Bank Bonuses- Goldman Sachs

I was never in support of the last bank bail out. i argued that true competitive markets demand that inefficient members, be shown the door. I reasoned that propping out failing institutions, without demanding a fundamental change in the way business was done, and or effecting structural changes in the management of these institutions would only amount to throwing good money after bad money.
Now that i read in the papers and hear the news on TV, about the record amount set to be paid out by the banks,( just recently bailed out), i shudder. What i don't want to say is "I told them so".

These guys on Wall Street actually feel good about gambling with the tax payers monies. Take the case of Goldman Sachs, wow, those guys just got free lunch. They Fed. basically paid Goldman Sachs for doing NOTHING! Incredulous for the world biggest economy. No wonder the "recovery" is jobless. Since when has a country's growth calculated by the profits earned by a few too big to fail banks?
Quick question- did Goldman Sachs just sacked the American people?

It is a sad day when, you hear our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle duck they question of culpability of treasury secretary , the chairman of reserve bank and of the the fed., in the on-going saga. How do you thrown $trillions to institutions without asking for nothing in return?

Someone must be listening.

Banks and bonuses Making hay- The Economist 10/15/09

Here is my response to the article as presented above.
It an utter shame how these banks and their "true owners", the employees and executives carry on.
One only need to think about the effect on merchantability. The credit squeeze is bad for business, while the tax payers groan under huge mortgage loans, that these banks have refused to refinance or modify, the so called good staff return huge losses but take home mountains of cash.

There is no justification for business as usual. The holders of ordinary shares are too many too lose, too diverse to organized at a manageable level to make an impact. Attempting to arrange a united from would be akin to asking the Republicans to vote en-mass for health care over haul. That is not just going to happen.

Economist, management analysts and other thinkers would have to come up with a better approach in reigning in greedy corporate behaviors.
I attempted to shed light on some of these issues in my new book Obama first African American president, it is available online on amazon.com

A battery made from cellulose- The Economist

This indeed is a celebrated feat, we now have institutions and individuals turning effectively to naturally occurring substance, with little or no pollution effects to get energy.
Small steps but by no means minor, it is really a considerable leap/ peek into the future of powering stuff.

I commend the efforts that lead to this. My website www.truecomfortzone.com is one setup that celebrates this types of new technologies.

The Financial reform

As I write, the US senate is about to complete the first draft of it's version of the much awaited and much promised financial reform by the Obama administration.
Not long ago, approximately one year now, when the Wall Street was set ablaze, by the greedy bankers and it's accomplices. this fire and its' consequences were brought on by greed, near absence of regulations, predatory lending and huge unmitigated risk taking by the financial institutions. The entire country was shaken by the events as it unfolded, politicians all screamed, everyone of them pointed accusing fingers at the other. The republicans, fingered Obama and his party for demanding the sort of regulations that according to them" would stifle competition and slow growth", the democrats countered, that it was the sort of loose or absence of common sense regulations that got Americans were they found themselves. Eventually, change was promised.

This bill, the way it stands does not amount to regulations, but a deal worked out by the same industry that legislators are supposed to regulate. It does not prevent economic and financial mismanagement, it does not reduce the chances of "too big to fail", it puts the tax payers money and effort at risk once again. It is a bill of exclusions rather than inclusions.

In my published book Barack Obama First African American President( available in a few days online-Amazon.com), I argued that the effects of lobby would make true change very difficult to attain.

Mobile Money

This article by the Economist Telecoms: The Power of mobile money appeared Sept. 24th 2009. I wrote in response:
The relative ease of mobile banking as offered by the Monitise approach, appears to resolved the issue of accessibility by the relatively "non-mobile" rural dwellers of Africa.
It is by no means a threat to banks, it should be developed to annex business opportunities, devoid of the usurious bank interests.
Some have written that safety may be a concern, i don't think it should be the overriding challenge to its' effectiveness.
Rather ways to further safeguard the process should be encouraged.
In what other ways can the poor and under serviced be serviced by the mobile phones? I guess the innovators are thinking.

The Economist wrote: The IMF on economic recovery Snail's pace

Due to the nature of large economies, and the inability of economists to "predict" consequences with any reasonable degree of accuracy, it is OK to say we get there when we get there.

When the largest banks and financial institutions, still remain "too big to fail", the culture of gaming the system will not change. Many more not so big banks would aspire to take on all they can, just to earn the status of too big to fail, only for the cycle to repeat itself. I dare say, in not too distant a future.

Greed, interest taking, and avarice which pervaded the system, including the loose control and oversight by regulating body, will very likely remain. Laws crafted by the different legislative houses, will have too many loop holes in them for exploitation by these financial executives.
Only God knows the future, I rest my case.

All the noise about Serena- "you Lie"

She shouted and mouthed her strong feelings about a situation. What was her offense? I ask. Is it that she is not allowed to express her feelings to an authority? Or is she being held to a higher level off behavioral response, than the rest of US legislators ?
The other night at the capitol hill, one of the less mannered so called Senator, shouted obscenity at the president and got hi-5 from his party stalwarts. This guy is from South Carolina, a self confessed racist, having a place in the exalted office of the Senate of US. A disgrace to the decorum expected from a civilized populace, yet this guy goes unrestrained, unpunished or censored.

Compare that with what has been the web frenzy about Serena's outburst, about a real "lie". She has the legitimate right to demand fairness, she denied a point, a chance to assert her presence. She complained, loud and probably offensive to some, but with a phrase normally used freely by most Americans. She gets censored, analyzed, called out and then fined. Hmmmmmmm, this court must be of a higher plane than the US Senate, or how else does Serena gets the short end of the stick, if the silly guy who shouted "you Lie", is left free unrestrained?

I hope the voters know the truth about those they vote into exalted positions, this Joe Wilson guy is not deserving of a highly placed position, period.