Herd mentality

 

Why we are not suppose to discuss compensation

 

Democracy - but is it?

The Century of Self is truly a mind *@#!. 

First, it tells of a man whose understanding of human nature is so deep, when applied by a kin has resulted in democracy as it is today. He who believed that the mass mind is driven by unconscious irrational instinctive forces.

Democracy is but an illusion of freedom as we need to believe we are free. But yet chained, by our own subconscious minds. In reality, imprisoned by our own desires created by those who sold the idea of democracy. The subconscious desire to belong.

Then another man broke the people free of this conformist society and encouraged the expression of self. But this new individualistic society somehow became imprisoned again... this time, by the desire to be different!

As man evolve, so does the mechanism to commercialize the evolution. And this was necessary to maintain this illusion of freedom. By stimulating people's inner desires or fears and then satiating them with consumer products, a new way to manage the irrational force of the masses is born. To enable the maintenance of democracy - to enable the maintenance of the relations of power that govern the world - by stimulating the irrational self so leadership can go on doing what it wants to do. 

Thus the continual imprisonment by man's own desire. 

Man must be discontent to survive. That is the only way to keep man within limits.

to crypto or not to crypto?

In my mind, I am able to understand why people would search for an alternative to money. And i understand crypto currency's value is different from it's secondary value in the market where it is traded. It's value should depend on its durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply and acceptability. So meaning its value really depends on if its supply is truly limited and if it has the ability to be accepted by the merchants out there. 

The current financial sector that has engineered the current global inflation situation we are in would likely have the money to ensure that their crypto currency would be accepted widely. However, i think i would like to support a crypto currency that is not by a bank or a particular country. Having said that, how do i know who is truly behind the currency i would like support? 

hmmm.....

10 Nov 2022 - correction, there is no secondary value for bitcoin. It's value fluctuates at the moment as it finds its equilibrium. Partly because there are many skeptics out there, partly because there are many powerful people who do not want bitcoin to succeed, partly because many people are buying and selling bitcoin without knowing much about it, partly because the institutions that were attempting to discredit it is now jumping into the bandwagon and causing the fluctuation, partly because its acceptance is growing, partly because the infrastructure that support it is growing, partly because the community that wants to see it work is growing... 

Different perspectives

After watching numerous youtubes about the 2008 financial meltdown, in a bit to understand why i am paying MYR45 for cooking oil today, when just about a year back, it was a high of MYR32 and when on a sale, I can get it for a low of MYR21.

So, we now understand that it is an issue of politicians and the ability to create credit or the ability to create a "product" from thin air. Industries that are able to generate transactions from thin air. Mainly financial industries. And all would be due to greed. The ability to generate credit is how banks steal from the hardworking, poor and middle class and transfer the wealth to the very rich and to themselves.

And banks have done this over and over again - creating financial disasters to feed their own greed. Knowing that because they are "too big to fail", that governments would jump in and save them with taxpayer's money. And they get away with all the money that they have stolen. Then when the people have gotten accustomed to the fact that they have to deal with the injustice, the bankers come out again and push the politicians for further deregulation of the financial markets. Rinse and repeat. 

Documentaries on the 2008 disaster did give a different perspective. It tells of how the in the middle of the disasters, there are regulators who truly believe in market forces or open markets. The regulators who believe in deregulation and moral hazard. Regulators who did not want to bail the banks out because they believe the market rewards and punishes. Who in the end, have no choice but to bail the banks out for the economy and good of the country. Regulators who believe that if they allow the financial system to fail, that other countries would lose confidence in the country and that would result in complete collapse of the country's economy. So, the public should understand. 

Yes, as the disaster was unfolding, you had to do what you had to do. You had to give the public's money to the banks to stabilize the situation. But why were there no conditions to the bail out? How the bail out money should be used? New rules in place to prevent this from happening again? Perhaps it was too much to handle. Banks were going bankrupt over the weekends. 

But now that the situation has been managed, and why aren't the culprits punished? Or at least controlled? You can imagine why occupy wall street happened. You worked hard to maintain a normal life, the money in your bank loses it's value because the banks created more money. The retirement money in the hedge funds got stolen because the banks were selling derivatives to enrich themselves. Taking a percentage of that savings every quarter. And finally, when the bubble the banks created explodes, the government have to take taxpayers' money to save the bank. 

It is difficult to not be angry when you are trading time for money, not getting to spend that time with your loved ones, and yet money it losing value and you are being robbed every single day. From the money you have in the bank, and the money the government insist you save and then the money you passed to the government to create a thriving living environment. Instead the money in the bank loses value, a percentage of the money in the hedge funds get stolen (especially if the hedge funds don't understand the investments they are making) and the taxpayer's money goes into the banker's pockets to save them and indirectly save the people from the disaster the banker's created. 

I must say kudos to the people who created the documentaries - documenting this disaster in a simple way so the public may understand, the regulators would remember. Perhaps prevent the next disaster? No, history always repeats itself. After all that happened, it is clear that the ignorant is punished. So, whoever the perpetrators are, however useless the regulators are, in the end, if you are ignorant, you are punished. 

With the advancement in technology, there will be innovation. With these changes, there will be new ways of doing things, new products - created to fulfill a need. Understand those changes, those innovations and how it works. Because one arsehole is going to figure out how to make money from it. This arsehole is going to convince another person who don't necessary understand it to do the same. Thanks to social media, alot of people are going to be very quickly convinced that it is the best new way to make money. Jumping into it even if they don't understand it, as they would not want to miss the boat. This creates a bubble. Especially if whatever they are doing or selling does not really create any value. 

Knowing all this is frustrating. There is no real resolution. Unless there is a medium that is durable, portable or transferable, divisible, uniform, acceptable and limited in supply (which money is not). Crypto currency perhaps? It is likely that the concept came about due to this need. But the banks and politicians are jumping on board. Will the people understand what is going on? Or will they allow themselves to be robbed once more? Will the effort to take away the very elements that have gotten the people into this mess be successful? Or will money prevail? The banks have the money and politics to take this idea and bring it back into their fold. What will their claims be? That banks are credible...? Really?

   

Financial nuclear meltdown

In 2008, a financial meltdown orchestrated by the greedy bankers at wall street was of epic proportions. Due to the fact that the political party in 2008 (bush's administration - to be fair, the last of the reforms put in place from the era of the Great Depression was lifted during clinton's time) had let this bunch of greedy herd of hyenas out to hunt for years in the cover of darkness - zero transparency - the disaster that they have concocted was beyond what anybody could have imagined. 

Due to the interconnected of the financial system of the world and the dependence on US Dollar, the world had to pay for the greed, lack of foresight and irresponsibility of these bankers (and is still paying). 

After the meltdown, what these bankers got, was a slap on the wrist and here is more money - go make yourselves look presentable, so the world would still have confidence in the US. No changes in law, no limit on bankers' compensation, no change in how things are run in wall street. Seriously? Obvious step one would be to reduce dependence on the US dollar. I guess this has already happened as the US citizens are now paying more and more for the money stolen by the bankers at wall street as the world work towards reducing dependence on the main US banks as they have displayed their inability to manage their own greed. The banks appeared to have recovered even though the US economy has not. That may be because the world is very interconnected. As the world find ways to reduce dependence, and that may be why more and more services are done via other than traditional banks/ investment banks, the US citizen would be paying more and more of the bonuses that was taken by the bankers all those years prior.  

Lesson to self would be always always be on the look out for wolves in sheep's skin. Understand the "investments" that you are making. Find out how to store your wealth. Obviously money is not the best option. Find ways to offer services that were previously dominated by the banks. Banks are primed for a takedown.  

Know that wall street has not changed. Having gotten off scot-free from the meltdown, they have returned, more greedy that before. Do we have to go back to bartering? Do we go into cypto-currency? Which of these crypto-currencies are initiated by the same wall street people? How do we reduce dependence on US dollars? Which other countries currency can we rely on? Which government is not at the mercy of the financial sector of the country? Which government has shown the world that it is governing the country in a responsible manner with the foresight of a true leader? Which country has mechanisms in place to prevent political parties from being in power for too long a period of time? Afterall didn't someone say that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Which country has policies in place to ensure successful succession - to ensure a country continue to thrive even with the necessary change of leadership? Which instrument does not allow the indiscriminate printing of money (unlimited provision of credit) - which is essentially how banks steal from their customers? How do we ensure that each entity giving out loans would have to bear the consequences if the people default? 

With the new technology enabled by the internet, what are the new instruments that are not well understood and looks to be a potential issue? Which of these instruments can be created from thin air with no limit or judgement? Which of these instruments would be able to eventually represent the value of everything productive in the world? 

People who believed in the free economy, that the market rewards and punishes, would have seen that it is true. The market rewards those creating the market, those in the know and punishes those who are powerless and ignorant within the market. Greed has been there, since the beginning of time. There is no way people will behave if there are no rules. That is the reason history repeats itself.

It is like telling your kids, they can go to bed whenever they feel like it. Will they go to bed at 9pm? Will they wake up at 8am? Will they have any discipline? Will they achieve anything of significance? Will they come to you when they are 21 years old for money? Will they spend the money on necessity or will it be spent on whatever fancies them? When they finally crash and burn, will they tell you that they are a loser because you did not discipline them? Well... that is wall street for you.

Credit: Money, Power and Wall Street 

epiphany

we have all heard that we need to let people be. we cannot control everything. we create our world. 

guess what? all true.

as i mulled over why this person would allow herself to be emotionally manipulated... expecting a leopard to change his spots. why this man is such a small person, insecure and giant arse-wipe. why this person who can be so loving is such a drama queen and manipulator.... and so on and so forth.

suddenly. why am i allowing myself to be sucked into this? 

because i have been spending quite a bit of time on quora, understanding my mbti personality. i know why. i cannot stand injustice. and this caused me to be inclined to want to right the injustice. which in turn create my world. always fighting somebody who is an arse-wipe because a passive aggressive person is unable to get out of her cycle. 

and there is a solution!

create the world. allow people to be what they want to be. forget control. just create what i want. just be what i want. allow everything else. ha! surrender. i got the sequence wrong. 

Not helping ourselves

watched another documentary and realized that we are sometimes the ones who got ourselves into position to be screwed over. by not knowing who are the right leaders to vote for. a politician tried to save a state from financial crisis. passing a law that were not popular among the bankers. in the next election, the bankers funded his rival, got him unseated and the law was repealed shortly after coming into effect. 

so somebody tried to save you. but because you did not realize you needed saving, someone else who stands to benefit from a change in leaders conned you into voting for their puppet candidate. and the poor dude who tried to save you actually lost his seat. 

that may be a good reason why most people save themselves.

Credit: Money, Power and Wall Street, Part 1

Why we search for alternatives to banks and money

Banks claim to create wealth. But do they really? They manage money - which is the medium we think store wealth. But money lose value all the time. Meaning the people keeping money are robbed all the time without realizing it! After watching numerous documentaries and reading loads of stuff, i think banks do not create wealth. They redistribute wealth. Mostly to themselves and to the people keeping them out of trouble. And screwing their customers. 

Came across this thing called credit default swaps, explained in numerous documentaries. It comes across as a pretty screwed up tool for the banks. 

Explaining it simply, banks take money and help you keep it physically safe (it does not mean the value of the piece of paper stays unchanged - it just means you are likely to have that piece of paper when you wish to withdraw it). And since it is something of value, they pay you a tiny interest for it. Then they take the money that they have and they give out loans. They are able to give out loans amounting to more money than what the banks' customers have deposited with the bank. And they charge the lenders an interest (which of course, is a higher percentage than what is paid to the depositors). 

I have yet to understand why they are able to give out more than what the depositors have placed with them. But to me, that is what i understand to be printing money. However, it is very different from creation of wealth. It does however, sound like re-distribution of wealth. Imagine if you are on a plot of land that has 5 farms. 4 farms are established and healthy. So you have plenty of vegetables, chickens, cows, etc. And those 4 hardworking farmers store their money with mister banker. Mister scammy came along and said, i have not farm before and i do not have many assets, but i would like to borrow some money, buy farm 5 and plant dragon fruits for sale. Mister banker want to sell the loan because if he sells this loan, he will get a huge bonus from the bank. So he say, sure mister scammy, take the money. And he gives out more money than the total money saved by the established 4 farmers in the bank. So, now all the money in the system represents the value of everything on that plot of land. Effectively distributing the 4 farmers' wealth to mister banker (bonus) and mister scammy (loan which might go bad). There is more money in the system, but essentially, it is worth less. At least until and if mr scammy manage to establish a healthy, profitable farm. 

Then mister banker got creative. He wants more bonus. And he wants to give out more loans. So, he need more money to come into the bank. And he knows mister scammy might not be able to repay his loan. So, he also need to get rid of the risk associated with the loan that he has given out on behalf of the bank. One fine day, a new customer came to the bank. This customer has some money from other plots of land and would like mister banker to advise him on how to make more money. Mister banker told new customer, why don't you buy this asset I have - it is a loan (mister scammy's loan) and you can get interest from this loan. New customer asks, what if they lender default? Mister banker says, don't worry, I will get rating agency to verify that it is a good "investment". So, he bought rating agency a bottle of wine and says, mister scammy's loan looks like a AAA asset - don't you think? As it is a very expensive bottle of wine, rating agency agreed and says, it does look like a solid investment. With that, mister banker screwed new customer over and sold him a loan likely to default - with the help of rating agency. And now bank has more money to loan to other people like mister scammy. The overall wealth of the plot of land and now the adjacent land is now overall less - unless mister scammy turns out to be a talented farmer. And the wealth of the hardworking farmer and new customer has now be redistributed to mister banker and mister scammy and rating agency. There is even more money in the system, but it would be chasing after less vegetables, chickens and cows. The money held would be worth less (again). 

With this tool, banks can give out loans irresponsibly, because they can offload their risks to unsuspecting investors with the help of the not-so-objective rating agencies. Earn their bonuses and not worry about non-performing loans. That would be somebody else's investment risk. 

This is why crypto currency exists - the people are trying to look for an alternative. To give banks less power. To take away the "services" they claim to provide. To make banks less relevant. Because time and again they create bubbles by doing things do not create wealth and then they threaten the not so smart politicians - if you don't save me, your country's financial system will collapse and you will be in recession. Well mister banker, it is time wrap arms around each other and die together (direct translation from cantonese dialect). When they bankers have stolen enough and the people are fed up enough, people might be willing to see how things can be when banks (if they still exist) have significantly less relevance. Bail outs have happened time and again with no difference in outcome. Perhaps it is time to try something different. 

Be aware of new vehicles that may not be called banks, but does exactly what banks do. So, educate yourself. As tools become more complex, don't ever agree that it is too complex for you to understand. If banks do not understand their products well enough to explain it is a simple manner, then they do not deserve the business. when banks tell you it is a good investment backed by rating agencies - know that there are always fine prints - you are investing knowing that there is "investment risk" and rating agencies' ratings are only an "opinion", not a recommendation. 

How the politicians and bankers screw the world over

As a part 2 to the post on inflation, this would be an attempt to explain how the politicians and bankers destroy lives. Over and over again. 

All countries would have experienced varying degrees of the following process. However, the process itself does not differ significantly. 

The process is complex. Which is why it has been repeated over and over. The average you and I, can only see a certain extent of the process. So, only understanding a portion of the cycle.  

To understand the process, we need to understand the motive. So first, a politician or political party who need money to gain control (a common enough starting point - the ambitions of arseholes). To get the money, they have to make the bankers happy. So, they make the banking industry less controlled. To enable the bankers to earn money from the people. In return, they get the financial support for their political campaigns, to stay in power.  

Next the bankers. With the deregulation, they take more risks with their customers' money - for example, giving loans/ credit cards to people who cannot afford to have loans and credit cards. Then they developed new financial instruments. Higher risk financial instruments. And they "invest" their customers' money in these financial instruments, disclosing in the fine prints that these investments carries risks. So, if the customers loses money, they did so knowing the risks. By giving these loans and selling these "investments", they have brought in business for the bank and they would then pay themselves a bonus. And knowing that the loans they sold and investments they made were risky, they would proceed to sell the loans to a third party or hedge the investments (selling the investments to unsuspecting people, then putting a bet that the investment will fail).

When the bubble created by the bankers explode, ie when money is "created" by the bankers and politicians without real increase in productivity, then inflation happens. Price of goods increase. Effectively, the hardworking people who have not invested their money in something that can grow and produce, would be robbed. What they have in hand can now buy significantly less than what they thought they would be able to. Retirees would be in jeopardy. So honest hardworking people would be poor again. 

But what happens to the bankers? Nothing. Time and time again, the bankers have denied accountability. The people invested knowing the risks. What happens to the banks? Oh, they would have merged. Why? Because the bigger they are, the less likely they would be allowed to fail. So, what happens? The politicians would then say, they have to bail the banks out so that the financial system would not collapse. So, this time, the taxpayers' money would be used to get the bankers out of trouble. Unfortunately, the bigger the banks, the bigger the mess they can create. The bigger the resulting crisis. But nothing happens to the bankers and the money that they have effectively stolen, stays with them.

Wouldn't the politicians need to answer for the inflation? Oh, they would make the rich happy. How, somebody asked, did the housing prices increase so significantly after a financial crisis? Well, the housing prices increased due to inflation. Is it a good thing? Well, the people who are able to hold on to their property post crisis would be "richer". Meaning the price of their "asset" (or rather liability) would have increased. Yea, the tenant they had may be less likely to be able to afford the rent, but on paper, their "wealth" would have increased. Not only that, they would report and increase in GDP - economic "recovery" because the overall "productivity" would have growth vs prior year. It simple means the prices of everything has increased. And if you calculate the money that would have traded hands to purchase the same things, you would have an increase. So, they report inflation as economic recovery. And life goes on. Until the next crisis. Perpetuated by the same people. 

Aren't there laws in place? Watchdogs to monitor such fraudulent activities? There can be. But if the bankers require any laws to be overturned, they would just have to tell their politician puppets to get it done. And watchdogs? Well, if you have heard of credit rating agencies, you would just have to find out what were the credit ratings of the companies that has failed, just prior to them failing, to figure out if these agencies were of any use. Academicians? Well, some of them would lend credibility to any crooks and scams provided they are paid handsomely. Those who are good at their jobs would be offered a job and brought over to the dark side. Those who would not participate would be destroyed.

So, what is happening today? In the last major crisis, the investment banks fueled the dotcom bubble. Everything dotcom was a good investment, until it wasn't. And then the subprime loans - another way to have the property prices increase for no good reason. Today, the most recent things that come to mind, would be the startups. The investments that went into start ups. Start ups that may be true unicorn or perhaps just plain junk. So, know that you are buying into. The money that has gone into these investments would also have been used to paid those who encourage the instruments. The "investment bankers" today may be disguised as start up accelerators. There would be some people in the industry that would have gained as long as money is coming in to fund start ups - regardless if the start ups succeed or fail in the very end. And as these start ups show themselves to be what they truly are - a unicorn or nothing at all, whichever the case may be - they would have effected a transfer of wealth. It may be that the start up founders have gain. In some cases, the start ups would have been mere vehicle for the transfer of wealth to those who promoted the start ups. Banks would have the create the money to fund these as the investors take out loans to fund these ventures. Banks would created money out of thin air and paid themselves handsomely. When would the bubble burst? Perhaps when enough start ups fail. When the accelerators have funded enough junk. Well, whenever it happens, the above would repeat itself and would returned disguised in another form. 

Not saying that all start ups fail. Perhaps all instruments started with the genuine intention to fulfill a need. Then the very human need for more would kick in. Structures would be set up to multiply and create more. And when it reaches a stage where the "productivity" is not real, when the start ups that are being funded are no longer of any real value nor potential, then the bubble will grow. If you are speaking to the people in the industry and the people promoting something in public is telling you privately that they don't truly believe in the value of what they are promoting...

So politicians and bankers at the expense of the people. Always. 

At the end of the day, the poorest, as always, pay the most - Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Credit: Thank you, Inside Job and MT for recommending it. 

acceptance

it is difficult seeing our parents age. why? because we are fighting it. why are we fighting it? because they have been our heroes all these while. and we are rejecting the idea that age has brought about a decline. we are wondering why can't they try harder to stay alert. we have seen it. we have seen elderly people who have kept their minds sharp. we have seen those who stayed focused on finishing their sentences. so it is unacceptable that they are not trying harder. 

but what if they are trying, but that is what they can managed? what if they are aware of the decline and are also afraid of what is happening? what if they do not know what can be done stop the decline? or perhaps they have come to accept the change. we did not liked being compared to our peers. so i suppose the same would apply no matter what the age. we cannot compare one goldie to another.  

and really, why fight something that is not within control? if we don't fight it, that would mean we accept it. would acceptance bring a faster decline? i have no idea. but i suppose the process would be easier than if we keep pushing them to reject aging. it would happen one way or another. so, acceptance is key. perhaps it is kinder? perhaps the objective would be how to age gracefully vs how not to age. perhaps acceptance of them as they are, would bring more happiness. 

the answer

"I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it's not the answer." - Jim Carrey

then what is? based on his other quotes, it seems being in the moment and being courageous is the answer. it seems there is a strong belief that asking from the universe and walking the path, believing the universe would deliver, might be an answer. and of course, to be grateful for what you have - because you can lose it at any moment. wise he is.