pookapookapookapookapooka

subota, 30.04.2011.

REVOLUCIJA JEDE I SVOJU I TUĐU DJECU
- 08:53 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

petak, 29.04.2011.

WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE



'Kažeš, nadalje: ''po toj tvojoj logici moglo se suditi nakon 2. Svj. Rata osim njemačkim generalima i saveznicima jer bilo je zločina i s njihove strane''. Ovdje se jedino čudim tvom čuđenju - i što ti se to ukazuje kao argument PROTIV mene. Nj., pobogu, pa dabome da se moglo - ispravka: da se TREBALO suditi i saveznicima!' - pero u šaci

Pročitavši dio polemike, jer imam nizak prag tolerancije prema licemjerju i ne želim narušavati svoje psihičko zdravlje, samo bih se složio sa 'perom u šaci' -

SAČUVAJ NAS, BOŽE, LJUDI KOJI IMAJU BOGA NA SVOJOJ STRANI

... prilažem toj polemici ovo ispod pa sami prosudite tko su ti ljudi.

On the morning of March 16 Charlie Company landed following a short artillery and helicopter gunship preparation. Though the Americans found no enemy fighters in the village, many soldiers suspected there were NLF troops hiding underground in the homes of their elderly parents or wives. The US soldiers, one platoon of which was led by Second Lieutenant William Calley, went in shooting at what they deemed to be an enemy position.

Once the first civilians were wounded or killed by indiscriminate fire, the soldiers began attacking humans and animals alike, with firearms, grenades and bayonets. The scale of the massacre compounded, the brutality only increasing with each killing. BBC News described the scene: "Dozens of people, herded into an irrigation ditch and other locations, were killed with automatic weapons."[16]

A large group of about 70–80 villagers, rounded up by the 1st Platoon in the center of the village, were killed on an order given by Calley who also participated. Calley also shot two other large groups of civilians with a weapon taken from a soldier who had refused to do any further killing.

Members of the 2nd Platoon killed at least 60–70 Vietnamese people, as they swept through the northern half of My Lai 4 and through Binh Tay, a small subhamlet about 400 meters north of My Lai 4.[3]

After the initial "sweeps" by the 1st and the 2nd Platoons, the 3rd Platoon was dispatched to deal with any "remaining resistance." They immediately began killing every still-living human and animal they could find. This included the Vietnamese who had emerged from their hiding places and the wounded, found moaning in the heaps of bodies. The 3rd Platoon also rounded up and killed a group of seven to twelve women and children.[3]

(...)

In a four-month-long trial, despite claims that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, Calley was convicted, on March 29, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Benning.

(...)

Some have argued that the outcome of the My Lai courts-martial was a reversal of the laws of war that were set forth in the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals.[33] Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders—a rationale that stands in direct contradiction of the standards set at Nuremberg and Tokyo, where German and Japanese soldiers were executed for similar acts.

...My Lai Massacre
- 23:32 - Komentari (3) - Isprintaj - #

četvrtak, 28.04.2011.

Pokušaj 'rehabilitacije' Rawlsa

Ovaj post je trbao biti komentar na donji post pa se u njemu nalaze reference na komentare suborca 'pera u šaci'... ovo je čista improvizacija tako da slobodno udarite po logičkim i drugim nedosljednostima... ako vas uopće zanimaju moji pokušaji rehabilitacije ljudi koje tisuće akademskih građana klase A smatraju intelektualnim autoritetima

Na početku, u samom uvodu svoje knjige 'A theory of justice' John Rawls sasvim jasno kaže... 'The theory that results is highly Kantian in nature. Indeed, I must disclaim any originality for the views I put forward. The leading ideas are classical and well known.'
U osmrtnici objavljenoj nakon smrti Johna Rawlsa, pri njenom dnu, piše ovo:
'Professor Rawls offered two principles for just society, as outlined in his 1971 book 'A Theory of Justice'. First, each person should enjoy equally a full array of liberties. Second, public policy should raise as high as possible the social and economic well-being of society's worst-off individuals.
This second principle rules out mindless egalitarianism - policies that, in the name of the poor, drive down living standards across the board. Rawlssian principles could, for example, embrace a conservative policy, say a cut in taxes on capital gains income, if it could be shown that the cut would add some ammount to the incomes of the poor. Professor Rawls sought to show that the principle flowed from rational deduction rather than personal taste. To do that, he asked what social contract would emerge by consensus from a group of people not already blinded by accidents of birth and other arbitrary advantages and disadvantages.
So he imagined people gathered behind 'a veil of ignorance', unaware of whether they were rich or poor, talented or inept. What kind of society would they build? He argued that the rule everybody could agree on would be to maximize the well-being of the worst-off person - partly out of fear that anyone could wind up at the bottom. But critics pointed out that rational people might not behave that way: rather to avert risk, people might instead gamble by calling for society to maximaze the income of the richest. Gambling may seem unattractive, but it is not irrational.
Despite the critics, Professor Rawls ideas have flowered. Thousands of books and articles have injected his brand of liberalism into popular discourse. He won, then, by losing.'
Michael M. Weinstein is director of programs at the Robin Hood Foundation and a former economics columnist for The Times.

Dakle... tvoj, odnosno njihov 'patetični argument' kojim se izostanak dužnosti solidarnosti sa ljudima koji su se zbog nebitno kojeg razloga našli u egzistencijalno teškom položaju - logički stoji. Njegovo moralno opravdanje je ipak beskrajno neutemeljeno. Ne zbog 'pukog dovlačenja već postojećeg novca s drugih mjesta (da ne kažemo iz tuđih džepova)', pošto ekonomski rast nije zero-sum game da je riječ o fiksnoj količini vrijednosti, niti radnik svojim radom stvara novostvorenu vrijednost.
Novostvorena vrijednost definira se odnosom ponude i potražnje na tržištu. Kriterij da li je neka namjera moralna ili ne jest njezina eventualna univerzalna prihvatljivost. U okolnostima slobodnog tržišta faktor rada jest roba i kao svaka druga roba njegova se cijena (na tržištu se vrijednost izražava 'cijenom') definira odnosom ponude i potražnje. Prema zakonu ponude i potražnje cijena neke robe ovisi o dvije stvari, njenoj upotrebnoj vrijednosti i njenoj dostupnosti. Sve ono što je svima dostupno nema vrijednost na tržištu, bez obzira na upotrebnu vrijednost tog 'nečega'. Nekad je to bio čist zrak, danas više ne znam što bi to uopće moglo biti. Znači, odlučujući kriterij za određivanje cijene neke robe jest njena rijetkost. Faktor rada tu nije nikakav izuzetak. Rad jednog iskusnog neurokirurga na tržištu je mnogostruko više procijenjen nego rad jednog poštara i u tome nema ništa nelogično, dapače... u tome nema ništa nemoralno. Univerzalno je prihvatljiva namjera sudionika na tržištu (u ovom slučaju poslodavaca) da plate rad jednog kirurga mnogostruko više nego jednog poštara. Kirurg je uložio u svoje obrazovanje i svoje iskustvo ogromnu količinu vremena, koje je i samo zbog svoje ograničenosti trajanja vrijedno, pošto smo svi mi smrtna bića. Dakle, poslodavac ne radi ništa nemoralno ako ne plaća jednako kirurga i poštara. Ali ako poslodavac, ili bilo koji pojedinac, ima namjeru izbjeći plaćanja progresivnog poreza iz kojeg bi se financirala država čija je uloga (između ostalih) da intervenira kroz svoju socijalnu politiku i tako pomogne ljudima za čijim radnim sposobnostima ne postoji potražnja na tržištu rada, tada je ta namjera nemoralna.
Zašto bi to bilo tako? Zašto bi kirurg žrtvovao svoj zasluženi, teško stečeni dohodak plaćajući porez iz kojeg bi se netkome njemu potpuno nepoznatom omogućilo da (na primjer) stekne obrazovanje dostatno da obavlja posao poštara?
Ako je subjektivna teorija vrijednosti ono što određuje cijenu svake robe pa i rada, ravnajući se pri tome kriterijem rijetkosti, vrijednost onoga što posjeduju 'oni koji imaju' za svoju referentnu liniju ima neposjedovanje 'onih koji nemaju'. Iz toga logički proizlazi da su 'oni koji nemaju' nužan preduvjet da bi uopće postojalo 'ono što vrijedi'. Siromaštvo nije samo posljedica nečije nesposobnosti ili lijenosti (iako je to vrlo često slučaj), siromaštvo je sistemska premisa na kojoj počiva zakon ponude i potražnje, ta kralježnica slobodnog tržišta. I što je sad tu nemoralno?
Namjera da se podržava politika takvog 'nereguliranog' slobodnog tržišta nije univerzalno prihvatljiva jer nije univerzalno prihvatljivo ponašanje pri kojem netko uživa u postignućima svog rada znajući da je u temelju vrijednosti tih postignuća nužno postojanje cijelog jednog sloja ljudi koji ne mogu uživati u postignućima svog rada jer je njegova cijena na tržištu rada ravna nuli i kao takva predstavlja onu referentnu, početnu liniju, postupnog rasta cijene faktora rada, s obzirom na kriterij rijetkosti.
Naglasio bih opet gore naglašeni izraz 'NUŽNO'. Jedana takva 'nužnost' ne prolazi kroz kriterije kojima se provjerava univerzalna prihvatljivost (moralnost) neke namjere, u ovom slučaju to je namjera izbjegavanja plaćanja poreza kojim bi se financirala državna intervencija kojom bi se ta nužnost ublažila. Nužnost nejednakosti je neizbježna zbog neizbježno ograničenog trajanja ljudskog života (zbog čega vrijeme - čitaj 'trud' ima svoju cijenu) i zbog superiorne sposobnosti efikasne alokacije resursa u reguliranim okolnostima slobodnog tržišta, ali intenzivnost i ekstenzivnost tog siromaštva mogu se bitno ublažiti intervencijom države.
Kantova etika je rigidno racionalna. Nikakvi emocionalni (Kant ih naziva patološkim) motivi ne smiju biti odredbeni razlog volje koja pretendira da ponese atribut 'dobra'.
Njegovo 'univerzalno zakonodavstvo' ne može prihvatiti nužnost socijalne nejednakosti, a da ne intervenira. Jedno od njegova tri izraza kategoričkog imperativa glasi:
'Djeluj tako da nikad ne uzimaš drugo ljudsko biće kao sredstvo, već uvijek kao svrhu'. Premda poslodavac uzima drugo ljudsko biće 'kao sredstvo', on to svojom namjerom da poštuje porezne zakone ispravlja na razini države. Država, kojom u predstavničkim demokracijama upravlja vlada izabrana od naroda i parlament izabran od naroda, izraz je kolektivne namjere njenih građana. Ako država ima mandat dobijen na izborima da ukine ili ne uvede intervencije u sferu tržišta i društva uopće, tada je njena politika nemoralna zbog nemoralne odluke većine koja joj je dala takav mandat. Zbog takvih situacija tvorci Ustava SAD ugradili su u njega određena neotuđiva prava pojedinca, ograničili mijenjanje tih prava putem amandmana i uveli u američki politički sustav niz 'check and ballances' instanci koje osiguravaju da nemoralne odluke što teže postanu zakoni.
Idemo nazad do Kanta, jer pojam njegove moralnosti mnogima djeluje preapstraktno i bez uporišta u stvarnosti, čija se kronologija može nazvati i poviješću.
'No s time se posve dobro slaže mogućnost jedne takve zapovijedi kao : 'Ljubi boga iznad svega, a svoga bližnjeg kao samog sebe'. Jer ona kao zapovijed zahtijeva štovanje zakona, koji zapovijeda ljubav, i ne prepušta proizvoljnu izboru da sebi ljubav napravi principom. Ali ljubav prema bogu kao nagnuće (patologijska ljubav) jest nemoguća, jer on nije predmet osjetila. Ta ista ljubav prema ljudima moguća je doduše, ali se ne može zapovijediti, jer nije u moći ni jednog čovjeka da nekog ljubi prosto na zapovijed.
(...)
Onaj zakon svih zakona predstavlja dakle kao svaki moralni propis evanđelja ćudorednu nastrojenost u njenoj cijeloj savršenosti, kako kao ideal svetosti ni za jedno biće nije dostiživa, ali ona je ipak uzor, kojemu treba da se nastojimo približiti i da mu u neprekidnu, ali beskonačnu progresu postanemo jednaki.'
Immanuel Kant, Kritika praktičkog uma.

Pošto se desna politička i ekonomska pozicija deklarira kao konzervativna (stoga nesklona promjenama i sklona zadržavanju 'statusa quo') i uz to se još licemjerno poziva na kršćansku tradiciju, upravo je to najslabija točka 'moralne fasade' tako da je beskompromisnim napadom na to licemjerje (sjetimo se da je Isus opraštao svima osim licemjerima) moguće ukazati na izostanak ne samo moralnosti, nego i najobičnije ljudske pristojnosti koja krasi jedan takav svjetonazor. I za kraj, vratimo se na Rawlsa koji je odmah na početku svoje knjige nedvosmisleno izjavio da u njoj nema ništa originalno... da je njegova teorije 'highly Kantian in nature'. Evo što sam Kant kaže o svojoj teoriji...
'No ako se pita što je zapravo čista čudorednost (moral), na kojoj se kao na metalu kušnje mora ispitati moralni sadržaj svake radnje, onda moramo priznati da odluku o tom pitanju samo filozofi mogu napraviti sumljivom. Jer to je pitanje u običnom ljudskom umu, doduše ne pomoću apstrahiranih općih formula, ali ipak običnom upotrebom već odavna, takoreći, riješeno kao razlika između desne i lijeve ruke.'

Sapienti sat.

- 18:03 - Komentari (11) - Isprintaj - #

TEA PARTY WITH WELFARE QUEEN




Ovo su komentari koje je na mom donjem postu ostavila blenderica pa ako vas zanima možete stvarno vidjeti 'What's wrong with America's right'

- Obama je uistinu fucking wrong ali ne zbog osmoze i blizine bankara nego jer je liberalno govno koje je trebalo odstupiti u krizi i ostaviti kapitalizam na miru da sam bije svoje bitke. Neke banke bi popropadale ali bi danas pocistili mrtve i pokupili otpad i produzili sa velicanstvenim kapitalizmom a ne ovim sranjem od printanja novca koje ce izazvati nevidjenu inflaciju i pokopati primat Amerike kao vodece ek sile svijeta. Zivjeli Republikanci! (blenderica 27.04.2011. 02:33)

- @ blenderica... nisam mislio da ću naletjeti na nekog kao što si ti na blogu... prvo... s tvog bloga... 'Posljedica svega ovoga je veliki pad vrijednosti kuca i nekretnina'... pad vrijednosti nekretnina je tipičan 'bubble burst', a do ovog je došlo jer američki median income stagnira (u realnim iznosima) još od vremena Gippera (kojeg ti vjerojatno obožavaš) pa je najjednostavniji način da se potrošnja održi na razini koja će omogućiti rast GDP-a bio davanje kredita srednjem sloju, kredita kojima je kolateral bila njihova nekretnina. A ako nisu imali nekretninu onda im je trebalo uvaliti ARM (Adjustable-Rate Morgage) i to bez ikakvih instrumenata osiguranja ili pologa, uz uvjeravanje da će cijene nekretnina rasti u nedogled. To je sve bilo moguće zbog izostanka regulacije na tržištima derivatima pa su takve 'subprime mortgages' bile 'securitizated' i nakon toga ocijenjene sa AAA od strane rating agencija, zbog čega su na tržištu bile smatrane sigurne kao i američke državne obveznice. I to kupovanje privida 'income equality-ja' trajalo je dok netko nije glasno viknuo 'Sell! Sell!', kako to uvijek i biva kod bubble situacija. Znači, pad cijena nekretnina nije posljedica nego uzrok. Zašto je do svega toga došlo lijepo je opisano u filmu 'Inside Job'. U principu, da nije ukinut Glass-Stiegal Act do svega ovoga ne bi ni moglo doći.
TARP je progurao Hank Paulson i to je u onomtrenutku bilo nužno iako je protivno zdravom razumu slobodnog tržišta, pitanje je koliko je tržište slobodno ako imaš 'too big to fail' institucije, a Lehman Brothers su mrvice prema divovima kao što je AIG, iz kojeg su preko TARP-a izvućena ogromna sredstva i isplaćena Goldman Sachsu, čiji je bivši CEO bio baš Paulson, a Timy Geither je inzistirao na 'one hundred cents perdollar' za CDS-ove kojima se Goldman Sachs kladio protiv svojih vlastitih klijenata. Tako da su svi umiješani u taj nered, i Republikanci i Clintonov 'Treći put'.
Problem je što se baš GOP sad protivi bilo kakvoj regulaciji financijskih tržišta i inzistira na radikalnim 'budget cut' potezima u vrijeme kad USA još nije ekonomski stala na noge.
Prije midterm izbora to je bilo ostvarivano 'filibuster' ucjenama Senata, sad kad je House republikanski, 'shutdown' je neminovan.
Progresivni 'income tax' je stvar koja se smatra normalnom u cijelom normalnom svijetu, pogledaj koliki je 'upper income bracket' u Norveškoj ili Švedskoj... inzistiranje da u USA on ostane na razini od 30%, uz inzistiranje da se režu 'entitlements' i da se privatizira Medicare putem 'voucher' sistema (Paul Ryan) jest DUBOKO nemoralan i licemjeran.
Ova slika dijaboličnog Obame je, blago rečeno, stupidna. Obama je razočarao liberalnije krilo svoje stranke i zbog svoje neodlučnosti izgubio podršku koju je dobio svojim idealističkim nastupom tijekom kampanje. Ovaj gore, Krugman, je trenutno državni neprijatelj broj 1 cijele konzervativne Amerike, ali stvari će postati infinitezimalno zanimljivije ako Donald Trump postane GOP kandidat... Ronald-Donald... pola jebene trailor park white trash Amerike glasat će za njega jer zbog neobrazovanosti ne znaju da je Reagan umro.
Živiš u zemlji koju ja iskreno cijenim. Evo zašto...(pooka 27.04.2011. 09:32)

- @pooka pise: blenderica... nisam mislio da ću naletjeti na nekog kao što si ti na blogu... prvo... s tvog bloga... 'Posljedica svega ovoga je veliki pad vrijednosti kuca i nekretnina'... pad vrijednosti nekretnina je tipičan 'bubble burst', a do ovog je došlo jer američki median income stagnira (u realnim iznosima) još od vremena Gippera (kojeg ti vjerojatno obožavaš) pa je najjednostavniji način da se potrošnja održi na razini koja će omogućiti rast GDP-a bio davanje kredita srednjem sloju, kredita kojima je kolateral bila njihova nekretnina. A ako nisu imali nekretninu onda im je trebalo uvaliti ARM (Adjustable-Rate Morgage) i to bez ikakvih instrumenata osiguranja ili pologa, uz uvjeravanje da će cijene nekretnina rasti u nedogled.

Gluposti! Nemas pojima o realnosti jer si zelen po starosti a crven po uvjerenju. Kao prvo buble je normalna pojava u kapitalizmu naseg tipa o cemu svjedoce slucajevi jos iz Nizozemskog Tulipan bubble-a 1630 do nedavnog internet bubla, bubla na trzistu nekretnina I kreditnog “balona” kao I ostalih kroz povijest. Procitaj si knjigu Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation u kojoj jasno mozes vidjeti da su razni baloni pratili kapitalizam od samih pocetaka I da su oni normalna posljedica spekulativne naravi kapitalizma. Recimo da posjedujes trgovinu sa oruzjem ili sa konopcima, (strikovima) nije vazno. Cilj ti je zaraditi novac , je’l? I onda jednog dana pocnu ljudi kupovati od tebe strikove da sami sebe objese (ili oruzje da se upucaju). I kaj ces ti napraviti? Prestati im prodavati ono sto inace prodajes samo zato jer to koriste protiv sebe? Ko ih hebe, tebi o tvojem prometu ovisi prezivljavanje tebe I tvoje obitelji a oni nek se upucaju ako bas hoce. Tako isto I banke u kapitalizmu nisu tu zbog drustvenog dobra niti da bi tebi omogucili da si kupis kucu nego prvenstveno radi zarade novca za svoje dionicare I profita koje ostvaruju. Naravno ako dodje neki spekulant koji kupuje vec drugi treci stan ili kucu na Floridi radi zarade da ce mu dati mortgage I naravno da ako nema kolaterala da ce interest biti Adjustable (ARM) ali to nije zato sto banke njemu tvrde da ce cijene kuca rasti unedogled I sto je on jadan naivko kog su iskoristili nego jer je on pohlepan spekulant ( i sama sam takva I ponosna na to) koji zeli zaraditi na buble-u (mnogi I jesu I to milione, ko I ja uostalom, preprodajom kuca u Kaliforniji I drugdje) I onda kad na kraju sve to pukne (ko I svaki buble) onda nemaju muda podnijeti gubitak tog zadnjeg projekta ili investicije ili su u svemu do gushe I bankrotiraju pa okrivljuju tvoj ducan sa strikom ili oruzjem jer si im prodao sredstvo da se sjebu (kredit). Kad ga ne mogu tako lako dobiti (kao danas kad su banke poostrile kriterije radi politickog pritiska) onda kukaju I zapomazu I reze opet radi toga. Liberalna Luzerska Govna Nisu svispekulanti govna, samo oni koji nemaju muda prihvatiti pobjedu i poraz kao ishod pa krive sistem i sve ostalo (nastavlja se..)
(blenderica 27.04.2011. 20:07)

- @pooka dalje piskara: To je sve bilo moguće zbog izostanka regulacije na tržištima derivatima pa su takve 'subprime mortgages' bile 'securitizated' i nakon toga ocijenjene sa AAA od strane rating agencija, zbog čega su na tržištu bile smatrane sigurne kao i američke državne obveznice. I to kupovanje privida 'income equality-ja' trajalo je dok netko nije glasno viknuo 'Sell! Sell!', kako to uvijek i biva kod bubble situacija. Znači, pad cijena nekretnina nije posljedica nego uzrok. Zašto je do svega toga došlo lijepo je opisano u filmu 'Inside Job'. U principu, da nije ukinut Glass-Stiegal Act do svega ovoga ne bi ni moglo doći.

Vjerujes jednom filmu,jesi probao sa 2001 Odisejom u Svemiru? Da sve je to tocno sto pises ali ne vidim zasto bi se ameri trebali osjecati lose jer se svijet polakomio da pokupuje tako “izrezane”mortagage I uredno upakirane u sareni papir. Glass-Stiegal Act je ukinut da bi se zadovoljili klijenti velikih banaka koji su htjeli komoditet da dilaju sa istom bankom za stednju, kredite I investicije da bi u slucaju potrebe mogli koristiti kolaterale npr ako kod iste banke imam kredit za kucu I brokerski account onda ce mi ona lakse dati kredit protiv equitya u kuci ako zelim ga izvuci da bi npr kupila dionice neke firme. Kuzis? Jedan posjet jednoj banci rijesava sve. Opet pohlepa nas investitora, potrosaca I spekulatora. A kupnja americkih supbrime mortgage produkata oko svijeta? Opet pohlepa za zaradom u derivatima za koju bi se neko treci trebao osjecati krivim. Ako ti kupis obveznice jedne Grcke jer nose veliki Yield, onda to radis radi pohlepe I zelje da zaradis kamatom puno visenego kad kupis obveznice neke stabilne ekonomije kao recimo Njemacka koja daje nize kamate ali je sigurnija. Taj rizik je ugradjen u cijenu I kamatu povrata I trebao bi se raspitati zasto ti jedne obveznice nose puno vise od drugih. Jer su rizicnije tj riskantnije I kupnjom junk-bondsa ti preuzimas rizik da Grcka propadne I prestane vracati kamatu na svoj dug. Ko ti je kriv za to? Ako zaradis hvalices se okolo kako si pametan a ako Grcka propadne onda ces je psovati I optuzivati na sva usta. Sto se tice rejting agencys one su independent I neovisne o bilo kome I cemu- sto smo najbolje I vidjeli prije par tjedana kad su upozorili I samu USA da ce im sniziti rejting ako uskoro ne nadju nacin da obuzdaju ogromni (Obamin) deficit. Dakle ako im vjerujemo onda im vjerujemo a ako pogrijese nije to nas problem niti manipulacija.
(blenderica 27.04.2011. 20:08)

- pooka veli: TARP je progurao Hank Paulson i to je u onomtrenutku bilo nužno iako je protivno zdravom razumu slobodnog tržišta, pitanje je koliko je tržište slobodno ako imaš 'too big to fail' institucije, a Lehman Brothers su mrvice prema divovima kao što je AIG, iz kojeg su preko TARP-a izvućena ogromna sredstva i isplaćena Goldman Sachsu, čiji je bivši CEO bio baš Paulson, a Timy Geither je inzistirao na 'one hundred cents perdollar' za CDS-ove kojima se Goldman Sachs kladio protiv svojih vlastitih klijenata. Tako da su svi umiješani u taj nered, i Republikanci i Clintonov 'Treći put'.

Sve si pomijesao I ocito ti ni nis nije jasno samo nabacujes pojmove na hrpu. Ne postoje Too big to fail institucije, samo su takvima proglasene da bi se opravdao TARP. Kakve veze ima sto je Hank Paulson prije puno godina radio za Goldman? Da nema neke lojalnosti u kapitalizmu prema bivsim firmama (kad nema ni prema onima u kojima radis-predjes u drugu cim ti ponude vise) ili ti zelis reci da su mu dali neku lovu ispod stola? Goldman je imao puno pravo hedgati se u marketu I kladiti protiv koga god je htio. Nekad je to bilo normalno I slobodno. Ako ti drzis kladionicu I svi se klade na pobjedu tima A onda ti nemas pravo kladiti se protiv njih ili I protiv njih? Pa ne igras ti utakmicu niti je namjestas, a GS nije imao pozicije samo protiv svojih klijenata nego na obje strane marketa kao I dan danas da bi se zastitio od pada samo ponovo ljubomorna govna koja izgube lovu cvile ko pich*ice I kriv im je neko drugi kad izgube pa se tuzakaju po sudovima ne bi li dobili dio novaca natrag od sistema. Ne da mi se vise piskarati na ovaj tvoj smijesan unos ali vjerujes u sve iste glupe liberalne stereotipe koje im prodaju Obamovci ovdje
(blenderica 27.04.2011. 20:11)

- @pooka baljezgadalje: Problem je što se baš GOP sad protivi bilo kakvoj regulaciji financijskih tržišta i inzistira na radikalnim 'budget cut' potezima u vrijeme kad USA još nije ekonomski stala na noge.
Prije midterm izbora to je bilo ostvarivano 'filibuster' ucjenama Senata, sad kad je House republikanski, 'shutdown' je neminovan.
Progresivni 'income tax' je stvar koja se smatra normalnom u cijelom normalnom svijetu, pogledaj koliki je 'upper income bracket' u Norveškoj ili Švedskoj... inzistiranje da u USA on ostane na razini od 30%, uz inzistiranje da se režu 'entitlements' i da se privatizira Medicare putem 'voucher' sistema (Paul Ryan) jest DUBOKO nemoralan i licemjeran.

Blenda: kad sam vec odgovorila na sve zavrsicu: Kad pises u “normalnom svijetu” a navodis mi primjer jedne Norveske ili Svedske, meni se povraca. Je’l ti shvacas da u USA postoji vecina koja ce radije vidjeti USA razmontirane na drzavice prije nego bi prihvatili izgledati ko navedene socijalne zemljice dalekog sjevera. Svaka od njih je ispred USA po dugu per capita (po glavi stanovnika) a mi republikanci kad nam neko spomene njihovo ime samo nakostrijesimo se. To su za nas anti-drzave, veci neprijatelji kapitalizma od jedne Kine cak i Kube. To su izdajice kapitalizma, zemlje u kojima vlada cista socijala kakvu mi iz dna duse preziremo, a smatraju se kapitalistickim. To za nas niposto nije normalni svijet i mi se zgrazamo svega sto vuce na takav poredak. Besplatno zdrvstvo, visoko skolstvo,fuj-fuj-fuj. Sve na kraju vodi u European welfare system - mediokritetstvo umjesto u excelence. U americi imas pravo na Life, justice and the pursuit of hapiness a nemas pravo koristiti neki “service” zabadava ni natjerati zato nekoga da radi “next to nothing” niti natjerati na silu sve da si kupe neko zdravstevno osiguranje pod “nus”, na sto bi se reforma zdravstva na kraju svela.

Ikad vec volis dugacke citate na engleskom evo ti jednog o smrdljivoci Svedskog sistema:
As the cost of regulations and big government grew, entrepreneurship dropped. In the 2002 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey Sweden ranked in the 31st place among 37 countries when it came to start-up of new companies. None of the large Swedish companies were established later than 1970. It is not a coincidence that Sweden has gone from being the fourth richest country in the world in 1970 to being the fourteenth richest in 2002. Today the average American has 37 percent higher purchasing power and almost twice as high private consumption as the average Swede. More than 30 percent of the Swedish population falls below the American poverty line.
P.J. O’Rourke once wrote that no American would work if they lived in a system such as the Swedish welfare state, where government is "generous" with benefits to the unemployed, those on sick leave and those that have retired. What makes Sweden interesting is that for a long time people were very reluctant to take advantage of the system. The Swedish population had a strong tradition of entrepreneurship and hard work and continued to work hard even though they now had the option to live off government. But people do adapt their morality to maximize their benefits in the economic system in which they live, although this might take a generation or so.
During the last few years the number of Swedish citizens that are being supported by unemployment, sick leave or early retirement has increased dramatically. Is there a major epidemic that is keeping people from going to work and causing young unemployed people to retire? The social democrats certainly seem to think so, maintaining that Sweden is still a country where most people are willing to accept any full time job if offered.
This denial goes deep in Swedish mentality. Recently Jan Edling, an economist from Sweden’s largest labour union, LO, wrote a report where he explained that it was the welfare system that caused people to go on sick leave or early retirement. According to Edling, Sweden had a de facto unemployment rate of 20–25 percent. As LO refused to print the report Edling resigned after 18 years of service.
Telling the truth might not be popular, but I wish that Edling's report would be translated and sent to all fans of the welfare state around the world. It shows that the Swedish welfare state has systematically destroyed personal responsibility and work ethics. There is a point where so many people start taking advantage of the system that each individual understands that they will be on the losing side if they don’t maximize their own utility. A system that pays people not to work eventually creates a mentality where many people choose not to work. In the coming years the citizens of the European welfare systems will probably wake up to this reality.
(blenderica 27.04.2011. 21:13)

- @blenderice... 'kao danas kad su banke poostrile kriterije radi politickog pritiska'??? oh, yeah... banke su pooštrile kriterije jer više nema ništa što bi moglo poslužiti kao instrument osiguranja. možete imati QE1, QE2, QE3 itd, ali sve će to otići u Kinu.
više nemate srednji sloj, a kako stvari stoje nećete ga više nikad ni imati.
zaradila si na housing bubble-u? bravo... gdje si držala svoj zarađeni novac? u čarapi ili u nekoj banci? da nije bilo TARP-a imala bi na tisuće bank run-ova i tvoj bi novac zbog enormnog leveredga jednostavno ispario. zato je i služio Glass Stiegal Act.
'ukinut da bi se zadovoljili klijenti velikih banaka koji su htjeli komoditet da dilaju sa istom bankom za stednju, kredite I investicije da bi u slucaju potrebe mogli koristiti kolaterale npr ako kod iste banke imam kredit za kucu I brokerski account onda ce mi ona lakse dati kredit protiv equitya u kuci ako zelim ga izvuci da bi npr kupila dionice neke firme.' - a što je sa depozitarnim novcem ljudi koji nisu htjeli takav komoditet, a njihov je novac svejedno bio izložen riziku koji njihova kamata nije opravdavala.
i ako ti se živi u 'dog eat dog' zemlji preseli se u Somaliju, tamo je 'greed is good' princip ogoljen do kosti... znam da u Americi ima ljudi koji bi željeli živjeti u 'normalnoj' zemlji, ali se moralni invalidi kao što si ti svim silama trude da im to onemoguće.
'Today the average American has 37 percent higher purchasing power and almost twice as high private consumption as the average Swede.'... baš 'today'? ahahahhahahaha (pooka 27.04.2011. 23:17)

- @pooka... OK oglusicu se (za sada) na konstrukciju "moralnog invalida" i suspregnuti moju zlocestu stranu da bi pokusala odgovoriti mirno. Ako zivis u smrdari zvanoj Hrvatska koja se moralno i materijalno raspada , koju ismijavaju kao jadnu tvorevinu i koja izrucuje svoje heroje i generale Hagu za kosti pod stolom EU i koju su svi opljackali onda nemas nikakve moralne podloge soliti pamet jednoj Americi koja vec 200-300 godina zivi u kapitalizmu i relativnom obilju i koja ce se izvuci iz ove situacije vrlo brzo dok ce nasa voljena kiflica stenjati i plakati pod teretom vas crvenih govnara , neradnika, granola i zelenih kloshara jos koje stoljece. Vecina u ovoj zemlji (USA) bira na izbroima i to slobodno i demokratski. to sto vi crvena govna nemozete shvatiti da biraju to sto biraju i da pobjedjuje dog-eats-dog mentalitet i da jedni Republikanci mogu odnijeti izbore usred recesije i protv onog crnog majmuna, to je zato sto u Hrv nema prave gornje klase nego ste svi mahom siromasni penzioneri, jadni narod, isprani prevareni radnici ili gangsteri i lopovi .. nema sredine, nema pravog poduzetnistva ni kapitalizma. Neces nikad vidjeti nekog Amera kako pise ovakve unose o nekoj Hrv ili Rumunjskoj jer mu se zivo fucka ali obratno, vrlo cesto. Zulja vas nase bogastvo,uspijeh, rad i snalazljivost bijednici pa se radujete padu mocne amerike. Ha ha samo lajte lajte, psi crveni. Ovdje se jos uvijek zivi bogato. Odoh van provozati se uz Pacifik u svom crvenom konvertiblu a ti odi protestirati ne bi li dobio nesto zabadava bijedo. Zato vam i je tako jer ste puni filozofije i negativnosti ibrinete tudju brigu umjesto da pljunete u sake i stvorite si tamo nesto od tog prirodnog bogatstva sto imate. Lijena crvena zavidna stoka (blenderica 28.04.2011. 02:33)

- @ blenderica... ovo je cyberspace... ti si iskompleksirana 'Welfare Queen'. (pooka 28.04.2011. 06:17)
- 09:00 - Komentari (12) - Isprintaj - #

utorak, 26.04.2011.

OBAMA IS (WAS) WRONG



Newsweek, March 28, 2009

Obama’s Nobel Headache

Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.

Traditionally, punditry in Washington has been a cozy business. To get the inside scoop, big-time columnists sometimes befriend top policymakers and offer informal advice over lunch or drinks. Naturally, lines can blur. The most noted pundit of mid-20th-century Washington, Walter Lippmann, was known to help a president write a speech—and then to write a newspaper column praising the speech.

Paul Krugman has all the credentials of a ranking member of the East Coast liberal establishment: a column in The New York Times, a professorship at Princeton, a Nobel Prize in economics. He is the type you might expect to find holding forth at a Georgetown cocktail party or chumming around in the White House Mess of a Democratic administration. But in his published opinions, and perhaps in his very being, he is anti-establishment. Though he was a scourge of the Bush administration, he has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House.

In his twice-a-week column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, he criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking. In conversation, he portrays Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other top officials as, in effect, tools of Wall Street (a ridiculous charge, say Geithner defenders). These men and women have "no venality," Krugman hastened to say in an interview with NEWSWEEK. But they are suffering from "osmosis," from simply spending too much time around investment bankers and the like. In his Times column the day Geithner announced the details of the administration's bank-rescue plan, Krugman described his "despair" that Obama "has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they're doing. It's as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street."

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring. But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking. The in crowd of any age can be deceived by self-confidence, as Liaquat Ahamed has shown in "Lords of Finance," his new book about the folly of central bankers before the Great Depression, and David Halberstam revealed in his Vietnam War classic, "The Best and the Brightest." Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

The Obama White House is careful not to provoke the wrath of Krugman any more than necessary. Treasury officials go out of their way to praise him by name (while also decrying the bank-rescue s of him and his ilk as "deeply impractical"). But the administration does not seek to cultivate him. Obama aides have invited commentators of all persuasions to the White House for some off-the-record stroking; in February, after Krugman's fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by. But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an "oo," not an "uh" sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.

It's possible that Krugman is a little wounded by this high-level disregard, and he said he felt sorry about criticizing officials whom he regards as friends, like White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer. But he didn't seem all that sorry.

Krugman is having his 15 minutes and enjoying it, although at moments, as I followed him around last week, he seemed a little overwhelmed. He is an unusual mix, at once nervous, shy, sweet and fiercely sure of himself. He enjoys his outsider's power: "No one has as big a megaphone as I have," he says. "Aside from the world going to hell, it's great." He is in much demand on the talk-show circuit: PBS's "The NewsHour" and "Charlie Rose" on Monday last week, ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" this past Sunday. Someone has even cut a rock video on YouTube: "Hey, Paul Krugman, why aren't you in the administration?" A singer croons, "Hey, Paul Krugman, where the hell are you, man? We need you on the front lines, not just writing for The New York Times." (And the cruel chorus: "All we hear [from Geithner] is blah, blah, blah.")

Krugman is not likely to show up in an administration job in part because he has a noble—but not government-career-enhancing—history of speaking truth to power. With dry humor, he once told a friend the story of attending an economic summit in Little Rock after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. As the friend recounted the story to NEWSWEEK, "Clinton asked Paul, 'Can we have a balanced budget and health-care reform?'—essentially, can we have it all? And Paul said, 'No, you have to be disciplined. You have to make choices.' Then Paul says to me (deadpan), 'That was the wrong answer.' Then Clinton turns to Laura Tyson and asks the same questions, and she says, 'Yes, it's all possible, you have your cake and eat it too.' And then [Paul] says, 'That was the right answer'." (Tyson became chairman of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers; she did not respond to requests to comment.) Krugman confirmed the story to NEWSWEEK WITH a smile. "I'm more tolerant now," he says. But at the time, he was bitter that he was kept out of the Clinton administration.

Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. "He doesn't suffer fools. He doesn't like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn't like to be f––ked with," says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. "He's not a Jim Baker; he's not that kind of Princeton," says Wilentz, referring to the ur-establishment operator who was Reagan's secretary of the Treasury and George H.W. Bush's secretary of state. But Wilentz went on to say that Krugman is "not a prima donna, he wears his fame lightly," and that Krugman is not resented among his academic colleagues, who can be a jealous lot. Krugman's fellow geniuses sometimes tease him or intentionally provoke his wrath. At an economic conference in Tokyo in 1994, Krugman spent so much time berating others that his friends purposely started telling him things that they knew weren't true, just to see him get riled up. "He fell for it every time," said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly. "You'd think that eventually, he would say, 'Oh, come on, you're just jerking my chain'." Krugman says he doesn't recall the incident, but says it's "possible."

Born of poor Russian-immigrant stock, raised in a small suburban house on middle-class Long Island, Krugman, 56, has never pretended to be in the cool crowd. Taunted in school as a nerd, he came home one day with a bloody nose—but told his parents to stay out of it, he would take care of himself. "He was so shy as a child that I'm shocked at the way he turned out," says his mother, Anita. Krugman says he found himself in the science fiction of Isaac Asimov, especially the "Foundation" series—"It was nerds saving civilization, quants who had a theory of society, people writing equations on a blackboard, saying, 'See, unless you follow this formula, the empire will fail and be followed by a thousand years of barbarism'."

His Yale was "not George Bush's Yale," he says—no boola-boola, no frats or secret societies, rather "drinking coffee in the Economics Department lounge." Social science, he says, offered the promise of what he dreamed of in science fiction—"the beauty of pushing a button to solve problems. Sometimes there really are simple solutions: you really can have a grand idea."

Searching for his own grand idea (his model and hero is John Maynard Keynes) Krugman became one of the top economists in the country before he turned 30. He took a job on the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan administration at the age of 29. His colleague and rival was another brilliant young economist named Larry Summers. The two share a kind of edgy braininess, but they took different career paths—Summers as an inside player, working his way up to become Treasury secretary under Clinton and president of Harvard, then Obama's chief economic adviser. Krugman preferred to stay in the world of ideas, as an "irresponsible academic," he puts it, half jokingly, teaching at Yale, MIT, Stanford and Princeton. In 1999 he almost turned down the extraordinary opportunity to become the economic op-ed columnist for The New York Times. He was afraid that if he became a mere popularizer he'd blow his shot at a Nobel Prize.

Last October, he won his Nobel. Most economists interviewed by NEWSWEEK agreed that he richly deserved it for his pathbreaking work on global trade—his discovery that traditional theories of comparative advantage between nations often do not work in practice. He was stepping into the shower at a hotel when his cell phone rang with the news that he had achieved his life's ambition. At first, he thought the call might be a hoax. His wife Robin's reaction, once the initial thrill wore off, was, "Paul, you don't have time for this." He is, to be sure, insanely busy, producing two columns a week, teaching two courses and still writing books (his latest is "The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008"). He posts to his blog as many as six times a day. Last Thursday morning, he was gleeful because he was able to thump a blogger who insisted, wrongly, that Keynes did not use much math in his work.

In class that day, discussing global currency exchange with a score of undergraduates, he was gentle, bemused, a little absent-minded, occasionally cracking mordant jokes (on trade with China: "They give us poisoned products, we give them worthless paper"). He says he plans to reduce his teaching load a little, and his colleagues say his best academic work is behind him. "His academic career culminated with him winning the prize," says his Princeton colleague and friend Gene Grossman. "He's not that engaged anymore with academic research. He has a public career now. That's what he views as his main avocation now—as a public intellectual."

He has made enemies in the economics community. "He's become more and more outspoken. A lot of what he says is wrong and not considered," says Daniel Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University. A longtime mentor, MIT Nobel laureate Robert Solow, who taught Krugman as a grad student, remembers him as "very unassertive, mild-mannered. One thing he still has is a smile that plays around his face when he's talking, almost like he's looking at himself and thinking, 'What am I doing here?' " But, Solow added, "when he started writing his column, his personality adapted to it."

Academic life, bolstered by book and lecture fees, has been lucrative and comfortable. Krugman and Robin (his second wife; he has no children) live in a lovely custom-built wood, stone and glass house by a brook in bucolic Princeton. Krugman pointed out that unlike some earlier Nobel Prize winners, he has not asked for a better parking place on campus. (He was not kidding.)

Arriving at the Times just before Bush's election in 2000, he was soon writing about politics and national security as well as economics, sharply attacking the Bush administration for invading Iraq. Someone at the Times—Krugman won't say who—told him to tone it down a bit and stick to what he knew. "I made them nervous," he says. In 2005, Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Krugman says that Okrent "caved" to the criticism of conservative ideologues who were out to get him. ("I tried to be an honest broker," says Okrent. "But when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.") It's true that during the Bush era Krugman was the target of cranks and kooks, but it is also true that in areas outside his expertise he sometimes gets his facts wrong (his record has improved lately). Krugman is unrepentant about his Bush bashing. "I was more right in 2001 than anyone in the pundit class," he says.

Ideologically, Krugman is a European Social Democrat. Brought up to worship the New Deal, he says, "I am not overflowing with human compassion. It's more of an intellectual thing. I don't buy that selfishness is always good. That doesn't fit the way the world works." Krugman is particularly passionate about the growing gap between rich and poor. Last week he raced down to Washington to testify on the subject before the House Appropriations Committee. In the 2008 election, Krugman first leaned toward populist John Edwards, then Hillary Clinton. "Obama offered a weak health-care plan," he explains, "and he had a postpartisan shtik, which I thought was naive."

Krugman generally applauds Obama's efforts to tax the rich in his budget and try for massive health-care reform. On the all-important questions of the financial system, he says he has not given up on the White House's seeing the merits of his argument—that the government must guarantee the liabilities of all the nation's banks and nationalize the big "zombie" banks—and do it fast. "The public wants to trust Obama," Krugman says. "This is still Bush's crisis. But if they wait, Obama will be blamed for a fair share of the problem."

Obama administration officials are dismissive of Krugman's arguments, although not on the record. One official made the point that pundits can have a 60 percent chance of being right—and just go for it. They have nothing to lose but readers, and Krugman's many fans have routinely forgiven his wrong calls. The government does not have the luxury of guessing wrong. If Obama miscalculates, he could truly crash the stock market and drive the economy into depression. Krugman's suggestion that the government could take over the banking system is deeply impractical, Obama aides say. Krugman points to the example of Sweden, which nationalized its banks in the 1990s. But Sweden is tiny. The United States, with 8,000 banks, has a vastly more complex financial system. What's more, the federal government does not have anywhere near the manpower or resources to take over the banking system.

Krugman swats away these arguments, though he acknowledges he's not a "detail" man. He believes he is fighting a philosophical battle against the plutocrats and money-changers. Although he thinks Geithner has been captured by Wall Street, he has hope for Summers. "I have a strong suspicion that if Larry was on the outside and I was on the inside, we'd be reversing roles," he says, but adds, "Well, not entirely. Larry has more faith in markets. I'm more of an interventionist."

Last week Krugman and Summers were "playing phone tag." ("It doesn't necessarily mean that much," says Krugman. "We've known each other all our adult lives." Summers initiated the call; Krugman suspects he wanted to talk him through the administration's plan.) In Friday's column, Krugman tweaked Summers directly for his faith in markets, though he grudgingly gave the Obamaites credit for calling for extensive regulation of the financial world. Krugman thinks that Obama needs some kind of "wise man" to advise him and mentions Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman who tamed inflation for Reagan and now heads an advisory panel for Obama. How about Krugman himself for that role? "I'm not a backroom kind of guy," he says, schlumped over in his Princeton office, which overflows with unopened mail. He describes himself as a "born pessimist" and a "natural rebel." But he adds, "What I have is a voice." That he does.

With Pat Wingert, Daniel Stone, Michael Hirsh, and Dina Fine Maron

...link
- 23:49 - Komentari (15) - Isprintaj - #

DOUBLE DIP?

Idemo, prvi kvartal... BDP... naš je navodno negativan, Obamin je navodno prolazno (transitory) nizak... zanima me CAMERONOV.

A sad će malo on... dr. Doom...
- 09:03 - Komentari (2) - Isprintaj - #

ponedjeljak, 25.04.2011.

'an obvious alternative'?

“In truth, the gold standard is already a barbarous relic” - J.M. Keynes

'With the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, pumping unprecedented amounts into the financial markets, there are fears the dollar may lose its status as the favourite reserve currency of the world's central banks, with precious metals being an obvious alternative.' -
Gold and silver prices jump to new record highs
- 12:23 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

nedjelja, 24.04.2011.

Kako je pooka pronašao Uskrs

Ovo je komentar na post NEMANJA: STRANSTVOVANJE - vjeronauk za odrasle, četvrtak, 20.03.2008. tijekom čijeg sam pisanja ja, nakon dugih godina mraka u dogmatskom strahu kritičkog skeptizizma (jest, takvo nešto stvarno postoji) ugledao svjetlo NOVOG.
Još jedanput, druže Nemanja, zahvaljujem na ukazanom gostoprimstvu.

# Ajde ovako... znam da se pojavljuje Rade Končar... ne u stvarnosti nego na televiziji, u Ratkajevima... čuo sam o tome na poslu, priča se među radništvom da se Rade tamo pojavljuje... pa kad je rekao 'Milosti ne tražim niti bih je dao' netom prije što su ga strijeljali te poginuo za revoluciju, on definitivno nije uskrsnuo... uzdiže se u nebo svaki dan, na tisućama različitih mjesta, ovaj put kao 'baš-čelik' reinkarnat nosivosti 3 do trideset osoba... kao lift naš svagdašnji, ali za to je više zaslužan drug Alija Sirotanović nego bog... ali ipak je bio i ostao legenda komunističkog svjetonazora. To što je mrtav ladan i ostao takav ne umanjuje niti malo njegovu slavu. Zašto? Zato jer nije bilo potrebe za uskrsnućem kad već postoji spoznata nužnost povijesnog konteksta dijalektičkog materijalizma u kojem on može biti slavan iako je umro i ostao mrtav, on je samo dio slave 'Velikog Glavatog Nečega', baš kao i drug Krleža. I drug Liebknecht (za kojeg nisam znao i čiji mi je život stravično ponižavajući uzor kojeg ne bih želio dobiti priliku izabrati, stvarno me strah jednog takvog niza izbora). Za razliku od njih, drug Isus je 'uskrsnuo' da bi uspostavio novi kontekst 'vječnog (ne onog prolaznog, ne onog uvjetovanog, ne onog zemaljskog) života' u kojem bi njegova beskompromisna kritika zlatne teladi u svim njenim ponavljajućim uzorcima koji su formalno isti bez obzira na sadržajnu dimenziju (fraktalna zlatna telad koja je ista u svojoj mističnoj laži bez obzira je li se pojavljuje kao moja nada da je bog 'dobar' ili se pojavljuje kao prevladavajuće uvjerenje da je bog 'dobar' iako mu se dopušta +/- odstupanje od šest milijuna spaljenih Židova)... elem, u kojem bi njegova ekstremno liberalna kritika zatečenog stanja ('t' ili 'r', svejedno je, svima je jasno) mogla opstati a da ne bude tako lako uklonjena sa 'real-politik' povijesne scene od strane samosažaljevajućih hijena samokažnjavanja i pretvorena u turističko razapinjanje sterilnim čavlima ili nošenje polistirenskog križa po Jeruzalemu (eh, znaš li da se u Jeruzalemskoj bolnici dnevno prima tri do četiri Isusa Krista u podmakloj psihotičnoj fazi... većinom Amerikanaca?)... dakle njegovo uskrsnuće je sadržaj, materija, kontekst kojim se ispunjava ona univerzalno prihvatljiva čista forma koju je likom i dijelom ustanovio kao samorazumljivu istinu jednakosti svojom 'žrtvom' koja je akt spontaniteta (slobode) volje... jest, prefrastičan sam, ali žao mi je svih odlutavanja sa staze kreiranja svog novog mišljenja o uskrsnuću koje sam evo sad izmislio za vlastite potrebe, na tvom blogu... i hvala na ukazanom gostoprimstvu... elem, Rade je imao povijesni progres koji je permanentni uskrs, a Isus je uskrsom ustanovio zemlju na kojoj će sjeme njegove smrti roditi mnoštvom plodova slobode... tako uskrs ne bi bio 'čudo' pobjede nad smrću, već smrt potrebe da se i dalje smrt pobjeđuje tako radikalno drastično kao što je to Isus napravio (a i Rade, a i Liebknecht) jer je već pobjeđena... uskrs je Isusov izbor konteksta koji puni njegova prazna obećanja istine koja oslobađa i koji je 'noli me tangere' transcedentnog karaktera, nije materijalno 'čudo' koje svoj presedan dokazuje kao izuzetak kojim se potvrđuju generalna pravila nego je univerzalno prihvatljiv kontekst 'obećane zemlje' koja se ne ravna prema pravilima nego samo i isključivo, apsolutno samo prema – zakonu. Da nije 'uskrsnuo' nada bi istrunula sa njim, vjera onih koje je učio ga je 'digla iz mrtvih' i dok je umirao nije znao hoće li oni imati snage da ga 'uskrsnu' kako treba, onako 'noli me tangere' stilom ili će ga možda uskrsnut u svrhu nekakvog zemaljskog 'ex ponte' huškanja protiv naslijeđenog konteksta (koji je nepobijediv sve dok se iz njega ne iskorači aktom 'žrtve' (moram opet naglasiti da je žrtva opasna riječ jer gura prema melakoličnom samosažaljenju nekog tko pati zbog patnje same... žrtva je drugi izraz za neuvjetovano, ono koje je kauzalno neobjašnjivo preko izraza konkretnog), a ne uspostavljanjem novog konteksta koji je tlo vječne pobjede zauvijek pobjeđene, domovina novog i perspektiva svemogućeg. Nisam li na tragu one 'Budimo realni, tražimo nemoguće'?
Eto, druže Nemanja, da pobijem svoj odgovor tebi na svom blogu da je danas najveći (Veliki petak) dan... priznajem, strah od zastranjenja me je zaslijepio, mržnja prema 'čudu' me je paralizirala, promašio sam 'noli me tangere' cilj i pomislio da je uskrs sve ono protiv čega se Isus borio i za što je i poginuo (kao i Rade, kao i Liebknecht), da je uskrs zlatno tele koje je provirilo iza odgurnutog kamena grobnice, najopasnije od sve zlatne teladi jer se nahranilo mrtvim mesom onoga istoga bez vjere u kojeg ni Seve ni ja ne bi imali više što da radimo. Priznajem, uskrsnuo je... evo baš tijekom ovog komentara, u mom slučaju... onako kao što je Jeffersonov 'persuite of happiness' bio pristojno ovaporenje samorazumljive protestantske pristojnosti, samo u mom slučaju tom uskršnjom zemljom vladaju NEMCI, koji idu naokolo i gumenim mecima gađaju sve one koji se pretvaraju da su u skladu sa svrsishodnošću ne svog postojanja nego sebe u postojanju... znaš one... ljude koje je stil pojeo žive pa svi izgledaju slično... e tako je meni uskrs prihvatljiv... NEMCI iz busije gađaju žene koje sve imaju iste frizure, a uz to nose i velike naočale koje izgledaju gotovo identično pa čovjek pomisli da je u košnici punoj kukaca sa sočivastim očima, a ne na autobusnoj stanici na kojoj faktor rada čeka da ga transportiraju do sredstava za proizvodnju da tamo kopulira sa kapitalom te istog oplodi u svrhu napučivanja zemlje kolodvorima, valjda...
Još jednom, žao mi zbog uzurpiranja medijskog prostora, ali sam si kriv, ti i taj jatogen, i Rade i onaj luđak koji je umro pjevajući pod kundacima fudbalskih huligana koje će kasnije Fritz Thyssen odfinancirati do zadnjeg patološkog stadija zlatnog teljenja, onog paganski fetišiziranog užitka vrhunca samokažnjavanja, potpune pobjede naslijeđenog konteksta nad 'uskrsom', pobjede koja je tako totalna da uz smiješak zaboravlja i svoj konzervativni nagon i jede konzervirano svojim konzervansom do neraspoznatljivosti.
I da ne budem krivo razumljen... ja sam najgora vrsta komuniste... onog koji umjesto Marksovog Kapitala ima sinoptička evanđelja, a umjesto Engelsovog dijalektičkog materijalizma ima kompleksni nauk svog kućnog boga lara, koji je 'E' u imenu promijenio u 'I' kad je naučio hebrejski, a da nije izašao iz svog rodnog grada jer mu je valjda bilo jasno da je 'usksnuta' domovina stanje uma, a ne katastarska čestica... a opet, možda je bio i lud. Ajde, Hristos vaskrsnu nakon što se rodi, ustajte vi zemaljsko roblje... bogami me evo prekrsti iz one budale sa molotovljevim koktelom pred tenkom koji vozi časna sestra u malo pametnijeg 'ambush' pripadnika naoružanog naroda. (pooka 21.03.2008. 22:41)

# Pooka, dajte se naspavajte. Niste vi "komunist koji umjesto Marxova Kapitala ima sinoptička evanđelja", nego obrnuto: kršćanin koji namjesto evanđelja fura Kapital (jer u početku bijaše riječ). To je jasno i po vašem čestom spominjanju zlatnog teleta. Muči vas jako to tele. Ali zlatno tele može biti svašta: čak i vlastiti odraz u ogledalu. Stoga treba arlauknuti kao David Tibet: "I curse all gold and silver!" - i sve će biti u redu. (doktor Jatogen 22.03.2008. 00:11)
- 18:30 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

He'll be back!
- 00:47 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

subota, 23.04.2011.

PAX SYRIANA

The name of the 2005 film Syriana was apparently inspired by Pax Syriana. According to the film's publicity materials, "Syriana" was "a very real term used by Washington think-tanks to describe a hypothetical reshaping of the Middle East."[10] In an online discussion with The Washington Post in November 2005, Syriana director Stephen Gaghan said he saw Syriana as "a great word that could stand for man's perpetual hope of remaking any geographic region to suit his own needs." - Pax Syriana

This is how it all begins... everywhere...



...and this is how it ends... everywhere.

...THEY WIN.
- 18:47 - Komentari (2) - Isprintaj - #

Hoće li Sai Baba uskrsnuti?

Neće. Ali možda će se opet reinkarnirati. A kako sada stvari stoje, sa gledišta evolucije, ovo biće moglo bi se lako popeti na sam vrh prehrambene ljestvice.
- 07:38 - Komentari (6) - Isprintaj - #

petak, 22.04.2011.

DOGME? MI? PA... IMAMO JEDNU...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Thomas Jefferson
- 13:57 - Komentari (8) - Isprintaj - #

četvrtak, 21.04.2011.

Ja LUD?

Prvo ovaj post, odnosno njegov drugi komentar... a onda...
'Although no official reason was given, correspondents say Mr Moslehi appears to have been sacked after he dismissed an official with close ties to Mr Ahmadinejad's confidant, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei.'
Iran sacking row hints at Ahmadinejad power struggle

- 14:25 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

srijeda, 20.04.2011.

Pop,pop,pop,pop,pop... goes the bubble



'In this world, gold is the ultimate bubble because apart from the cost of actually digging it out of the ground it has almost no real fundamentals other than price itself. Investors have been buying it precisely because the price has been going up and is expected to carry on rising. Rising prices have created their own demand. It is the ultimately reflexive investment.' - Gold as the ultimate bubble

...Gold price hits record at $1,500 an ounce
- 14:07 - Komentari (8) - Isprintaj - #

utorak, 19.04.2011.

text IS the messaga



You really like gorillas?
We've got just the pet for you
It's the way you're forced to act
To survive our schools

Make your whole life revolve around sports
Walk tough-don't act too smart
Be a mean machine
Then we'll let you get ahead

Jock-O-Rama-Save my soul
We're under the thumb of the Beef Patrol
The future of America is in their hands
Watch it roll over Niagara Falls
Pep rally in the holy temple
And you're forced to go
Masturbate en masse
With the favored religious cult
Cheerleaders yell-"Ra Ra Team"
From the locker room parades the prime beef
When archaeologists dig this up
They'll either laugh or cry

Jock-O-Rama-On the brain
Redneck-a-thon drivin' me insane
The future of America is in their hands
Watch it roll over Niagara Falls
Unzip that old time religion
On the almighty football field
Beerbellies of all ages
Come to watch the gladiators bleed
"Now boys, this game ain't played for fun
You're going out there to win
How d'ya win?
Get out there
And snap the other guy's knee!"

Beat 'em up! Beat 'em up!
Ra Ra Ra
Snap those spinal cords
Ha Ha Ha

The star quarterback lies injured
Unconscious on the football field
Looks like his neck's been broken
Seems to happen somewhere every year

His mom and dad clutch themselves and cry
Their favorite son will never walk again
Coach says, "That boy gave a hundred percent
What spirit
What a man"

But who cares?
Games over-Let's go get wasted man
To the 7-11, to the liquor store
Let's party all night and party some more

Another Trans-Am
Wrapped itself around a telephone pole
"I ain't drunk, officer
I just fell gettin' out of my car"

Don't worry about it, son
We were that way when we were young
You've got all the skills
To make a damn good businessman

Jock-O-Rama-that's the law
Come lick the butts of the Beef Patrol
If the future of America is handed to them
Watch it roll over Niagara Falls
- 13:52 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

ponedjeljak, 18.04.2011.

The Almighty's Crazy Ivan Manouvre

...The Almighty and their Crazy Ivan Manouvre

Republican economics
The rise of the anti-Keynesians

Paul Ryan’s intellectual hinterland

Apr 14th 2011 | WASHINGTON, DC | from the print edition

WHEN Republicans proposed slashing billions of dollars from federal spending this year, Democrats circulated predictions by economists that jobs and growth would be hit. John Boehner, the Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, countered with an economic expert of his own: John Taylor of Stanford University. “Nothing could be more contrary to basic economics, experience and facts,” Mr Taylor asserted on his blog, which Mr Boehner cited. By cutting government spending, he said, the Republicans would “crowd in” private investment and create jobs.

Mr Taylor, a prominent monetary academic, served under both George Bush senior and junior and advised John McCain during his presidential campaign. In the past few years he has become a strident and prolific critic of the monetary and fiscal stimuli deployed by the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration respectively, views that have received a warm welcome from House Republicans. For if there is one ideology that unites today’s Republicans, it is Keynesianism, whose nefarious influence they are determined to stamp out. “Young Guns”, the book-sized manifesto of Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan, leading Republican House members, devotes several pages to the evils of Keynesian activism and its exponents in the administration.

The budget Mr Ryan proposed on April 5th seemed to herald the return of supply-side economics, the notion that cutting taxes can generate so much more work and investment that tax revenues rise. In the 1990s Mr Ryan was a speechwriter for Jack Kemp, the effervescent congressman who, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, made supply-side economics a centrepiece of Republican electoral ambitions.
Related topics

Perhaps that is why Mr Ryan turned to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, to produce a wildly optimistic analysis of his budget’s economic impact. It did not say Mr Ryan’s cuts to personal and corporate tax rates pay for themselves; though it reckons they recoup a still hefty 50% of their costs. But it projected an investment boom that would lift output and drive unemployment down to 2.8%, a rate not seen for 57 years. Few economists dispute that lower tax rates boost labour supply and investment. But Menzie Chinn, an economist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, reckons the Heritage Foundation assumes a boost five to eight times more powerful than conventional models.

Supply-side economics, though, is only one piece of Mr Ryan’s intellectual furniture. He has also paid homage to Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Robert Mundell, a Nobel laureate who champions the monetary straitjacket of fixed exchange rates. His budget cites approvingly the work of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff on how debt cripples growth and Niall Ferguson, a historian, on how it brings down empires. For on-tap advice Republicans regularly turn to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former McCain adviser who now runs the American Action Forum, a think-tank, and Mr Taylor, who keeps a flat in Washington, DC.

Republicans may have found intellectual satisfaction in their opposition to fiscal and monetary stimulus. Whether voters will thank them is another matter. The danger is that, when interest rates are stuck near zero, austerity is more likely to hurt growth than help.
- 21:10 - Komentari (2) - Isprintaj - #

ponedjeljak, 11.04.2011.

Koliko su oštećeni mirovinski fondovi nakon...

...OVOGA?
- 18:19 - Komentari (3) - Isprintaj - #

Oh, FUCK...



Up every morning
With the sun
I work all day
Til the evening comes

Blisters and corns
All in my hands
Lord, have mercy
On a working man

I guess I'm gonna die
Just like I live
In poverty

My pay goes down
And my tax goes up
I drink my tea
From a broken cup

Between my woman
And Uncle Sam
I can't figure out
Who's fool I am

I guess I'm gonna die
Just like I'm living
In poverty

Oh, Lord, it's so hard
But it's fair
Everybody talk but
Nobody really care

Lord, I can't save a dime
Can't borrow one cent
If I pay my bills
I can't pay my rent

The old lady's fussing
And the kids are crying
They won't let me join
The welfare line

I guess I'm gonna die
Just like I'm living
In poverty

There's a war on poverty
They say it's going around
But all that means, people
They're trying hard
To keep you down

Oh, oh, oh, Lord, poverty
That's where I'm gonna stay now
- 11:18 - Komentari (6) - Isprintaj - #

subota, 09.04.2011.

WORKERS OF ALL LANDS...

...DEFAULT!
- 12:09 - Komentari (4) - Isprintaj - #

petak, 08.04.2011.

SHUTDOWN... 'At some point you've got to say - no.'
- 15:31 - Komentari (8) - Isprintaj - #

srijeda, 06.04.2011.

Two Pauls

'On taxes, Mr Ryan proposes chopping the top personal rate to 25%, from its current 35%, and from the 39.6% it is scheduled to reach if George Bush’s tax cuts expire as planned in 2013. He would also cut the top corporate rate to 25% from 35%, bringing America’s rate in line with international norms.'

...Paul Ryan

'Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.'

...Paul Krugman
- 12:38 - Komentari (4) - Isprintaj - #

utorak, 05.04.2011.

'Inside Job'? Too late, too little...
- 10:14 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

nedjelja, 03.04.2011.

'...but I do not know the interior feminine mechanic...'
- 12:23 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

subota, 02.04.2011.

A ovo je NEBITNO?

Iako je račun usluga zabilježio rast suficita, najvažniji prihod tog računa - prihod od turizma - ostvario je pad od 2,2% godišnje, iako su fizički pokazatelji pokazivali rast dolazaka i noćenja turista. Ukupni prihodi od turizma u 2010. godini iznosili su 6,24 milijarde eura, što je u nominalnim iznosima tek na nešto višoj razini zabilježenoj u 2006. godini. Pad prihoda od turizma vjerojatno je posljedica veće suzdržanosti turista u pogledu potrošnje, a ne isključujemo mogućnost i utjecaja sive ekonomije.

...VIŠE...
- 15:45 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

<< Prethodni mjesec | Sljedeći mjesec >>

DNEVNIK.hr10Nakon prijave pratite svoje najdraĹľe blogere i kreirajte vlastite liste blogera!Naslovnica