DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophical Questions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10327--------------------------------------------------
A myth or not?
By: James Date: February 11, 2015, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was listening to a video, the subject was banks and the G20
agreeing that if a future "bank crisis " should happen then the
banks will be able to use the depositors money to bail
themselves out since the world governments were not going to do
it any more.
The question was floated that the bank crash of 2008 could have
been deliberate since governments had not been able to bring
about a world order, but another 2008 crash would under the new
rules demand all small banks put all their finance into the
large banks, bringing the world to its knees and leaving five
major banks in full control of businesses and governments.
How much credence do the members of this forum put in such
conspiracy theories?
#Post#: 10328--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Kerry Date: February 11, 2015, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We have the ugly precedent of what happened in Cyprus in March
of 2013 when banks seized assets.
Angry Cypriots who weren’t notified that up to 9.9 percent of
their bank deposits would be seized by the newly-elected
Conservative government to help pay for bailing out the
country’s economy were prevented from withdrawing their money on
March 16 by limits set by the institutions and as ATM’s ran out
of money.
It was also reported that the accounts would be frozen
temporarily to prevent a run on the banks that could bring them
down. Cyprus agreed to a 10 billion euros ($13 billion) rescue
package from international lenders who insisted on depositors
paying part of the cost for the mistakes the banks made by
exposing themselves to large holdings of devalued Greek bonds.
The decision was unprecedented and led some analysts to
speculate that it could undermine the banking system in weaker
Eurozone countries if customers fear their savings could face a
similar tax.
Cyprus said there will be a one-time levy of 6.75 percent on
accounts up to 100,000 euros ($130,000) and 9.9 percent on
amounts over that. Earning interest will also be taxed at 20-25
percent, further depleting the customer’s bank accounts.
Cyprus’s creditors now will be able to step around the country’s
sovereignty and seize money from not just the wealthy, but the
bank accounts of pensioners, workers and smaller depositors to
pay off the bailout tab, along with increased taxes they will
have to come up with to pay for the banks mismanagement.
- See more at:
HTML http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/03/16/cypriots-frantic-as-bailout-hits-bank-accounts/#sthash.ja0WYIrT.dpuf
Russia and the EU were in conflict there just as they seem to be
in Greece now. The problem, as I see it, is that German banks
saw the Greek situation as an opportunity for them to make money
by lending money to Greece; but nothing was done to correct the
economic problems in Greece that had made them need money. How
sensible is it to lend money to someone with a proven record of
not knowing how to manage money? It also seems unwise to me to
allow Deutsche Bundesbank to be calling the shots in other
countries. I frown on international banking since it is so
often predatory by nature. It injures the people who borrow
money they can't pay back; and often the bank that lends also
suffers losses. Since the question of the sovereignty of
nations is involved, situations can be grim.
It looks to me as if no one learned a thing from the crash of
2008. Banks in the US can still lend out 20 times as much as
they have in deposits. However if governments allow banks to
do this, they may as well tell everyone to stop putting their
money in banks. I imagine some governments might misguidedly
do it and then repent at leisure; but governments with more
foresight would not.
The solution, which should seem apparent, is to chop up big
banks. Here in the US, it wasn't the small banks that got into
trouble. The small banks were far, far healthier than the big
banks. The concept of banks being too big to fail is a scam if
you ask me. I would not lose any sleep if a bank like HSBC
went belly up. Who needs banks like that, that conspire to help
rich people dodge taxes?
The other step that must be taken is to make banks liable for
the risks they take. The risks they take now are not usually
made by lending to small businesses. Banks used to be useful by
encouraging small businesses. Now they do other things. It
also used to be that banks could not lend out twenty times what
they had in deposits; and they made their profits by lending
money. They made sure the loans they made were wise; and they
valued every deposit. Today some banks charge customers for
making deposits!
The legal theory behind corporations is that they are treated
like persons under the law. I say start treating them like
persons then. Impose the "death penalty" in some cases by
dissolving them. The only reason they exist in the first
place, by the theory behind them, is that they serve the public
interest. If they act like predators, they should not exist.
Now some people will say it's not right to punish the
shareholders of big corporations by dissolving them. I ask why
not? Is it fair for those people to receive dividends the banks
made by predatory practices? And who forced anyone to buy
shares in bank stocks? Buying any stock is a risk or should
be. Yes, I know there are pension funds and other funds that
invest in such stocks; but perhaps the fund managers would be
smarter if they didn't think governments were always going to
bail out the big banks.
It may be a rocky road ahead; and some people may push for the
absorbing of healthier small banks by the larger ones as a way
of rescuing the big ones; but in the end, I do not see
international banks getting bailed out again and again. I see
the smaller banks surviving in the end.
The crisis may be worse in Russia than anywhere else. As the
rouble weakens, Putin continues to increase military spending.
That is not going to cure Russia's economic problems; but if
his anti-Western propaganda continues to convince Russia that
the West is out to bring Russia to its knees, I imagine open
conflict may become more possible. The EU countries, in
general, have let their militaries grow weak.
I also cannot figure out why Saudi Arabia continues to pump out
so much oil, driving down the price. The idea that it's to
discourage exploration for oil and gas in the US doesn't seem
quite right, not when you consider that most crude oil cannot by
law be exported from the US. We're sitting on oil that we can't
export and that drives down the price of oil here more than it
does globally. The growing strength of the US dollar is also
making oil cheaper here more than it is in other countries.
Why is Saudi Arabia doing it?
It could be aimed at Russia or terrorists. The sharp decline in
energy prices has surely hit Russia hard; and it has also
affected the prices terrorists could get by selling the oil they
could get their hands on.
Russia is going paranoid, that's for sure; and they're
attempting to peel Greece away from the EU. In Cyprus, Russia
made an offer to help them out of their crisis; but who knows if
Russia could make an offer now to Greece? They could make it,
even if they couldn't honor it. Cyprus declined their offer and
went with seizing assets instead; but who knows how it will go
in Greece? And of course the Ukraine continues to be a problem.
The whole situation looks unstable to me with both Russia and
the EU being financially troubled -- and fighting for influence.
As if it would be to the benefit of them to be able to lend
more money to Greece? It's almost like two bankrupt people
arguing over who was going to lend money to another bankrupt
person.
I think war is a real danger.
#Post#: 10332--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Brad Date: February 11, 2015, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What is your logic behind small banks surviving? Bigger fish
feed on smaller fish. But I am interested in your logic in
your assumption.
#Post#: 10334--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Kerry Date: February 12, 2015, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Most organizations have problems when they grow. A small
mom-and-pop company can be run effectively by one or two people
who know everything and make all the decisions. Since it's
their business, they also tend to make better decisions than
hired employees would.
When a business grows truly large, it faces the same problems
government bureaucracies face. The chain of command is not
always known if it exists; and the duties of each person is
often blurry. Oversight is often difficult even if someone is
given the task since one person cannot monitor everyone.
Corruption is more apt to infect companies the larger they get;
and if one or two bad apples are allowed to get away with
something, it tempts others to do it too. People go to work to
collect their pay checks and to skim whatever they can.
Today too the emphasis is not on building a solid stable
business. The emphasis is on growth too much. No matter how
big you are, your stockholders demand growth. Stock prices
reflect this. Companies which don't make a profit and which
don't pay dividends can have exceedingly high prices.
Companies are apt to go into ventures they know nothing about.
You can see how some companies who were successful at one thing
get large and unmanageable; and they also tend to get managed by
stale hacks who tow conventional wisdom . . . even if it's not
wise. Creativity is not valued that much. I am constantly
taken aback by how how some companies go buy littler innovative
companies because that tells me their attitude is they don't
need to innovate themselves or even think -- they can just go
buy whatever they need or want. They often pay insanely high
prices too.
I can also remember when the President of a company ran it.
Corporations got so broken, they began to add new offices. Now
we have CEO's. What does that tell me? That the Presidents
were not doing their jobs. The boards who elected them were
choosing the wrong people; and instead of addressing the real
problem, they merely added a new level of bureaucracy. The way
CEO's are paid also encourages bad business practices. The
reasoning goes that the best people are worth millions a year,
and you got to pay them in order to get the best; and they must
also agree to the Golden Parachute provisions. So they sign
contracts and then agree to pay bonuses for growth or profits.
Sure enough, the CEO can do it for a year or two. He does
things to make sure he gets his bonus, even if it's destructive
for the company in the long term. He collects a year or two of
bonuses and then gets the boot along with his Golden Parachute
settlement for being fired.
While I'm not advocating a military style of management, the
military model with a clearly defined hierarchy is probably the
best model for a really large company.
I suppose small banks fail just the way family owned restaurants
often do; and when they do, more small banks spring up just as
there always seems to be people who want to start restaurants.
When a big bank fails, there's no way to replace it effectively
with another big bank.
Large corporations also tend to get blamed by members of
Congress when things go wrong. Never mind if Congress did a
horrible job of oversight. Never mind if Congress knew things
were going poorly or made bad laws. If you ever watch
Congressional hearings on C-SPAN, you can sometimes see how the
do-nothing politicians are eager to point the fingers of blame
at the businesses. Still in 2008 Congress and the President
managed to convince most people that the several companies were
"too big to fail." Thus they passed the bail out plans.
The Tea Party came about over anger at the bailout of big
companies. Can you imagine the level of anger if we had
another collapse in less than a decade? Could Congress
reasonably expect to be believed if they said more bailouts
were again necessary? I doubt that. I think Congress would be
willing to put corporate heads on the chopping block or face
voter anger greater than they did with the Tea Party. There is
already a growing resentment about how the rich are getting
richer and richer and richer. You can push the poor only so
far; and when they feel they've nothing left to lose, you see
revolts like the French Revolution where the masses enjoy
punishing the rich and privileged.
#Post#: 10335--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Brad Date: February 12, 2015, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you may well be right!!
#Post#: 10336--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Kerry Date: February 12, 2015, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^ Let me tell you about Verizon who provides my phone and
internet.
They bugged and bugged me to go paperless to save them money
sending bills. While they were doing that, they kept sending
me ads telling me I was a "heavy" internet user and asking me if
I wanted faster service. From what I could see, my modem never
approached the speed I was supposed to be receiving; and I
didn't know if maybe my processor was too slow to handle faster
speeds, but at any rate I didn't see any reason to pay for
faster service. They had told me however that they were spying
on me by monitoring my usage. Why if it's unlimited?
Then I started having trouble with how slow You Tube videos
loaded. I commented on that here, wondering what it might be.
I still have trouble at times; but now You Tube gives me a
message telling me why. It seems as if Verizon is deliberately
slowing my connection down. In other words, their service is
getting worse not better; and they intend to keep that way
unless I pay them more money.
They finally gave up wasting money on the ads; but just this
week I got an ad from another company that says I could get
internet, phone AND cable TV for almost exactly what I"m paying
now. It might be a few dollars more. If I watched TV, I'd
definitely switch. I don't think the internet connection could
be any worse.
Add to that vexation the fact that I never could get the email
at Verizon to work. Nor could I get caller ID without
voicemail too. I hate voicemail. I detest it. It's clumsy.
I prefer to use an answering machine. But I had to choose --
take the whole package or do without them all. My phone is
upstairs, so if I'm downstairs cooking or doing something else
and the phone rings, I have to dash up the stairs and sometimes
the phone has already stopped ringing and gone to voicemail
because I didn't answer it fast enough. Everything is set up
for their benefit. They don't want phones ringing for ten or
twenty times because that is tying up their circuits. Well,
isn't that too bad if their circuits get tied up for a few more
seconds?
And the caller ID is becoming somewhat worthless since scammers
can get phone numbers and then spoof calls making fake numbers
show up on caller ID. I guess that's not all Verizon but it's
certainly the companies that operate land lines being willing to
give anyone a number and not caring if it's used for illegal
purposes.
Verizon is a company just waiting to die if you ask me.
Big versus little is fascinating when it comes to newspapers.
The big newspapers are losing circulation and laying off staff a
lot more than smaller papers. As circulation goes down, off
course revenues from ads goes down; and papers have always made
more money from ads than from subscriptions. As they lay off
more reporters and photographers, I think their coverage is
suffering, inclining more people not to continue to subscribe.
The local paper here keeps getting smaller and yet seems to
continue to rise in price. Sometimes I say it's only the old
people checking out the obituaries who continue buying papers.
The local paper also has switched to using phone services in
other states to handle customer service. The people who answer
the phones do not know what they're doing, and they don't really
care. It used to be that the paper had its own people answering
the phones. Now if you call, you get put on hold for a long
time; and if you stay on hold long enough, you get someone who
isn't really equipped to handle things.
Of course those horrible automatic answering systems that put
people on hold interminably seem to be everywhere today. Back
to Verizon again. I had a problem a while ago with my modem;
but I didn't know that at the time. All I needed to do was
turn it off and then back on to reboot it. All I knew was I
had no connection. So I called the number in a phone book I
had. Wrong number. Maybe I was using an old phone book? So
I dialed the number I was given; and the computerized voice
asked me to punch in all this data. Of course, that was a waste
of time but I had to go through all that in order to qualify to
talk to a real person. I got put on hold of course; and
finally a person came on the line. He also asked my phone
number -- then transferred me again to another person who also
asked for my number. How clumsy. I would think their
computer system would have been able to track things so the
people could see all the information I had already typed in.
I can't recall what company it was that said if you call them, a
real person will answer the phone. It was a business I don't
need. Of course I once subscribed to a long-distance phone
company service that made the same promise -- and they lied.
They had real people for a while and then betrayed my trust.
Betrayal of trust is always an issue, I think. Today we see
companies starting up and giving people a service they want.
The venture capitalists that fund them expect them to lose money
for years. Then when they get enough customers, they start
playing with things in order to make money; and they do things
which antagonize people. They seem to think they're so big they
can get away with anything.
Google has already made some people so angry that they're
tipping over their cars.
HTML http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_25512434/business-special-reports
They have also annoyed people by setting up their own elite bus
service. From the Guardian
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/25/google-bus-protest-swells-to-revolt-san-francisco:
Google's corporate mantra may be to do no evil, but to a
determined band of activists in San Francisco the company could
just be the devil incarnate.
Corporate buses that Google and other tech companies lay on to
ferry their workers from the city to Silicon Valley, 30 or 40
miles to the south, are being targeted by an increasingly
assertive guerrilla campaign of disruption. Over the last two
months, a groundswell of discontent over the privatisation of
the Bay Area's transport system has erupted into open revolt.
Well organised protesters have blocked buses, unfurled banners
and distributed flyers to tech commuters who have seemed either
nonplussed, embarrassed or downright terrified. And this could
be just the beginning.
"We're in the planning process for the next protest," one of the
organisers, Erin McElroy, told the Observer. "We're trying to
stay creative with each one, not just repeat over and over."
Just before Christmas, a window was smashed on a Google bus in
Oakland, across the San Francisco Bay. Last week, protesters
doorstepped a Google engineer who they claimed was involved in
working with the government to develop eavesdropping techniques
and "war robots" for the military. "Anthony Levandowski is
building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control and
automation," they wrote on flyers left near his house. "He is
also your neighbour."
Corporate security guards have started to make a discreet
appearance as the protests escalate. The core grievance is one
keenly felt by almost everyone in San Francisco: the way the
tech sector has pushed up housing prices in the city and made it
all but unaffordable for anyone without a six-figure salary.
Almost no San Francisco police officers live in the city any
more, and neither do most restaurant workers or healthcare
workers. The funky, family-owned shops that once defined the
city are closing because owners cannot afford the business rent,
never mind the rent on their housing.
People wearing the new-fangled Google Glass have also been
attacked. Google people seem unaware of how other people view
these things. I wouldn't let anyone wearing Google Glass in
my house. Not that I have anything to hide -- I also don't have
anything I see the need for them to spy on.
HTML http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/anti-glass-attack-in-san-francisco-highlights-tension-over-wearables/2014/02/26/b3f21e44-9eeb-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html
And I must say every time they update Google maps, allegedly
making it better, I find it worse and harder to use. G-mail is
now so full of bells and whistles, I have no idea what half the
features are for and don't care. All I want is a simple email
service. After Google took over You Tube, the search function
there is so poor I often have to go to Google or Bing to search
"videos" for what I want.
#Post#: 10338--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Brad Date: February 12, 2015, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I had a lot of problems with Verizon as well. To me it just
seemed like incompetence in a major way, like getting rid of
experienced people who valued quality and hiring yes men who
talked the talk but couldnt walk the walk. It was at least a
half dozen people who PROMISED me they would fix the problems
they created, even told me on the phone it was already taken
care of as if they had just fixed it, but still the same
problem, the same bills for services I didnt have. I had to
get rid of them completely and to accept over $300 in false
charges and pay them or be sued over it, and to have my credit
ruined. And they would have won no doubt, my word against
thiers.
#Post#: 10339--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Kerry Date: February 13, 2015, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They probably laid off the older people. Actually now they're
going by the name Cumberlink here. First it was United
Telephone, then Sprint, then Verizon, and now Cumberlink. My
sister got the ax during one of those reorganizations.
It's odd why big companies have way too many people working for
them and don't address it by stop hiring. They could let the
number of employees go down gradually. But they keep everyone
on until someone says, "We have too many people," and then they
have a massive layoff.
It sounds to me as if maybe you were the victim of that gimmick
where a company tells telemarketers they will get a bonus for
everyone they sign up for extra services. The employee
sometimes doesn't even call the customer, just pretends he did
and says sign this fellow up. They then get a bonus for it.
The local newspaper used to have people call ex-customers trying
to get them to re-subscribe; and they got paid a few dollars per
customer who said yes. They signed up people who weren't
interested. The people would call up and complain; the paper
may have gotten stopped -- but the employee got to keep the
bonus.
Some new guy probably showed up, hired a lot of telemarketers --
and I bet at first it looked as if he was really getting things
done. "Look at how many customers signed up for more services!"
The new guy may have collected a big bonus himself for
getting so much new business. So you got signed up, and when
you complained, the customer service people probably did do
their job right -- but your request to have the service stopped
got tossed in the trash by someone. If too many of the bogus
new services got canceled, the guy at the top might not have
gotten his bonus.
I just checked their stock at CNN. Analysts are recommending
buy. Of course, the analysts also often act like lemmings.
The long term prospects don't look that good to me. They
don't seem willing to invest money in improving their networks.
Their solution is to cut back on service by slowing some people
down.
The price of their stock may depend on the politics involved.
I don't understand all the ins and outs of the net neutrality
debate; but it's very politicized. I tend to be suspicious of
anything Verizon has to say about it. i think Verizon wants to
hold other companies hostage -- they want paid by You Tube,
Netflix and so on if those sites want their data to have top
speed. I could be wrong; but it looks like extortion to me.
Right now, it looks as if the Republicans are siding with
Verizon. I wonder how much money Verizon makes in political
contributions.
#Post#: 10340--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Brad Date: February 13, 2015, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Republicans certainly arent above getting thier palm's greased
to promote whatever business (regardless of the situation) is
paying them to stay on thier side of issues.
#Post#: 10341--------------------------------------------------
Re: A myth or not?
By: Kerry Date: February 13, 2015, 6:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I checked it out. While Verizon gives money to both parties,
most of it greases the palms of Republicans.
HTML http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000079&cycle=2014
*****************************************************