links and quotes and I'm pretty certain Volcker is referring to capital investment, not leveraging.
Although I believe Volcker has called for a return to the 12:1 ratios in the past, in this context, he's talking about real economic investments, i.e. capital for manufacturing, for business developments and so on.
Have you noticed those who have lived through the Great Depression are our last sane advisers? I have and it's like all of these people, who really know what they are talking about, are getting serious marginalized...
I feel like I'm in an Aesop's fable where the lessons learned go completely unheeded.
"But yeah, I gotta say, the corporate takeover of America is pretty brazen ..."
Although these components are by no means exhaustive, in the main, the control is being exerted by financial, arms, drugs and Middle East foreign policy interests, AIPAC specifically. These interests have so perverted the operation of democracy in this country that, for all intents and purposes, it - our democracy - ceases to exist. There will be no remedy via the franchise or through parliamentary mechanisms. Demonstrations and strikes are the only workable response. What is imagined here is something along the lines of the Solidarity protests in Poland in the early 1980s. Then, the Poles faced something quite comparable to the dilema we face today. Yet, mustering real courage, they faced down a totalitarian regime every bit as willing to suppress their rightful democratic asperations as our ruling class would be ours if things were to come to that. Who doubts that someone benefiting from the status quo as much as, say, Dianne Feinstein, or Max Baucus, would be hesitant to call out the national guard to put down a veritable army of the foreclosed upon and unemployed.
Wendell Phillip's observation, "Revolutions are not made, they come", is perhaps instructive here. Any steps decisively leading to the restoration of authentic democracy in the United States must arise spontaneously from the people and must build inexorably, they cannot be artificial or contrived. You'll be more likely than not to know they've happened after the fact than before. Would that they they materialize soon in any case.
If you don't have a copy of this text, or something similar, I suggest picking up a copy. While the new version is absurdly expensive, it's been around since 1948 and you can often find an older version for a buck.
There are a few text books that one shouldn't sell back when done with a course, this is one of them.
For those who never took any economics courses, I highly recommend grabbing it. I believe you can figure out a lot in this book, because it's so clear, from self-study.
“I clearly remember [Li] mention that if you are an actuarial guy, you can earn a lot of money.” Hahaha, you said it man! I must admit, it's my interest in eventually earning an actuary salary that led me to this post. But wow, what an incredibly substantial discussion! Thanks everyone for stimulating my mind... a lot is over my head, but hopefully what I've absorbed will come in handy.
It is only a matter of time until a government changes were they have a deal. Then they're going to face something that many in the West have, "what do you mean my country had a deal? I don't recall such a thing." Now it gets interesting, and one wonders how China will react. Meanwhile, China's shopping spree is fueled by their exporting, that is until domestic consumption can replace it. But even China admits that's a decade away at least.
Getting back to those resource deals, China is playing the same game we used to do decades back. Read up on Patrice Lumumba. Eventually, whatever dictator takes hold in those countries, they will be tied to China by the people. Do you know why there's a sense of despisement towards the US in Latin America or the Middle East? Because the folks know we put in many of those authoritarian regimes they either experienced now or in the past. China is doing no different and it will bite them in the ass. Actually, they're doing one worse. In many of the deals, in fact in most in Africa, Beijing isn't even employing the locals but importing Chinese labor. There are parts of Africa that are virtual Chinese colonies.
depressives who never cracked an econ text (shall this be our running joke?) One thing I note is how suddenly "country x" has "untapped geniuses" that "must be utilized" by "unlimited migration" and you hit upon a point that really needs to be closely watched. Are magically those whose great crime is having citizenship in a certain nation all going to be labeled lackeys, now that the cheap "investment" capital (read quick bubble) returns are no more?
We haven't seen an implosion yet on some of the U.S.'s "branded" offshore nations of opportunity" but I'm really curious to watch this one for a while new spin on the rhetoric to accompany the lack of returns.
Very perceptive of you JV. Anyone know EU's rules for staying in? I know they had a series of criteria for entry but what happens when one nation goes tumbling down, i.e. is that same set of criteria in place and thus enables the EU to revoke membership?
don't be all too surprise if this was the plan of some elitists to remove the "riffraff" in the periphery of their union. There have been talks of how volatile the economies of these nations, be it Ireland on one side to the various Eastern European nations on the other. When times were "good," these nations were eating the lunch of the more calcified older economies like France. How many stories of have there been of countries like Slovakia or such getting plants or "brain work," from one of the EU-big guys like Germany?
When times were good, they either were a source of relatively cheap labor or stunning capital growth. But now they're out lived their usefulness to the bankers in Frankfurt to the "Eurocrats" in Brussels. Not to mention that this would also aid those who aren't particularly fond of the EU in places like Britain. If Greece were to leave the EU, this may prove to be a severe blow for those wishing to abandon the Sterling for their continental counterpart.
At the end of the day, as you two have noted, the help from the IMF will be shallow at best. The nations falling into these debt problems in the far Eastern European region also have tepid relations with the EU's largest heating utility company....Russia. Do you not think there are those within Paris or Berlin or the Benelux nations who would like something more..ahem..."manageable"?
He actually has an account on here, but the only site I Know who really tracks the oil situation is The Oil Drum.
If you noticed, even though global oil demand is at a major low, the commodity reasonably low, you know that's going to heat up.
So check out the FNV this week. It's all about China grabbing every physical oil field they can and this has been going on for some time.
It's frightening because we know whoever controls the oil, controls the world.
Yeah, that was the discussion a civil war, sabotage but China has been very busy making a point to all sorts of rogue nations they don't give a rats ass what they are doing, including genocide.
draconian cuts and tax increases. and what is all of this shit over? A few multinational corporations selling shacks bets that were super overinflated and built on people who could not pay?
Thanks for the post, helps elucidate what's going on globally a tad and when I put the subject title what I was thinking of, was this happening in the U.S.
Dean Baker had a post claiming the next thing to be attacked, with Obama's assistance, will be Medicare and Social Security with the claim we cannot afford it.
I put up the oil post because in spite of the absurdity of going to war in Iraq in the first place, the U.S. is out trillions and is anyone paying the U.S. taxpayer back for any of that....esp. it's clear their oil fields are privatized and up to the highest bidder?
Is the U.S. seriously out all of that money and doesn't even get the real prize, the spoils of war?
(BTW: war, in terms of the geopolitical economics of it, the global oil markets and private contracts, the Profits of war (and obvious losses) are fair game for EP topics).
I mean don't ignore the loss to humanity and so on, that would be plain crass, but the focus should be on the $$.
they have a reprinted 1948 edition
First we need to realize, that this is to service the pipelines, with the possible potential of oil revenues. Saying that, this highlights the great geopolitical shift in mindset about the rise of new powers like China, and the relative decline of the US. Also, the majority of these contracts went to consortiums, and only China I believe was the outside player. This speaks volumes, first in that China had the cash to go it alone, but also the sense of urgency in their bid.
We all know that China needs fuel, and it hopes by servicing the sites that when Iraq allows foreign nations to pump oil for their demand, that Beijing gets a shot. Despite it's big moves, the Peoples Republic of China is a rookie at this, albeit a very aggressive and quick learning rookie that is eating everyone's lunch. Now this is all guess work, but my suspicion on the reason why the others (mainly European and US petrol firms) went the consortium route was for risk sharing.
Iraq, for all the talk of a new federal government, is still a country that is fragile. The peace is shaky at best, and no one truly knows what will happen when the Coalition forces (i.e. US) moves out. A new era of stability? Perhaps, but the folks in these companies believe something else could happen. Nobody wants to invest potentially billions only to find out it all went to dreck. We're living in an age where these agreements can disappear with a change of attitudes by the host government. One need only look at Venezuela. The big question centers on who truly owns what in northern Iraq. The Post article hinted at that, and if I were an oil executive I would want to know.
I just feel sorry for the poor foreign petroleum engineers out there in the field who may end up as targets in a pseudo civil war between Baghdad and Kurdistan.
Matt Yglesias is also pointing out that Congress is another huge problem.
So, it looks like Taibbi has stirred the blogosphere pot. My overall impression with the blogs and people generally is Obama is a huge disappointment and so is Congress.
I know Jeff Merkeley of OR ran on a very strong Populist rant and he also ran on "NO BAILOUTS" so his very first vote was....more bail outs....
and then he goes railing on some stupid tobacco product...
ya know what I mean, ignore health care, try to get nicotine banned as classified as heroin type...kind of like Pelosi, save some field mouse, screw the entire STEM occupational areas. I don't know if that's clear but there are a whole lot of liberals who will sell the middle class down the river on a dime, but use government money for their pet projects. It's like people who have fund raisers for poverty in the 3rd world, all billionaires and also stepping over the homeless on the stoop on the way to the ball, all the while going off on how awful 3rd world poverty is...(what's wrong with that picture?)
Anywho, in spite of the errors, basically Rubin's shadow is all over D.C. no doubt about it, that DLC type of corporate agenda is clearly everywhere. So good people are at least looking at it all by this major pot stir.
mainly because I don't think the drug market is enough money to keep banks afloat in total. What's the total global market? Also, what about the 9/11 changes to track on global deposits?
I did not actually read the original Taibbi article, although Robert Rubin's son being in the Obama camp, that's new, and I heard that during the campaign, so I guess it helped to really check original sources for that was reported in a lot of places and nice call out by these two...it was false.
So, ignoring these mistakes, the overall message from DeLong, that anyone bothering to read the actual Obama policies and votes would have realized he was more DLC than Hillary was and Bill was her hubby, so that's one hell of a surprise.
I'm not surprised at all by Obama's team, but more how people projected onto Obama whatever they wanted to believe and on trade, that was esp. disgusting for all one had to do was look in the Senate voting record to see Hillary, believe this or not, Ms. "I represent the Indian offshore outsourcing industry" herself Clinton, had a more progressive voting record on trade policy than Obama.
So, I see both sides of these criticisms, Taibbi, hey man, tighten it up, Delong, let Taibbi speak to all of those people who didn't quite read the fine print on Obama during the campaign.
But that's why EP exists and is officially non-partisan, so we put the focus on the fine print.
It's true the Treasury Secretary had superior derivatives regulation but the idea of Fed as "super regulator" overshadowed the dismantling of derivatives regulation I think. His proposal still had a lot of holes but now it's yet another "for show", like shareholders nonbinding voice vote on executive pay....
Pres. Obama's treasury department acquiesced in the dropping of the "plain vanilla" provision in the original CFPA. Its one thing to propose something and entirely another to propose something and actually fight/defend what you propose.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
First, Tim Fernholz and then Prof. Brad Delong.
Obama ran on a platform of "Change". The word and theme was everywhere. It was very explicit - Candidate Obama was the going change Washington. Candidate Obama won the following demographics:
1) An overwhelming number of African-Americans and Latinos;
and
2) Young people.
This is what put him "over the top". This was because of his "message". However, as Taibbi, points out something happened after the election. He calls it a "sellout" other may call something more diplomatic. But the bottom line is that his appointments and his policy decisions after the election contradict his message:
1) Larry Summers and Tim Geithner appointments speak volumes;
2) Mortgage modification program that coddled mortgage lenders;
3) This idea of cajoling, pleading and persuading Wall Street and big banks to do something for the good of the country;
4) To a less extent, the strategy and structure of the stimulus plan;
5) Even the current alleged job creating proposals that rely heavily on tax credits.
I bet if you ask the people in the demographics who put Obama "over the top" whether they believe there has been any CHANGE in Washington they would say HELL no.
Here is the thing. He had a mandate for CHANGE and he chose instead to support the notion that "trickle down" works by his unwavering support of Wall Street. Too many carrots and not enough sticks.
But this lack of CHANGE should not be surprising based on who he chose as his advisers.
It doesn't matter whether it's called a sell-out or something more diplomatic one thing for sure is that it is NOT CHANGE.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Well, Volcker is accredited for ending stagflation but this also is credited with creating massive unemployment during that recession. It was insane to get any loan because they were at...well, still below our lovely credit card rates but in the high teens to 20%. These are commercial loans, mortgages at that time.
He also was basically fired by Reagan because he wasn't a "deregulation" guy.
So, hate 'em or love 'em, I'm not sure. I haven't studied that period to see if there was a kinder, gentler way to end stagfaltion.
I think the theory was to dump all of the pain on in one swift move and get it over quickly that drag it out.
But right now he sure is making a hell of a lot of sense. I just updated the post with my theory he's speaking out in Europe because in turn the EU can really put pressure on the United States for real global financial reforms.
due to the free flow of capital, etc. these days, reform does need to be consistent across nation-states....
and since we have a corrupt Congress (Dodd btw is now considered Dead Senator walkin' no way he will win re-election, now if only Barney Frank was in such a situation with his gerrymandered district) plus a "we love Wall Street" overseer during this building debackle, New York Fed chair of that time Tim Geithner, plus our favorite MNC puppet, Larry Summers...
Makes sense Volcker would be talking to other government leaders.
Guy has got a pair, one must say that regardless and so glad he does.
His overall point was that our economy has serious structural problems that will slow growth. IMO, he is frustrated because he sees it but nothing is being done to address these structural defects.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I re-read all of the links and quotes and I'm pretty certain Volcker is referring to capital investment, not leveraging.
Although I believe Volcker has called for a return to the 12:1 ratios in the past, in this context, he's talking about real economic investments, i.e. capital for manufacturing, for business developments and so on.
Have you noticed those who have lived through the Great Depression are our last sane advisers? I have and it's like all of these people, who really know what they are talking about, are getting serious marginalized...
I feel like I'm in an Aesop's fable where the lessons learned go completely unheeded.
where he says the quote or something very similar.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
"But yeah, I gotta say, the corporate takeover of America is pretty brazen ..."
Although these components are by no means exhaustive, in the main, the control is being exerted by financial, arms, drugs and Middle East foreign policy interests, AIPAC specifically. These interests have so perverted the operation of democracy in this country that, for all intents and purposes, it - our democracy - ceases to exist. There will be no remedy via the franchise or through parliamentary mechanisms. Demonstrations and strikes are the only workable response. What is imagined here is something along the lines of the Solidarity protests in Poland in the early 1980s. Then, the Poles faced something quite comparable to the dilema we face today. Yet, mustering real courage, they faced down a totalitarian regime every bit as willing to suppress their rightful democratic asperations as our ruling class would be ours if things were to come to that. Who doubts that someone benefiting from the status quo as much as, say, Dianne Feinstein, or Max Baucus, would be hesitant to call out the national guard to put down a veritable army of the foreclosed upon and unemployed.
Wendell Phillip's observation, "Revolutions are not made, they come", is perhaps instructive here. Any steps decisively leading to the restoration of authentic democracy in the United States must arise spontaneously from the people and must build inexorably, they cannot be artificial or contrived. You'll be more likely than not to know they've happened after the fact than before. Would that they they materialize soon in any case.
If you don't have a copy of this text, or something similar, I suggest picking up a copy. While the new version is absurdly expensive, it's been around since 1948 and you can often find an older version for a buck.
There are a few text books that one shouldn't sell back when done with a course, this is one of them.
For those who never took any economics courses, I highly recommend grabbing it. I believe you can figure out a lot in this book, because it's so clear, from self-study.
I didn't get that, it's about investment. Unfortunately I couldn't find the actual speech, so we're going by second hand reports.
“I clearly remember [Li] mention that if you are an actuarial guy, you can earn a lot of money.” Hahaha, you said it man! I must admit, it's my interest in eventually earning an actuary salary that led me to this post. But wow, what an incredibly substantial discussion! Thanks everyone for stimulating my mind... a lot is over my head, but hopefully what I've absorbed will come in handy.
Pages