Texto

There was nothing surprising about today’s market reaction, as it was simply another FED action desired, rumoured, clamoured and  whammed as usual. The only surprising fact is that Mr. Bernanke and the FED do not seem to learn their lesson and stop chasing the markets’ demands and whims.

Bernanke does not seem to understand the market psychology as he continues to fall prey to the markets’ SFP (Self-fulfilling-prophecy) syndrome. It is all a matter of creating the wrong expectation and then the rest is the usual SFP. Let us take the example of the bailout package. Bernanke called Paulson suggesting that we need a more decisive action by the regulators/government in order to address the current crisis. So far nothing wrong with it. The problem was the solution proposed, that is the bailout package. Then they organize a joint meeting with the leaders of Senate and the House and scare them out of their wits. So the political leaders once again succumb to the usual urgent requests by the FED and the treasury, and hold a news conference. The stock markets’ knee jerk reaction is a one day rally and then the reality sets in and the markets retrace back to below where they were. When eventually the House dumps the bailout bill, shattering the market’s expectation, just like a spoilt kid stumping his feet and breaking his toys for his daddy’s refusal to buy him the toy he wanted, Dow Jones Industrial Average closes with a loss of 777 points for the day. So the Senate and the House are rushed and the whole nation convinced that we need to pass this bailout bill or face holocaust. As the Senate approves the bill and in anticipation of the House’s approval the markets recover part of the 777 points drop (Sept. 29). However, on the day finally the House approves the bill the markets close below their Sept.29 close – just like the spoilt kid who now does not want the new toy as he has seen the ad for the latest play-station.

The coordinated interest rate cut was the same dynamic, initially on Thursday (Oct.2) there are rumors of a coordinated cut over the weekend.  The rumors intensify on Friday, and are met with frustration on Monday. As the markets continue to fall Bernanke runs to markets’ rescue and eventually today we get the news of a coordinated interest rate cut. Then we get the usual blip on the charts and by now the customary fade soon there after. Eventually after an increase in volatility index (VIX closed at 57.53) we close another loosing session on wall street.

At the time of this writing the LIBOR rate is as high as it was before the interest rate cuts. While TED spread has widened further and the stock markets reversed their earlier gains to close with losses. What the markets really need is an injection of confidence in particular confidence to restore inter-bank lending.

The action of U.K. government today, should set an example for the FED. The FED should urgently guarantee all new inter-bank lending. This will go to the heart of the problem and remove the risk element associated with such lending. As a result it will have an immediate and lasting positive effect on both the LIBOR rate and TED spread.

These markets are inebriated with the FED’s excesses and Bernanke’s vision is warped by his studies of depression. No wonder market participants seem to have a huge hangover…

Click here for a detailed analysis of market trends and technicals.

Nero eat your heart out!

benny

The steps taken by the UK government to shore up the capital in banking sector and to ease short and medium term financing are the kind of comprehensive approach that the market needs in order to gradually restore confidence.

The FED’s action to guarantee commercial papers is a welcomed step, however, it is an insufficient response to current market malady. Banking and financial sector are the blood line of the economy and without their smooth and reliable operation the heart of the economy is doomed to an abrupt and devastating arrest.

The move to pay interest on bank deposits placed with the federal reserved was barely considered by the market and was quickly buried in the barrage of the news and dooms day predictions hitting the wire. However, this was an important move that provides the FED with greater flexibility while reinforcing the FED’s balance sheet. However, this move may actually drain further liquidity from the market as the banks may prefer to deposit any excess funds with the FED rather than lending to one another. Therefore, it is extremely urgent and important that the FED complements this action by serving as the guarantor for all new inter-bank lending effective immediately. In essence the FED needs to act as a clearinghouse to backstop inter-bank lending and mitigate the current off-the-charts lending risks. This will restore lending between banks and lower the LIBOR rate in a lasting manner, and in turn positively influence the market psychology.

Finally today’s rate cut may be temporarily cheered by the markets and result in a short-term rally in stock markets but this will not resolve the question of confidence between banks that has been at the root of this problem. It is genuinely frustrating to see that the FED does not seem to learn from any of its’ past experiences considering all its’ aggressive rate cuts have miserably failed to produce any lasting effects/results.

In fact after this latest rate cut the treasury market has barely moved and the LIBOR rate has just moved higher.

Another slap in the face of Mr. Bernanke and this FED… How much would the U.S. and the world economy have to suffer, and what price do we have to pay in order to get this incredibly blind minded  blank shooting FED understand the problem and do what really needs to be done…

Of course predictions of the end of capitalism are not new. For a hundred years or more there has always been someone on a soap box, quoting Marx and speaking fearlessly about the internal contradictions if capitalism and the inevitability of its imminent death. It hasn't happened, but every so often capitalism seems to reinvent itself and return to the market in a slightly different form. Some of the key defining moments of change were, for example, the development of the 'social market economy' under Konrad Adenauer and Ludwig Erhardt in West Germany after the Second World War (for those who can read German, here is an interesting short account of the origins); and perhaps even more significantly, the acceptance of the market economy by Germany's Social Democrats in Bad Godesberg 1959, which created a political consensus around a socially aware market economy that would dominate European economic policy for 25 years or so. Then there was the dramatic recasting of the understanding of the market under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. And now we can all speculate on what will come next after the international credit crisis - but I suspect it won't be the end of capitalism.

The Guardian newspaper recently ran an interesting piece on how a number of well known leftwingers are reacting to the credit crisis. One of those interviewed was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, whom I mentioned in one of my last posts and who was one of the student radicals leading the protests in 1968. Forty years later he says that capitalism, when in crisis, always has 'the intelligence to reform itself'. But he adds: 'However, the belief that the market is god is over. It must now be regulated.' This indeed is the response of many commentators, including recently Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times. Broadly speaking this response suggests that what we are now learning is that government intervention and regulation is a good thing, and that the small-government-and-deregulation brigade have had their day.

Actually, one of the myths surrounding economic policy since Thatcher is that  we have had an increasingly deregulated market watched over helplessly by small and ineffective government, in which anything goes. It's hard to see the substance in that picture: since the 1980s a whole plethora of new regulatory frameworks and agencies has emerged; indeed the corporate misdeeds of Enron and others created a regulatory firestorm so intense that it became nearly impossible to recruit company directors. Nor did any of the governments most visible in all this, from Reagan and Thatcher to Blair and Bush, preside over shrinking government; under all of them government has grown significantly, even if it was occasionally differently distributed.

What we have just seen is the collapse of a seriously crazy business model that had gripped part of the financial industry in recent years. And because this industry holds the funds that fuel both production and consumption its troubles cast a long shadow over everyone else. But it isn't the collapse of capitalism, nor the birth of a whole new economic order in tune with Marx's Das Kapital. Capitalism will survive, with maybe a new twist or two.

In fact, for those looking for the birth not so much of a new world order, but the return of ideology as the defining point of difference between those competing for power this may yet all turn out to be a massive disappointment. There may actually be a little bit of me - that part of me that enjoys the sheer fun of political debate based on ideas - that will also be disappointed by that.

Texto

Texto

And perhaps this adulation is completely warranted because of the huge financial success that Buffett has to show on his resume'...

But in this instance...with regard to the 700 billion dollar bailout proposal to the U.S. Congress being made by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and FED Chair Bernard Bernanke...is Warren Buffett thinking more about himself, Berkshire Hathway and other very wealthy and very big companies rather than the normal, everyday American family?

Is this 700 billion dollar bailout just really about making sure that the very rich are allowed to keep running their companies at artificially inflated values?

Is this bailout an economic socialization of the rich...ensuring that the American taxpayer will be saddled forever and that the wealthy will be forever protected?

Ron Paul, who made a very strong run for the Republican presidential nomination this past year and who was known for arguing fervently for free market economics during the many debates, has this to say with regard to the latest economic meltdown and possible solutions to the overwhelming problems as reported by NewsMax's David Alliot:

“The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay...”

“Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased.”

“Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.”

“Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.”

After listening to what Warren Buffett has had to say and then reading what Ron Paul is saying...what do you think and how do you think this financial crisis should best be played out?

Why is Warren Buffett clamoring for this bailout when he could afford to snap up several companies at very low prices if the markets were allowed to balance themselves out?

Is he really looking out for all of us by supporting this 700 billion dollar bailout or is there something more to this than we are being led to believe?

It is safe to say that Warren Buffett is incorrect in referring to this economic meltdown as a "financial Pearl Harbor"...because we all know that the Japanese struck Hawaii without warning...while the intelligent investor and follower of the U.S. economy has been forewarned time and time again about the ill-advised behavior of the federal government and several businesses for some time now.

There is no way we can say that we didn't see this coming...we were simply hoping that the inevitable economic disaster was going to be pushed out further and further away so that the next generation of Americans would have to deal with the meltdown.

But here it is...and instead of facing the consequences of these actions, Wall Street wants to burden Americans for years to come with a taxpayer bailout of those institutions who played us as as fools and mishandled our money by taking foolish and unusually large risks that did not warrant the return on their investment.

This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust.

We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake.

Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers.

How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France.

Only with worse food.

The USA has always been seen as a market economy, whilst many of the economies in Europe are seen as mixed.

They can't be bought, bullied, or negotiated with.

Some men, just wanna watch the world burn !

"Alfred to Bruce Wayne, in The Dark Knight"

 Enjoy the Video:

Some Video Credits :

Music : David Gilmour and Polly Samson

Pictures of Marilyn : Jason Howe

Scenes from Miss Universe 2001 Pageant :

2001 Miss Universe 1st runner up, Miss Greece,

the lovely Mrs. Evelina Papantoniou

Ravishing Mexican Model : Pamela Burgos

Chick with the M-16 : Sarah Palin

Guitar Solo Clip : Jimmy Page

• The "insufficient density" theory--not enough thinkers, not enough tinkerers, not enough ability to shape metal finely and precisely for the set of those interested in scientific progress and technological development to reach critical mass.
• The "lack of a market economy" theory: those who would have sought wealth and power through entrepreneurship and enterprise in a modern market economy instead, because trade was small in volume and under the thumb of politics, went into the army or into politics. This misallocation of talent stalled human progress.
• Fuzzier explanations based on the role of slavery in classical civilization and on the elective anti-affinity between the existence of slavery on the one hand and elite interest in boosting productivity on the other.

In 2002, there appeared an article in the Economist shedding light on Greek metalworking prowess and interest in astronomical models. According to the article, few corroded lumps — the last remnants of an elaborate mechanical device - were extracted by accident by a Greek sponge diver in 1900. The Antikythera mechanism, as it is now known, was an astronomical computer capable of predicting the positions of the sun and moon in the zodiac on any given date according to Yale scientist Derek Price. Price believed that the mechanism was strongly suggestive of an ancient Greek tradition of complex mechanical technology which, transmitted via the Arab world, formed the basis of European clockmaking techniques. This fits with another, smaller device that was acquired in 1983 by the Science Museum, which models the motions of the sun and moon. Dating from the sixth century AD, it provides a previously missing link between the Antikythera mechanism and later Islamic calendar computers, such as the 13th century example at the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford. That device, in turn, uses techniques described in a manuscript written by al-Biruni, an Arab astronomer, around 1000AD.

The origins of much modern technology, from railway engines to robots, can be traced back to the elaborate mechanical toys, or automata, that flourished in the 18th century. Those toys, in turn, grew out of the craft of clockmaking. And that craft, like so many other aspects of the modern world, seems to have roots that can be traced right back to ancient Greece.

Therefore the evidence chips away somewhat at first theory.

The Greek word oikonomia (οἰκονομία) designates mainly the oikos (οἶκος), meaning the home or hearth. Xenophon's dialogue Oeconomicus is concerned with household management and agriculture. The Greeks had no precise term to designate the processes of production and exchange and no word describing or being equivalent of market-based economy.

However as famous American historian Murray Rothbard pointed out, Xenophon outlined the important concept of general equilibrium as a dynamic tendency of the economy by stating that when there are too many coppersmiths, copper becomes cheap and the smiths go bankrupt and turn to other activities, as would happen in agriculture or any other industry. He also saw clearly that an increase in the supply of a commodity causes a fall in its price. These thoughts correspond to the collective wisdom of modern market economy, chipping away on the second theory. There are other sources arguing the power of the market mentality attained in Ancient Greece.

There is no countering the third theory - not from my side at least!

Presentación

Documento

Texto

Texto

Presentación

The Mirror, Vol. 12, No. 574

“Regarding endless land disputes almost everywhere in Cambodia under the rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen, The Guardian, a British newspaper, published an article on Sunday about the rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen and the Cambodian People’s Party, which had changed Cambodia from a dictatorship to a free market country, making the economy to develop very quickly, and building pagodas, roads, bridges, schools, and cinemas. However, the newspaper said that this free market system led to speculation in real estate properties such as buildings and land for profit; heritage is for sale, and the US dollar became their king.

“The article in The Guardian, which was quoted by Radio Free Asia for broadcasting yesterday, noted that land, owned by citizens since the 1980ies, can now be lost easily, because of the invasion by some capitalists who are close to Prime Minister Hun Sen. The Prime Minister is generally regarded as part of a 'nouveau riche' kleptocracy that siphons off foreign aid and ignores protests about human rights. It is said that Hun Sen used to care about the poor people for a long time, but it is regrettable that Hun Sen now cares only about the rising value of real estate properties and does not care to strengthen the nation, where the society suffers from an imbalance of concerns for justice for the economy.

“The Guardian of Britain continued, ‘If Mr. Hun Sen had honorably resigned from his position in 1998 [after the surrender of the Khmer Rouge], he would have receive a good name among world leaders in history.’ This newspaper said that Hun Sen brought peace to Cambodia, but he has sacrificed the poor on the altar of an economic boom. This newspaper compared Hun Sen to some leaders of Brazil and Bolivia in South America who originally came also from the poor sector of society, but he has no plan to protect the poor who suffer under the powerful

[It is interesting that this detailed rendering of the article in The Guardian does not render the reference to the Khmer Rouge who 'were backed militarily by China and diplomatically by the west'.]

“This well-known British newspaper went on to say that although Hun Sen is smart and intelligent and has political skills, Hun Sen's success was based on survival, not on a vision for the future. If Hun Sen does not change his way of ruling, poor people will seek different means to achieve justice.

“Political and economic observers in Cambodia agree with the analysis of this article published on Sunday, 17 August 2008, in The Guardian, considering it to be an analysis that is in line with the current situation in Cambodia. Actually, Prime Minister Hun Sen, the vice-president of the Cambodian People’s Party, also comes originally from a peasant class background, but he does not protect the weak farmers at all who are violated by powerful people. Obviously, farmers, who suffer from land grabbing by high-ranking officials, dishonest oknhas, wicked merchants, and military officials, come regularly to protest in front of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s house at the 'Tiger Cave' Tuol Krasaing, but there are no effective solutions coming from Hun Sen for the victimized farmers.

“Political and economic observers in Cambodia added that just some days after the fourth term elections on 27 July 2008, suddenly land disputes erupted again brutally, such as in Stung Treng, Ratanakiri, Mondolkiri, Kratie, Kompong Chhnang, Kandal, Svay Rieng, Kampot, and Battambang. These reoccurring problems have not been solved by the National Authority for the Resolution of Land Disputes, administered by Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister and Senior Minister of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, some officials concerned with social affairs assume that there might be more serious land disputes, under the soon to be formed fourth term government, than there were under the third-term government.

“ These officials said that the fourth term government will be again led by Prime Minister Hun Sen, the vice-president of the Cambodian People’s Party, but Hun Sen does not have any clear policies to solve land disputes; therefore, land disputes will really erupt in all provinces countrywide. Another point is that those who use their power and violate citizens by grabbing their land are mostly high-ranking officials, dishonest oknhas, wicked merchants, and military officials, all are from the Cambodian People’s Party, and Hun Sen does not dare to disturb them. At last, a land revolution might break out, as predicted by Hun Sen himself, because the patience of the victimized citizens is limited, if the government does not take any action to solve the problems in time.

“Economic analysts said that the fourth term government, again led by Prime Minister Hun Sen, as vice-president of the Cambodian People’s Party, might not lead to real growth of the national economy, because Hun Sen does not have economic skills and he can only borrow money from foreign countries and ask for funds from the international community, to extend the breath of his government. Moreover, Hun Sen does not have any clear policies to fight corruption; he just says so to make it sounds nice, like the US Ambassador to Cambodia, Mr. Joseph Mussomeli, had clearly criticized. Even inflation and the price of fuel and of goods are skyrocketing, which affects the daily life of citizens - but Hun Sen is incompetent to solve these problems.

“Economic analysts continued to say that economic growth in 2008 will be lower than in 2007, and economic growth in 2009 will decline further compared to 2008, because of corruption and bureaucracy in important state institutions, where such affairs are spreading stronger without any intervention. This means that the government, led by the same incompetent prime minister and state institutions controlled by the same corrupt officials, will not make the economy grow; even foreign loans will be lost because of corruption. This will make poor citizens to suffer more, because the little economic growth is only for the benefit of corrupt officials and for partisans of powerful leaders.” Moneaksekar Khmer, Vol.15, #3543, 20.8.2008

Newspapers Appearing on the Newsstand:
Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Areyathor, Vol.15, #1351, 20-21.8.2008

• [Bayon Television] Director-General Hun Mana [Prime Minister Hun Sen’s daughter] Accuses Sophon Magazine of Defamation and an Extortion Attempt for US$3,000 [from her staff member – the magazine wrote an article titled, ‘Does Sim Solika have a love triangle relation?']

Chhanteak Kaun Khmer, Vol.1, #1, 20-27.8.2008

• Samdech Krom Preah [Norodom Ranariddh] Is Eying the Position of President of the Constitutional Council
• Many Illegal Sawmills Operate in Prey Nob District [Sihanoukville]

Deum Ampil, Vol.3, #82, 20-26.8.2008

• [Kompong Cham Governor and Prime Minister Hun Sen’s older brother] Hun Neng Considers Khmer-Siamese [Thai] Border Dispute to Be a Military Exercise between a Battlefield Front and a Rear Battlefield [cooperation between troops and people]

Kampuchea Thmey, Vol.7, #1724, 20.8.2008

• [US Ambassador Joseph A.] Mussomeli: Historically, Relations between America and Cambodia Have Never Been as Good as They Are These Days

Khmer Sthapana, Vol.1, #77, 20.8.2008

• No New Agreements at the Meeting [about Preah Vihear between Cambodian and Thai foreign ministers] in Hua Hin [Thailand]
• 70% of Vegetables at the Phsar Daeum Kor Market Are Imported from a Neighboring Country [that is from Vietnam]

Moneaksekar Khmer, Vol.15, #3543, 20.8.2008

• A British Newspaper Says that If Hun Sen Does Not Change the Way of Ruling, Poor People Will Seek Different Means to Achieve Justice
• Sam Rainsy: Sam Rainsy Party Has Appropriate and Strong Evidence to Reject Election Results

Rasmei Kampuchea, Vol.16, #4672, 20.8.2008

• [Deputy Chief Observer of the European Union’s Election Observation Mission] Graham Elson: [4th Term Parliamentary Election] Was Good but It Did Not Reach International Standards

Click here to have a look at the last editorial - apprehension while waiting for the results of challenging alleged election fraud, the final official election results, and the forming of a new government


Back to topkhmer rouge

Well, in case you haven't noticed't: the US economy is in upheaval. Whether it's merely due to energy prices or an "environmental awakening" or both, the economy as we have known is changing, and (thank God!) it will never be the same again. Now, I'm reading that prices for a used Toyata Prius average $27,945. Compare that to the new Prius MSRP of $26,645.  Whoa ! Buckle up. We're all in for quite a ride.

PS: The Trabant was a cute-as-an-ugly-toy piece of crap that polluted the air like no other. But it was small and light and made of some kind of plastic/wood composite. Ironically, I think, that if we all drove Trabants, the world might be a better place and gasoline would be much cheaper !

All the bitter negotiation, the grief,
love, regret, however little we get,
life is time. Where does it happen?
On the clock, bartered, sold and bet.

Our value depreciates the way a
foot makes the carpet worth less.
A path is worn from stairs to door.
The floor groans but keeps its grip
above the basement. In the yard

every stone is a commodity. For
fun we ponder how to sell the
sea piece by piece. We play a
game: one buys, one sells. How
much for that eye's beam? To
lease those snapping brain
cells? He's a chest of drawers.
She's a floor lamp -- cheap
furniture in the discount shop.
Each tag is blank but the prices
always drop.

Some part of him is in the dirt. Other
parts, the bed frame, house and plot,
set of dishes, sold for what they could
get. Now he's met in other's thoughts,
our best and final role. The coins
adventure on, immortal body,
immortal soul.

There's a game in a glass box
outside the store. For a coin a
silver claw will try to grab an
ugly toy made by slaves. The
son wants to play. "Don't
bother," the father scoffs, "the
motor's weak. The whole thing's
a rip-off."

Thanks to an article by Audrey Young in today's NZ Herald, Adam is now able to update those comments.

Adam had assumed that the $39 million profits referred to by Clark were in respect of transaction fees on the NZ Rail sale. According to Ms Young in the Herald:-

Helen Clark revealed that Mr Key was a director of Bankers Trust, a firm that helped the sale of New Zealand Rail in 1993, and made $39 million profit that year. "Members should ask themselves the questions: who benefited from the sale of TranzRail? Mr Key and his friends."

Mr Key said later he had played no part in the deal and that the profits had been largely generated by his own trading operations section of the firm, not from mergers and acquisitions.

So the profits reviled by Ms Clark were not from Mergers & Acquisitions advice, although nothing wrong in that, but from the activities for which John Key was responsible. Ms Clark was demonstrably wrong on this count.

She revealed also her antipathy to business in general from this remark, through seeking to smear Key for doing his job at Bankers Trust and for Bankers Trust being a successful company.

Audrey Young then noted the attack re Key having owned shares via a trust in TranzRail, which had been disposed of:-

A spokesman for Helen Clark said last night that she accepted Mr Key's word on the matter but said "the wider point is that he has privatisation in his blood".

What a stupid remark. Privatisation is not a communicable disease. As far as Adam knows it is not transmitted by contact. It cannot be caught. Yet Clark and her minions and acolytes act as if it is a disease. In fact she is so OTT on this, that Adam half expected her to produce photographs of John Key found sleeping in a coffin and sucking the blood of innocent Kiwis, whilst cavorting with the handmaidens of Dracula. Nonsense, Adam knows but the shrieking harpy performance from Clark engenders these thoughts.

Many governments accept that privatisation can be beneficial.

Indeed, it is possible that more investment would be possible in NZ infrastructure and utilities were a partial privatisation model adopted.

There is nothing evil or wrong in the leader of a political party which is right of centre or indeed for that matter left of centre, accepting or believing that privatisation can be a valid option in some circumstances.

Yet this government has gone out of it's way to poison the well in the public mind with regard to privatisation, despite the fact that it was the 1984 Labour Government, in which Clark and Cullen both served, which initiated many of the privatisations and SOE formations which provided the transformation which led to the reasonably prosperous period just ended.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Clark and Cullen prefer an economy where the state holds all the power, because in recent times their approach and rhetoric has been increasingly anti -business as they seek to stoke up distrust and envy of business success and pander to that element in NZ which thinks business ( private enterprise) is a social service which exists by the tolerance of the state, rather than the critical element in society which creates the wealth from which all else flows.

Business in NZ should be very concerned about what the attacks on Key are revealing about this regime, plus the push on the ETS and the fiasco over Auckland Airport, in respect of their real attitude to business.

Cullen has said the election 'is about a contest for power', increasingly one is driven to think that it is also about whether one wants an open, free market economy or a reversion to a highly controlled, state determined one.

Woe to you who add house to house
and join field to field
till no space is left
and you live alone in the land.

Isaiah 5:8

I live on Saint Simons Island, a resort community and retirement center for the southeast. The island is speckled with large homes. I’m a great fan of architecture and I personally like large homes – the larger the canvas, the more an artist can say. Close to the beach, many of the homes express the character of their builder or owner very well – Tuscan villa, Charlestonian ante-bellum, Colonial, Caribbean bungalow.

Also, on this island, home owners are increasingly selling and demolishing their one large home to create two smaller homes, for renting or simply to increase their overall resale value. It’s pretty common, especially toward the beach, to see towering skeletons of homes where one older home used to be.

Is this what Isaiah is talking about, adding house to house and field to field? Are we like those for whom Isaiah issued this warning? Or is something else going on here?

Jeremiah, another ancient Hebrew prophet and poet, issues a warning similar in metaphor to Isaiah’s:

Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, …

He says, 'I will build myself a great palace
with spacious upper rooms.' …
Does it make you a king
to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink?...
He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me (YHWH)?...

But your eyes and your heart
are set only on dishonest gain,
on shedding innocent blood
and on oppression and extortion.

Jeremiah 22:13-17

Maybe what’s going on here is an abuse of power and wealth. Maybe what Isaiah and Jeremiah are both warning is the misuse of God’s creation to maintain a status quo – keeping the rich wealthy and the poor impoverished.

And maybe we still need to hear these warnings:

Woe to you who speculate on food prices,
artificially driving up the price of God’s abundant blessing,
till those who are starving are rioting in the streets.
Woe to you who trade oil futures,
increasing your profit margins
while the orphans and widows shiver in the cold.
Woe to you who red line your neighborhoods,
till no one can afford to live in a beautiful area of the country
and you live alone on a beach.

This article made me sick to my stomach when I read it.  This kind of greed and selfishness makes Jesus angry.

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 19:9-10

Food crisis due to greed, says development bank

By Ingrid Melander
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The global food price crisis is largely due to greed and market speculation rather than food shortages, the head of Southern Africa's development bank said on Tuesday.

"These increases in food prices are not the consequence of food shortages, it's the consequence of human greed that is putting at risk the lives of millions of men, women and children," Jay Naidoo told Reuters.

"There are companies that are making super profits on this issue," he added, blaming the rising cost of food on speculation on commodities markets and the impact of surging prices of oil.

Governments and world bodies should take concerted action to control surging food prices, he said on the sidelines of a conference on malnutrition in Brussels.

Sharp price hikes for essential food and fuel have triggered riots and protests in poor countries across the world, sparking a crisis that threatens millions of poor with hunger, especially in Africa.

Asked how the rising prices could be controlled, Naidoo said it was a very complex issue that needed the involvement of the World Food Organization, U.N. agencies and governments "to agree a consensus on how food prices...are going to be managed."

The root causes of the more than 40 percent rise in food prices in the last year are disputed, with experts quoting strong demand by Asian emerging markets, adverse climate in some producer countries and increased use of biofuels.

The Development Bank of Southern Africa finances development projects including on road, water and telecoms infrastructure, but does not work directly on agriculture, said Naidoo. It spent 3.7 billion rand in 2006/7.

Naidoo, a former South African telecommunications minister, said the food price crisis would have "devastating" effects in southern African countries already weighed down by problems.

"We already suffer the consequences of HIV/AIDS epidemic combined with malaria surge ... the food price crisis is going to exacerbate the problems that we face," he said.

At the same conference, Paulus Verschuren, Senior Director Partnership Development at Unilever, said major corporations, governments and civil society needed to work together to end the food prices increases.

"We cannot afford bringing products to markets in developing countries which are significantly more expensive than it is today," Verschuren told Reuters.

Naidoo and Verschuren are both members of the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition group, which gathers companies and international organizations.

The group, which says it has spent $40 million in projects to fight malnutrition since it was created in 2002, on Tuesday called for pledges for a new fund to fight malnutrition, with the aim of collecting $800 million.

Sometimes we were asked how long an interview would last before people would agree to participate. Human psychology being what it is, any indication of time that seemed to exceed ten minutes would result in people declining to cooperate. So we said 'about ten minutes'. Which was true if you never read anything, never ate anything and never washed your clothes. But if you did, it could run up to forty minutes easily, especially if you read a lot.

Naturally we were not the only company doing this. Our clients could choose between a number of competing companies that all tried to outdo each other in prices, response rates and accuracy. We could not afford too many people not participating. So we said 'ten minutes', kept people on the phone for twenty minutes on average and made a profit. Well, a salary at least for the ones doing the work. Us.

When several companies make it their task to phone people and ask them questions that seem hardly relevant to their lives, the number of times people are called is proportional to the number of companies needing and doing the research. The effects of that became very noticeable during the time I worked there. First, research among IT professionals suffered. There were relatively very few of them, but in IT you could make a formidable profit, so a lot of market research was done among these people. One of them once told me he was called three times a day on average for a questionnaire very much like the one I wanted to interview him with.

Naturally, response declined sharply. And then consumers followed: not as sharply as in IT, but they did. In order to counter this trend the introduction we read from our computer screens was changed. Instead of politely asking whether the consumer wanted to participate in our research, we had to simply start the questionnaire. If people didn't want to go ahead, they had to interrupt us to say so. I never used the new introduction and always gave the person I called the opportunity to decline. My response rate declined as a result, following the national trend, whereas response for the company as a whole remained steady. After a few months I believe, I resigned and looked for another job. It was made easier by the fact that I had also finished my studies.

People needed to interrupt us when they did not want to participate, and most people were too polite to do so. Our company wanted to make use of that. Abuse really, because politeness only stays in place when it's reciprocated. The short term effects were positive: profits. The long term effects weren't. I think it was during the nineties that the first articles in newspapers started to appear describing the dire straits market research companies were in. The number of people who refused to answer questions on the phone had risen to such a level that the statistical integrity and accuracy of the collected data was in real danger. In my circle of friends stories about people who would simply slam the phone without even talking became commonplace. That never happened to me in three years.

These processes develop over long periods of time. More than twenty years in my case. Even if you see the problem coming -like I did halfway through the eighties- your criticism can be easily countered with more immediate arguments about profits, clients, better service, response rates and salaries. These are all short and middle-term interests. Exercising a response-retention policy not only deals with a long-term interest, it deals with an undercurrent. One that is perpetually hidden behind short and long-term interests.

Exercising a long-term response retention-policy means you have to reciprocate the politeness of the people who volunteer to answer your questions. There's only so many calls people will be willing to answer, there's only so much intrusion they'll tolerate. In other words: there are restraints to the amount of work that can be done and hence to the amount of companies that can do that limited amount of work. That runs counter to our societal ideology, that subscribes to a market economy and competition. In order to function successfully, they need to be free from restraints as much as possible. The present decline in response and the resulting decrease in reliability of market information is a side-effect of our societal ideology that -with the passing of time- cannot be called 'side' any more. Eventually our market-centered ideology will render market research useless.

The new "sin tax" ladies and gentlemen. For all of you evil people who have the audacity(are you sick of that word yet?) to want to do something as terrible as driving to work or the store. Rep. John Dingell, D- Mich. says that the$4.00 a gallon for gas mark isn't anywhere near high enough. He wants to add another $o.50 to cut down on consumption.

Any one of you chuckle-heads pay attention to what happened in the market today? Have you been paying attention to what happened with the Cheney visit to Saudi Arabia? Saudi's said they were not going to up the production levels because the US was sitting on a SURPLUS. What does that mean? It means gas prices are where they are right now because of traders, and their worries driving the price higher and higher and higher. Today when they realized that it wasn't selling what happened, the price dropped over $10.00 a barre, do you know when the last time it did that was. January 1991, any body remember what was happening in January of 1991- say around the 15th?

So people are complaining about oil prices and the price of gas, are any of you complainers for building at least one or two more refineries in the US? I mean since we haven't built any news one in over 27 years. What about letting the US drill for some more oil? Hell it doesn't have to be in Alaska I would settle for off the coast of Florida. I don't think that's too much to ask for, besides your precious party is already letting CHINA drill there! Yes that's right China is drilling off the coast of the US thank you Democrats.

But getting back to this idiot in Michigan, Dingellberry, do you think he has a true understanding of how economies work? Has he been to the store lately, milk is over $5.00 a gallon now! Imagine how much higher it would drive up the price. What? Did he think that produce was just going to teleport itself into the grocery store? Morons like him embarrass your party. Extreme price increases may curve consumption but they also do what, they drive down growth. Our economy is based on growth(you know, what have you done for me lately?) If this clown gets his way, or if you clowns in Michigan listen to this man, you will no how our economy went from slow growth to depression in the time it takes to boil an egg.

Sometimes I wonder if you people (Democrats) ever stop to think about what happens tomorrow after you implement one of your crazy assed irresponsible schemes. Always got to be the most drastic measure imaginable and it has got to happen right this damn second! Do you ever consider the repercussions? Or do you just say we can deal with them later? With more irresponsible schemes, and we can blame it on the Republicans because our constituents are stupid.