COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, September 17, 2011

"Old Cathedral" of global affairs – built on American power – is crumbling and should not be rebuilt. - Mr. Yeo




Gordon Brown fears euro crisis worse than Lehman as 1930s beckon

Gordon Brown has warned that Europe's fast-escalating crisis is now more dangerous than the Lehman Brothers disaster three years ago, threatening to tip the West into a 1930s-style slump unless global leaders work together to take dramatic action.


2:18PM BST 16 Sep 201 TELEGRAPH





"The euro can't survive in its present form and will have to be reformed drastically," he told a mostly-Chinese audience at the World Economic Forum in Dalian.

The former Prime Minister said EMU's malaise is at root a banking crisis, not a debt crisis. "The European banks as a whole are grossly under-capitalised: they have liabilities far in excess of American banks. We have now got the inter-play with sovereign debt because we socialised the liabilities," he said.

"It has morphed into a sovereign debt crisis, and is more serious than 2008 because governments then could intervene to sort of out banks. Now both banks and governments have problems," he said.

"You cannot begin to solve this unless you realise that it is a banking problem and a growth problem, as well as being a fiscal problem. You have to take co-ordinated action in all three areas," Mr Brown said, echoing the views of the International Monetary Fund.

He added that the €440bn (£385bn) European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) bail-out fund will need "substantially more resources" to cope, with an expanded role for the IMF to shore up the whole EMU system. "People do not believe that Greece can pull through without a default," he said.

Mr Brown called for a revival of the "global growth pact" agreed at the G20's London Summit in March 2009, combining stimulus from America, Europe and Asia to create a multiplier effect that breaks the vicious cycle.


"China must be persuaded to increase consumption," he said, touching on the core issue of East-West trade imbalances that lie behind the global crisis. China's consumption has actually fallen from 48pc in the late 1990s to 36pc of GDP, reflecting a deeply distorted economy.

The suggestion met a caustic response from Singapore's former foreign minister George Yeo Yong-Boon, sitting next to him. "China is not going to consume to save the world. It will act in its own enlightened self-interest," he said. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said earlier this week that his country will shift from export-led growth to greater internal demand under its new five-year plan, but this is unlikely to be fast enough to satisfy the rest of the world. Mr Yeo said talk of global architecture is an attempt by Western countries to wriggle out of hard choices and "pass on their pain" to somebody else. The "Old Cathedral" of global affairs – built on American power – is crumbling and should not be rebuilt.

"China and India are going to grow whatever happens to the global system. The world will muddle along as it has for much of history," he said. Mr Yeo called for a bout of "creative destruction" in the West, warning of "very painful" times as American and European workers learn to compete toe-to-toe with educated Asians willing to put in longer hours for much lower pay. This may test political systems to breaking point.

"If Greece leaves the euro, it is more likely the eurozone can be saved, and it would have an illuminating effect on politics in Europe," he said, echoing a widespread view among Asia's policy elite.
Mr Brown said the momentum from the G20 accord in 2009 had been squandered, degenerating into currency squabbles and misplaced obsession with fiscal austerity. Citing Winston Churchill's aphorism, he said leaders had been "resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, and all-powerful for impotence."

"Unless there is global co-ordination, I foresee 10 years of low growth in Europe and America, with very high levels on unemployment, that will lead in the end to greater protectionism. This is exactly like the 1930s."
Mr Brown said Europe's austerity drive reflects same misguided views that prevailed during the Great Depression when Keynesian proposals were dismissed as "inflation, extravagance, and bankruptcy".

"You can impose all the fiscal contraction in the world, and yet more austerity, and that will drive the economy further into recession. Greece's economy will contract 5pc this year, and we're not seeing recovery in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland," he said.
"The Europeans can hold hundreds of meetings but if they are not prepared to face up to the problem they are dealing with, they are not going to get the right answer."

Mr Brown admitted that he was hardly a pin-up politician for stimulus and global action, having lost last year's election on such a manifesto, saying: "People preferred a more parochial solution, seeing debt as the bigger problem. But I have been proved right."

Friday, September 16, 2011

World Welterweight Championship at MGM Grand, Maywheater vs Ortiz

"I believe in my skills. I believe in my talent," Mayweather said. "This fight will not go the distance."


"It's always been me against everyone," Ortiz said. "I welcome the challenge and will rise to it, just as I have every time."


Video background and highlights of the fights by both welterweights leading to tonights match-up.

Ortiz Has Exciting Style for Mayweather Fight



LAS VEGAS September 17, 2011 (AP)


Victor Ortiz knocks people down, and he's done it every time he has stepped into the ring. He also goes down, twice in his last fight alone.

It's a pattern that can make for exciting fights. It's also a style that plays right into the hands of Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Mayweather returns to the ring for the first time in 16 months Saturday night, facing Ortiz in a fight for a piece of the welterweight title. His experience and great defense make him a big favorite, but Mayweather vows this fight will be entertaining from the opening bell.

"I'm coming straight ahead," Mayweather said. "This fight is not going the distance." ABC NEWS

______________________

SportsbookMayweatherOrtiz
5Dimes-750+525
BetUS-600+400
Bodog-625+425
SBG Global-800+500
Sportsbook.com-625+425


Mayweather (41-0, 25 KO) and Ortiz (29-2-2, 22 KO) are incredibly different fighters. Mayweather, a slick right-hander who is in many ways small for the welterweight division, dominates foes with technique and incredible boxing I.Q.
Ortiz is a strong southpaw with power in both hands who has put every one of his opponents -- win, lose, or draw -- on the canvas. The question most have is whether or not he's truly good enough to be a real threat to Floyd. In his last fight, Ortiz was involved in a life-or-death struggle (and a great fight) in a deserved win over Andre Berto, a fighter nobody is going to confuse with Mayweather any time soon. And the fight before that, Ortiz went to a draw against Lamont Peterson.
Oddsmakers say that Ortiz will be just another Mayweather opponent when the dust has settled. 

Now This Was a Surprise: Obama Installing US Missile Shield in Turkey

Turkey agrees to host U.S. radar site, a key piece of Europe missile shield

By Craig Whitlock, Published: September 15 Washington Post

The Obama administration signed accords this week with three NATO allies to host cornerstones of a missile shield over Europe, including a highly sought-after deal with Turkey that will allow the installation of a U.S. radar station close to Iran.

After nearly two years of talks with Washington, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry announced Wednesday that it would allow the U.S. military to operate a high-powered X-band radar station in Malatya province, about 400 miles west of the Iranian border. Along with similar radars deployed on U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea, the station is intended to provide early warning of missile launches from Iran.

Turkey signed the agreement despite heavy political pressure from Iran and another neighbor, Russia, which have criticized the missile shield as a stalking horse to neutralize their own defenses. Iran’s Foreign Ministry assailed Turkey’s decision, saying it would “create tension” and cause “complicated consequences.”

Turkey has sought to maintain friendly relations with Russia and Iran under its self-described “no problems with neighbors” policy. In this instance, however, the government in Ankara sided with the United States and its other NATO allies. Turkey has been a member of the military alliance since 1952.

Obama administration officials portrayed the radar accord as a coup not only for their missile defense plans but also their efforts to bolster ties with Turkey, which had soured because of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“This is probably the biggest strategic decision between the U.S. and Turkey over the past 10 to 15 years,” a senior Obama administration official said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the negotiations.

With a booming economy, Turkey has become an increasingly influential force in diplomatic and business circles in the greater Middle East. In recent years, however, Turkey has burnished ties with Iran and Syria while cooling toward Europe, prompting concern in Washington.

Turkey’s deteriorating relations with Israel posed another hurdle in the talks with Washington.

Turkish officials had insisted that the U.S. military not share data from the radar with Israel, which sees itself at much higher risk of an Iranian missile attack. Turkey’s stance raised hackles on Capitol Hill, however, where several senators urged the White House to reject such restrictions.

Another senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the signed agreement with Turkey does not bar the United States from indirectly providing radar data to Israel.

“It’s understood that data from any U.S. radars and sensors around the world may be fused with other data to maximize the effectiveness of our missile defenses worldwide,” that official said. “Nothing in any of the agreements restricts our ability to defend the state of Israel.”

Although the early-warning radar in Turkey will primarily support NATO’s missile defenses in Europe, the station will be owned and operated by the U.S. government. The U.S. military operates a similar radar station in Israel and is looking to place another near the Persian Gulf.

Administration officials said there was “no quid pro quo” as part of the Turkey radar agreement. The United States and Turkey are holding separate talks over basing U.S. drones in Turkey to guide attacks against Kurdish militants — a high priority for Ankara.

Development of a European missile shield accelerated under the George W. Bush administration. In September 2009, Obama announced plans to construct a more extensive system in Europe that will be built in phases through 2020.

Under that system, a total of 48 missile interceptors will be based in Romania and Poland, starting in 2015 and 2018, respectively. The State Department finalized agreements with those countries this week.

At the same time, the Obama administration and NATO have been talking with Russia about the possibility of cooperating on missile defense. Moscow has been historically hostile to the idea of a missile shield in Europe and the discussions have slowed recently.

“Our bilateral dialogue with Washington, and with Brussels within the NATO framework, has been increasingly stalled,” said Alexander Lukashevich, a Foreign Ministry press spokesman, according to the Interfax news agency.


Special correspondent Will Englund in Moscow contributed to this report.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Scarlett Johansson , The Self Portrait, Nude Photos or Art?


In all honesty, it is a very lovely self portrait. 




Vintage Nude in Mirror




Woman Standing in Front of Mirror




Woman Seen From the Back

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

2010 - Typical US Household Income Scarcely Different from 1989


US household income

Cutting the cake

Sep 14th 2011, 15:32 by The Economist online

The real incomes of America's richest and poorest households
financial crisis and its aftermath have taken a significant toll on American households, but many of the country's economic problems predate the crisis. New data on income and poverty released by the Census Bureau reveal a picture of sustained stagnation in incomes for most American households. From the richest to the poorest, inflation-adjusted incomes were lower in 2010 than they were a decade ago. Stagnation is a relatively new phenomenon for the rich, but not for the rest. In 2010, the typical American household earned an inflation-adjusted income of $49,445, scarcely different from that in 1989 and a fall of 2.3% since 2009. Current incomes are at roughly the level of the late 1970s for those near the bottom of the income spectrum. Of course, many of today's consumer products are of higher quality today than they were in the 1970s, and the typical household has access now to things like iPods and flatscreen televisions that didn't exist then. On the other hand, the cost of everything from housing to education has risen steadily in recent decades. From a real income perspective, the American economy has already experienced a lost decade, but for the median household the picture is one of a generation of stagnation.

Obama Wants Europeans to Pass a Banking Bill "Right Away"

President Barack Obama attacks European leaders over debt crisis


President Barack Obama has criticised European leaders for failing to tackle the debt crisis and has demanded "more effective, co-ordinated" fiscal policy.


  • Only 60% of US Federal expenditure is covered by tax revenues, with 40% borrowed.
  • Obama's just announced new, expensive make-work programmes, while at the same time cutting taxes. (The cut in revenue is guaranteed, the job creation is speculative.)
  • And this man wags a finger at Europe!


Obama can't even persuade the Californians to sort out their colossal budgetary mess.




Jews from da Hood send Obama a message.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Turkey's Erdogan is Playing a Dangerous Game- No Surprise There

Turkey attempts to rally diplomatic alliance against Israel

Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that the Jewish state's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last year had been "grounds for war".

8:36PM BST 12 Sep 2011 TELEGRAPH

Mr Erdogan arrived in Cairo last night intent on burnishing his populist credentials after casting himself as a rival to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, as Israel's critic-in-chief in the Middle East.

In what appeared to be a deliberate piece of timing designed to maximise the impact of his visit, Mr Erdogan's office yesterday released a previously unpublished transcript of a redacted interview he gave to Al Jazeera's Arabic language service last week.
In it, Mr Erdogan claimed that Turkey would have been justified in going to war after Israeli commandos shot dead nine Turkish activists during the interception of an aid convoy seeking to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza in May last year.

"The attack that took place in international waters did not comply with any international law," he said. "In fact, it was grounds for war. However, befitting Turkey's greatness, we decided to act with patience."

Mr Erdogan's comments appeared to be designed to rile Israel at one of the most strained moments in relations with the Jewish state, which until recently was a close Turkish ally.

Incensed by Israel's refusal to apologise for the raid, Mr Erdogan announced the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to Ankara earlier this month. He also downgraded diplomatic relations, suspended military ties and announced that warships would in future escort any vessels flying the Turkish flag that attempted to reach Gaza.
Although alarmed by the rapid deterioration of its relationship with one its few friends in the region, Israel has dismissed Mr Erdogan's increasingly bellicose rhetoric as sabre-rattling.

But while few believe Turkey has any wish to engage Israel, with its vastly superior military strength in a war, Mr Erdogan does seem to be intent on attempting to isolate Israel in the Middle East at a time of heightened vulnerability for the Jewish state.

Persistently rebuffed in his attempts to seek European Union membership for Turkey, Mr Erdogan has instead sought to concentrate on projecting power in the Middle East by presenting himself as a champion of the Palestinian cause, traditionally the single most emotive issue among ordinary Arabs.

The Palestinian Authority is expected to submit a controversial application for statehood at the United Nations next week, in a move that will further raise tensions across the Middle East.

Mr Erdogan's visit to Egypt, once a part of the Ottoman Empire, is the first by a Turkish leader in 15 years and comes at a time of growing popular discontent against Israel on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere.

Over the weekend, rioters angered by Israel's inadvertent killing of at least three Egyptian border guards last month, ransacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Israel was forced to evacuate its ambassador and nearly all its diplomats from the country.
But Mr Erdogan's visit is reportedly being viewed with considerable mistrust among Egypt's transitional military leadership, which has taken charge of the country after the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, the former president, in February.

Mr Erdogan had been expected last night to address crowds in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicentre of the revolution against Mr Mubarak, but his speech was mysteriously cancelled.

In a further sign that Egypt would resist Mr Erdogan's anti-Israel advances, one of the ruling generals said a state of emergency would be expanded because of the storming of the embassy.

The announcement could further incense public opinion, already outraged after three protesters were reportedly shot dead in disturbances outside the embassy and elsewhere in Cairo over the weekend.

Monday, September 12, 2011

We don’t live in an economy based on morals and fairness.


The correct moral hazard is to punish the banks who lent imprudently by making them eat their own losses.
____________________________


Sept. 12, 2011, 12:00 a.m. EDT

Massive default is best way to fix the economy

Commentary: Clearing away the debt is the only way forward


By Brett Arends, MarketWatch


NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — You want to fix this economic crisis? You want to put people back to work? You want to light a fire under the economy?

There’s a way to do it. Fast. And relatively simple.

But you’re not going to like it. You’re not going to like it at all.

Default. A national Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The fastest way to fix this mess is to see tens of millions of homeowners default on their mortgages and other debts, and millions more file for bankruptcy.

I told you that you wouldn’t like it.

I don’t like it much either. It sticks in the craw that people got to borrow all that money and won’t have to pay it back.

But you know what? The time to stop that was five or 10 years ago, when the money was being lent.

It’s gone.

And mass Chapter 11 is, by far, the least obnoxious solution to our problems.

That’s because the real cause of our economic slump isn’t too much government or too little government. It isn’t red tape, high taxes, low taxes, the growing divide between the rich and the poor, too much government debt, too little government debt, corporations, poor people, “greed,” “socialism,” China, Greece, or the legalization of gay marriage. It isn’t, in short, any of the things all the various nitwits say it is.

It’s the debt, stupid.

We’re hocked up to the eyeballs, and then some. We’re at the bottom of a lake of debt, lashed to an anchor. American households today owe $13.3 trillion. That has quadrupled in a generation. It has doubled just in the last 11 years. We owe more than any other nation, ever. And for all the yakking about how people are “repairing their balance sheets,” they’re not. From the peak, four years ago, they’ve cut their debts by a grand total of 4%.

And a lot of that was in write-offs.

More than a quarter of American mortgages are underwater. Many are deeply underwater. In states like Nevada and Florida the figures are astronomical.

The key thing to understand is that most of that money has gone to what a fund manager friend of mine calls “money heaven.” Most of these debts will never, ever be repaid in real money. Not gonna happen.

Think how corporations handle this kind of situation.

It happens all the time. Banks and bondholders find they have lent, say, $1 billion to a company whose assets and earning capacity will only repay, say, $300 million. What happens? Does the company soldier on with $1 billion in debt it can never repay? Do the stockholders send back their dividend checks? Do they sell their homes to pay off the bonds?

Not a chance. The company goes through Chapter 11. The creditors ‘fess up to their blunder, they face up to their losses, and they fix it. They write down the loans and take the equity instead. The balance sheet is cleaned up, and the company starts again.

Why not homeowners?

Most of the objections to this idea are well-meant, but misinformed.

A fund manager I asked raised the issue of “moral hazard.” Why should anyone pay their mortgage if some people were getting a pass, he asked?


The answer: For the same reason GE and Verizon kept paying the coupon on their bonds while Lehman Brothers defaulted. You want to keep your credit standing. And you want to keep your equity.

If a company defaults, the stockholders get wiped out. If a homeowner defaults, the bank takes the home. I like keeping my home, as well as my savings, and my credit rating. Most people are the same.

Some will say the financial impact would be terrible. But the banks would just be facing up to reality. And a lot of these mortgages are already trading at distressed levels.

Some will say, “why should people get away with borrowing imprudently?” The response: Why should the banks get away with lending imprudently?

There’s no point telling people not to borrow money. They always will. I have yet to see a Wall Street executive turn down free money. I have yet to see a company in an IPO say, “Don’t give us so much money!” People like money. They will take as much as they are offered.

In a free economy, the people who are supposed to ration the loans are the lenders. Banks are supposed to lend carefully and responsibly. What else are they paid for? Accepting deposits? You could hire people on minimum wage to do that.

Some will say, “it’s immoral” for borrowers to default. Alas, most of these people are being inconsistent. They are usually the first ones to defend a company when it closes down a factory and ships the jobs to China, or pays the CEO $50 million for doing a bad job, on the grounds that “this ain’t morality, pal, this is business!”

But when Main Street wants to do the same thing, they start screaming “Morality! Morality!”

We don’t live in an economy based on morals and fairness.

T Mobile doesn’t charge me what’s “fair” each month. They charge me what’s on the contract. Your employer doesn’t pay you more if you need more. He pays you your economic value. Did Dick Grasso give back his bonus? Bob Nardelli? Dick Fuld? We operate in an economy based very firmly on contracts, and nothing else. Companies, and the wealthy, live by the letter of the law.

American mortgage contracts allow for default. Half of the states in this country are “non-recourse,” which broadly speaking means you can send in the keys and walk away from a bad loan. The other half are sort of “semi-recourse.” The bank can come after you for any shortfall, but only in a limited way. Broadly speaking they can’t touch retirement accounts and basic assets. You can typically keep your car, personal effects, often things like life insurance.

Most of the people who are deeply underwater don’t have that much anyway.

And the banks knew this. When they were lending $500,000 to a bus driver with $1,000 in his checking account, they knew that their loan was only guaranteed by the value of the home.

If they didn’t know it, they should have. Their incompetence is not our problem.

It’s tempting to say, “if someone borrows money, they should repay it.” Generally speaking, I agree. I pay all my debts. But while that makes sense when applied to any individual, it doesn’t work so well when it’s applied to everyone.

We have tens of millions who cannot repay their debts. But they are all trying to. That sucks huge amounts of money out of the economy. And that means these people cannot function properly as consumers or workers. That’s the reason people aren’t coming into your restaurant. It’s the reason people aren’t taking your yoga class. It’s the reason they haven’t hired you to redo the kitchen.

And so tens or hundreds of millions of perfectly responsible business owners and employees are also suffering from this slump. That’s the reason we have a shortage of demand. That’s the reason no one is hiring.

Even worse: People who are underwater on their mortgage, but who do not want to default, cannot move to where the jobs are either. They are stuck with their home.

You want to break this logjam? Try Chapter 11 for the nation. Massive defaults. Clear the decks, clean the books.

What are the alternatives?

Government cutbacks, higher taxes, and a balanced budget? In a normal economy, fine. But in this situation, when the private sector is also slashing its spending, that could lead to absolute catastrophe. That’s what happened in the Great Depression. And our debt levels are worse than in the Great Depression.

Government borrowing? That’s the Keynesian solution. “The consumer can no longer borrow like a crazy person,” says the Keynesian, “so Uncle Sam has to do so instead.” It’s just transferring private madness to public madness.

Inflation? That’s probably the least bad alternative. But it’s just default by another name. And instead of taking money from the imprudent banks that caused the problem, it robs grandma’s savings.

Twice before, advanced economies have gone through what we are going through now — namely a massive hangover after a massive debt binge.

The first was the U.S. in the 1930s, the second was Japan in the 1990s.

The U.S. didn’t get out of it until the 1940s unleashed inflation and reduced the debt’s value in real terms.

Japan still hasn’t gotten out of it. They have deflation, while government debt has skyrocketed.

The correct moral hazard is to punish the banks who lent imprudently by making them eat their own losses.

I told you that you wouldn’t like it. I don’t either. But the alternatives are worse.

Brett Arends is a senior columnist for MarketWatch and a personal-finance columnist for the Wall Street Journal.