I saw the film “W” and will be reviewing it in my other blog at http://www.tonyklinger.co.uk/ tomorrow. The reason for my mention of it here is that I will later comment on the honesty, or lack of it, of the film’s makers, particularly Oliver Stone, its director. Am I alone in thinking standards have gone down, and continue to do so?
I have a regular prescription with several items on it, and the doctors, who pass it on to the dispensing pharmacists, renew this every month. They make it up and I collect it. Every month, unless I chivvy them up there is some kind of screw up. It seems impossible to me that this could be so, but every month, without fail there is another, new mistake.
On Friday last I went to take my medication and one of the boxes was empty, so I looked for the replacement box within the other medications. It wasn’t there, and now it’s the weekend, and there is nothing I can do about it as the particular pharmacy from which I must collect my medications is closed all weekend. I am fortunate not to have a desperate need and therefore a couple of days was going to be OK health wise.
Today I went to the pharmacy to ask for my missing medications and the dispensing pharmacist said he had forgotten to place them in my packet along with the other medications. No apology, no thought that he could have rung me last week to tell me of his mistake, and absolutely no apology for the inconvenience for my having to go back to his shop in the pouring rain.
I am by nature a grumbler, but there is no point in my grumbling to the pharmacist, as I intend to do him the favour of telling his boss at head office. That way some other sucker, who might be in dire need of careful attention will be looked after properly.
Over the recent past I have also noticed that when I visit a public toilet there are a large and growing number of men and boys who do not wash their hands after using the convenience. This is not only disgusting for their own state of cleanliness but will, inevitably have a direct and negative bearing on the health of us all.
It sounds like I am becoming a terrible, angry old man, but the truth is obvious and shouldn’t be ignored, whatever its origination.
Back to my opening, about Oliver Stone, who is a talented man with a long track record of left leaning polemics disguised as filmed entertainment, and he’s at it again here, lying prettily dressed up as high art. Please understand I am no fan of President George W. Bush but that doesn’t mean he should be lied about just because I disagree with him or his policies.
Apparently such lies have become not only acceptable but are applauded. There are innumerable instances of inaccuracies about the President in the film, there are many false innuendos, and many insidious libels dressed up as fact. We could spend hours debating the catalogue of fabrications dreamed up by Stone portrayed here as fact. All I ask is that you check out the facts for yourselves.
I remember the same ideologues of the left saying much the same things about President Ronald Reagan. They claimed he was an incompetent idiot who basically didn’t have a brain. I happen to know some people that knew that President, and without exception they stated that he was very bright and sharp.
I suspect that if President George W. Bush is as stupid as this film portrays him he wouldn’t have gained entrance into either Yale or Harvard Business School and wouldn’t have ended up as a very successful businessman, and wouldn’t have owned a baseball franchise and wouldn’t have been elected Governor of Texas; All of which the film W passes of as simply the rewards for being the son of the first President Bush. No one could really believe that all of those accomplishments came the way of George W because he has a powerful father.
Does anyone dare say anything is lacking in President Elect Obama because he has accomplished so much less?
Where are the similar films about the well-documented peccadilloes of the Democratic President Clinton or the stupid and inept Democratic President Jimmy Carter?
Stone is the same director who made the film JFK and who felt no compunction about inventing historical events for that movie that simply didn’t happen. The same kind of filmmaking was employed in the film Nixon, and instead of it being attacked it is praised by the like-minded left leaning “media intelligentsia” who sneer at anything or anyone with an opinion to the right of his or her own.
I don’t crown these fools and liars with the word liberal, because they are not liberal, they are dogmatic fools who do not have the good grace to grant any rightness to the cause of those they regard as their political enemies. They would do well to remember that the root of democracy is not to the right or left of the spectrum, but above it, where right is not a direction but a byword for probity, civility and honesty, and maintaining the highest standards.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
WelcomeTheNegotiator
Today this column hosts a very good friend, The Negotiator. This is a man who will find you solutions when it doesn’t seem possible.
In these troubled times there is every reason for me to host the Negotiator.
If you have any questions or comments for him please e-mail them to tony@bcreativelimited.com and I shall pass them on to the Negotiator.
The lady on SKY News said ‘….many people are facing negative equity.’
Why did the newsreader present this as such a catastrophe? Bad news sells better than good news.
The first question is ‘what is negative equity?’ It’s what happens when you have a mortgage equal to most or all of the value of your house, the market drops, and suddenly your house is worth less than your mortgage.
We have established what it is, who’s likely to catch it and what should they do?
Anybody with a least one property against which they were borrowing over 75% of its value in 2007, is likely to catch it. If you are one of the people who go down with a bout of negative equity there are four likely scenarios.
1. You are able to meet your commitments; you have no need or intention of selling any of your assets in the next two years. This is the mildest form of the bug, and shouldn’t cost you a minute of sleep. If it happens to be a business arrangement – commercial property, buy-to-lets – a jittery lender might ask you to put up additional collateral. To such an impertinent request the appropriate answer is:” Get stuffed. No one put a gun to your head when you drew up the papers. No one coerced you into lending me more than prudence might suggest. You were motivated by the need to hit your sales target; your employer was motivated by pure greed. As long as I am meeting my payments I will entertain no further discussion of fresh protection for you.”
2. You were planning to sell soon. If this were not a forced position you would be well advised to re-consider your plans. Unless you are trading up, wait until the financial world turns the right way up again.
3. Your short-term fixed rate mortgage is coming to an end. You’ve borrowed more than your house is worth at 3.9% and they’ve lent you five and a half times your stated income without even verifying it. Once again, your lenders acted on the impulse of greed and the fear of losing out to the competition. So what do you do? The one do you can’t do is NOTHING. The option of putting your head under the bedclothes is not open to you. You must go out and meet the problem; don’t wait for it to come to you. Three to four months before your current arrangement finishes speak to a good mortgage broker. There are plenty of mediocre or downright bad mortgage brokers, and a few good ones. You want an Independent Financial Advisor – one who has access to the whole of the market, and not an advisor who is tied to just one company and its range of products. You need a person who can think laterally and will persevere until you have the best deal available. We have Howard; everyone should have a Howard. Over the next few months the banks and building societies will suddenly remember that they make their living by lending money. New products will become available.
But what if he can’t find you a suitable mortgage? Far be it from me to incite a mass movement for civil unrest but a short time on the Internet will reveal a very large number of people who have caught this strain of negative equity. More and more of them seem to have started fighting back. When lenders try to intimidate them they are saying in growing numbers ‘No! I can’t repay the mortgage and I won’t be forced into selling my home. You gave me this deal to entice me away from my previous lender because you wanted my business. You gambled on the property market continuing to rise… and you lost. I will not pay your gambling debts. I will continue to make my monthly payments. If you refuse to accept them I will pay them into my solicitor’s account, and when appropriate he will pay them into court.’’ This ploy seems to be enjoying some success at the moment and may result in forcing a complete change of attitude.
4. You can’t keep up the payments. There is no disgrace to this. The possible reasons are numerous.
• You lost your job
• You fear of losing your job
• You have kept your job but lost the large bonuses you used to receive
• Your business has slowed down
• Your mortgage rate has increased
Whatever the reason, you can’t afford it. Once again doing nothing is not an option.
Meet the problem before it meets you. Speak to your broker, or speak to a professional. Lenders really do not want to repossess properties that they would have to sell for less than the debt. Chances are that they will be amenable to a deal, an arrangement to receive some money until things improve.
I failed to foresee the last recession but I was one of the first to realise that financial weakness is a strong place from which to negotiate. I eliminated large chunks of debt by taking advantage of the difference between the borrowing and the ‘forced sale’ value of the properties in question.
Having negotiated large savings for myself I went on to sell that knowledge to other people in the same position. Just remember negative equity is a reality but it doesn’t have to be a bogeyman. Handled corrected it can be controlled and possibly made to work to your advantage.
In these troubled times there is every reason for me to host the Negotiator.
If you have any questions or comments for him please e-mail them to tony@bcreativelimited.com and I shall pass them on to the Negotiator.
The lady on SKY News said ‘….many people are facing negative equity.’
Why did the newsreader present this as such a catastrophe? Bad news sells better than good news.
The first question is ‘what is negative equity?’ It’s what happens when you have a mortgage equal to most or all of the value of your house, the market drops, and suddenly your house is worth less than your mortgage.
We have established what it is, who’s likely to catch it and what should they do?
Anybody with a least one property against which they were borrowing over 75% of its value in 2007, is likely to catch it. If you are one of the people who go down with a bout of negative equity there are four likely scenarios.
1. You are able to meet your commitments; you have no need or intention of selling any of your assets in the next two years. This is the mildest form of the bug, and shouldn’t cost you a minute of sleep. If it happens to be a business arrangement – commercial property, buy-to-lets – a jittery lender might ask you to put up additional collateral. To such an impertinent request the appropriate answer is:” Get stuffed. No one put a gun to your head when you drew up the papers. No one coerced you into lending me more than prudence might suggest. You were motivated by the need to hit your sales target; your employer was motivated by pure greed. As long as I am meeting my payments I will entertain no further discussion of fresh protection for you.”
2. You were planning to sell soon. If this were not a forced position you would be well advised to re-consider your plans. Unless you are trading up, wait until the financial world turns the right way up again.
3. Your short-term fixed rate mortgage is coming to an end. You’ve borrowed more than your house is worth at 3.9% and they’ve lent you five and a half times your stated income without even verifying it. Once again, your lenders acted on the impulse of greed and the fear of losing out to the competition. So what do you do? The one do you can’t do is NOTHING. The option of putting your head under the bedclothes is not open to you. You must go out and meet the problem; don’t wait for it to come to you. Three to four months before your current arrangement finishes speak to a good mortgage broker. There are plenty of mediocre or downright bad mortgage brokers, and a few good ones. You want an Independent Financial Advisor – one who has access to the whole of the market, and not an advisor who is tied to just one company and its range of products. You need a person who can think laterally and will persevere until you have the best deal available. We have Howard; everyone should have a Howard. Over the next few months the banks and building societies will suddenly remember that they make their living by lending money. New products will become available.
But what if he can’t find you a suitable mortgage? Far be it from me to incite a mass movement for civil unrest but a short time on the Internet will reveal a very large number of people who have caught this strain of negative equity. More and more of them seem to have started fighting back. When lenders try to intimidate them they are saying in growing numbers ‘No! I can’t repay the mortgage and I won’t be forced into selling my home. You gave me this deal to entice me away from my previous lender because you wanted my business. You gambled on the property market continuing to rise… and you lost. I will not pay your gambling debts. I will continue to make my monthly payments. If you refuse to accept them I will pay them into my solicitor’s account, and when appropriate he will pay them into court.’’ This ploy seems to be enjoying some success at the moment and may result in forcing a complete change of attitude.
4. You can’t keep up the payments. There is no disgrace to this. The possible reasons are numerous.
• You lost your job
• You fear of losing your job
• You have kept your job but lost the large bonuses you used to receive
• Your business has slowed down
• Your mortgage rate has increased
Whatever the reason, you can’t afford it. Once again doing nothing is not an option.
Meet the problem before it meets you. Speak to your broker, or speak to a professional. Lenders really do not want to repossess properties that they would have to sell for less than the debt. Chances are that they will be amenable to a deal, an arrangement to receive some money until things improve.
I failed to foresee the last recession but I was one of the first to realise that financial weakness is a strong place from which to negotiate. I eliminated large chunks of debt by taking advantage of the difference between the borrowing and the ‘forced sale’ value of the properties in question.
Having negotiated large savings for myself I went on to sell that knowledge to other people in the same position. Just remember negative equity is a reality but it doesn’t have to be a bogeyman. Handled corrected it can be controlled and possibly made to work to your advantage.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
KeynesALesson
In looking for potential solutions for our economic woes we could do worse than look back at possibly the greatest modern economist of them all; John Maynard Keynes, the British genius who can show us, from beyond the grave, the route to the Promised Land.
Like all great men, Keynes was capable of mistakes and errors of judgment in many small ways, but was also to make some very wise forecasts that, had he been listened to, could have changed the future of the world. He correctly insisted that the Versailles Treaty at the end of the First World War was too punitive on the defeated nation and would lead to a dreadful reaction by Germany. He was right, the Treaty gave Hitler and his Nazis the argument against this national humiliation as an excuse, which led directly to the Second World War.
According to Keynesian economics the state can, and in my opinion should, stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects. This, in general terms appears to be the course being followed by Gordon Brown in the UK, and now, might well be what the USA does.
In 1936 Keynes published these theories that formed the basis of Keynesian economics in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In this theory, micro-level actions by individuals and firms can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth.
The majority of Keynes contemporary classical economists had believed in Say's Law, which stated that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would be impossible.
Keynes argued convincingly that aggregate demand for goods would prove to be insufficient during major economic downturns, and this would lead to unwarranted high unemployment and consequential losses of potential output. He was convinced that government policies should be used as an instrument to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation.
Although Keynes's macroeconomic theories were mostly a direct response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America they are no less appropriate in today’s situation.
Keynes stated that the solution to economic depression was the stimulation of the economy through a variable use of two approaches; the first of these being a reduction in interest rates and the second, Government investment in infrastructure.
The injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation sparks a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity results in a multiple of the original investment.
A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that in some situations, no strong automatic mechanism moves output and employment towards full employment levels. This conflicts with other economic theories, which assume a tendency towards equilibrium. The 'neoclassical synthesis', combines Keynesian macro concepts with a micro foundation, the conditions of General equilibrium allow for price adjustment to achieve this goal.
In the corridors of power of Whitehall were many bureaucrats who either didn’t understand or appreciate the financial genius of Keynes.
Perversely Keynes never saw his ideas fully utilized in his own country. Instead it was President Franklin Roosevelt who partially bit this bullet in his effort to get America out of the Great Depression.
More strangely it was the UK that came out of that depression first, in about 1935, and it was not due to any of the Keynesian ideas, but more the result of the UK being de-coupled from the gold standard, that up to then had meant that there was literally gold held centrally in exchange for every pound or dollar.
America’s economic salvation was a mixture of FDR led intervention by big government in addition to the country meeting the huge production demands of the Second World War.
Keynes himself, worn out by his efforts on behalf of the world economy at Breton Woods, and more particularly that of his own country, was to die within one year of the end of the war after successfully raising a huge loan from America to rebuild England from its near bankruptcy. Keynes was a liberal, not socialists, and perhaps this was humorously proven by his last words; when asked whether there was anything he regretted, he answered, “I should have drunk more champagne.”
Whichever way we find our way through this period of economic turmoil it will all be OK as long as we remember to revert to less government intervention the very minute we can, so we can all drink a little champagne again.
Like all great men, Keynes was capable of mistakes and errors of judgment in many small ways, but was also to make some very wise forecasts that, had he been listened to, could have changed the future of the world. He correctly insisted that the Versailles Treaty at the end of the First World War was too punitive on the defeated nation and would lead to a dreadful reaction by Germany. He was right, the Treaty gave Hitler and his Nazis the argument against this national humiliation as an excuse, which led directly to the Second World War.
According to Keynesian economics the state can, and in my opinion should, stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects. This, in general terms appears to be the course being followed by Gordon Brown in the UK, and now, might well be what the USA does.
In 1936 Keynes published these theories that formed the basis of Keynesian economics in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In this theory, micro-level actions by individuals and firms can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth.
The majority of Keynes contemporary classical economists had believed in Say's Law, which stated that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would be impossible.
Keynes argued convincingly that aggregate demand for goods would prove to be insufficient during major economic downturns, and this would lead to unwarranted high unemployment and consequential losses of potential output. He was convinced that government policies should be used as an instrument to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation.
Although Keynes's macroeconomic theories were mostly a direct response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America they are no less appropriate in today’s situation.
Keynes stated that the solution to economic depression was the stimulation of the economy through a variable use of two approaches; the first of these being a reduction in interest rates and the second, Government investment in infrastructure.
The injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation sparks a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity results in a multiple of the original investment.
A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that in some situations, no strong automatic mechanism moves output and employment towards full employment levels. This conflicts with other economic theories, which assume a tendency towards equilibrium. The 'neoclassical synthesis', combines Keynesian macro concepts with a micro foundation, the conditions of General equilibrium allow for price adjustment to achieve this goal.
In the corridors of power of Whitehall were many bureaucrats who either didn’t understand or appreciate the financial genius of Keynes.
Perversely Keynes never saw his ideas fully utilized in his own country. Instead it was President Franklin Roosevelt who partially bit this bullet in his effort to get America out of the Great Depression.
More strangely it was the UK that came out of that depression first, in about 1935, and it was not due to any of the Keynesian ideas, but more the result of the UK being de-coupled from the gold standard, that up to then had meant that there was literally gold held centrally in exchange for every pound or dollar.
America’s economic salvation was a mixture of FDR led intervention by big government in addition to the country meeting the huge production demands of the Second World War.
Keynes himself, worn out by his efforts on behalf of the world economy at Breton Woods, and more particularly that of his own country, was to die within one year of the end of the war after successfully raising a huge loan from America to rebuild England from its near bankruptcy. Keynes was a liberal, not socialists, and perhaps this was humorously proven by his last words; when asked whether there was anything he regretted, he answered, “I should have drunk more champagne.”
Whichever way we find our way through this period of economic turmoil it will all be OK as long as we remember to revert to less government intervention the very minute we can, so we can all drink a little champagne again.
Friday, November 7, 2008
TheCalvinCoolidgeExample
President Calvin Coolidge was very different to the more talkative modern politicians with whom we are currently familiar. There was something very appealing about Coolidge, he used a minimum of words to express himself, and thus it was clear what he meant, and he meant to be clear.
One day at a public meeting a man walked over to the President and said that he had made a bet with his friend that he could get Coolidge to use three words, to which the response was, “You lose.”
One Sunday Coolidge went to his church and returning home his wife asked what did the preacher speak about in his sermon; “He talked about sin,” he responded, “what did he say?” she persisted, “He’s against it.” Coolidge answered.
We could do with more of this kind of directness in our political figures. President elect Obama is eloquent, but I think I’m not alone in wondering what he really means to do. I believe that’s why the market isn’t bouncing upwards with joy at the news of his election.
In general I am no fan of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that this taciturn, dour man has managed to be reinforced by the economic problems assailing every country, rather than be destroyed by the awful news.
This is interesting because Brown was in charge of the British economy for the 10 years prior to his becoming Prime Minister a little more than a year ago. He has managed the neat trick of following the original Teflon man, not being contaminated by the bad problems, but getting credit for the good stuff.
Yet, in yesterdays Scottish by election Brown’s Labour Party candidate won a comfortable majority, against the odds and despite all the pundits predicting that this constituency was a shoo in for the Scottish Nationalists.
Gordon Brown achieved this morale-boosting victory in the Glenrothes by-election early today after Labour comfortably fought off a concerted challenge from the Scottish National Party who had mounted a determined campaign to inflict a humiliating defeat against the Prime Minister in his own political backyard. But Lindsay Roy, the Principal at the Prime Minister's old school delivered Labour's first by-election win for more than a year.
This is beginning to look like the beginning of an historic comeback for Brown and his party. They were previously thought so unelectable for the next general election that there were elements in the Party who were plotting to throw Brown out before the election.
Now Brown is looking like a potential winner and this is due to his appeal in a crisis. He looks like he can handle himself in the economic clinches, and in fact that might be the case. I have lost count of the number of people I have been in communication with who have said that they don’t like Brown at all, but they do think he’s the right man, maybe the only man to lead the country during the present crisis. That might be true.
As long as we are in this mess I think Brown can look like a leader with a future, but as soon as the crisis lessens he will be thrown out, just as Prime Minister Winston Churchill was summarily dismissed by the electorate after his victorious, almost miraculous war.
It will be a matter of timing and luck for Brown, as it will be for the people he governs, and the world that appears to be shadowing his every economic move.
President Calvin Coolidge was "distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement," wrote his Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. "His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history ... in a time of extravagance and waste...."
Let us hope that Barack Obama and Gordon Brown are similarly inspired.
One day at a public meeting a man walked over to the President and said that he had made a bet with his friend that he could get Coolidge to use three words, to which the response was, “You lose.”
One Sunday Coolidge went to his church and returning home his wife asked what did the preacher speak about in his sermon; “He talked about sin,” he responded, “what did he say?” she persisted, “He’s against it.” Coolidge answered.
We could do with more of this kind of directness in our political figures. President elect Obama is eloquent, but I think I’m not alone in wondering what he really means to do. I believe that’s why the market isn’t bouncing upwards with joy at the news of his election.
In general I am no fan of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that this taciturn, dour man has managed to be reinforced by the economic problems assailing every country, rather than be destroyed by the awful news.
This is interesting because Brown was in charge of the British economy for the 10 years prior to his becoming Prime Minister a little more than a year ago. He has managed the neat trick of following the original Teflon man, not being contaminated by the bad problems, but getting credit for the good stuff.
Yet, in yesterdays Scottish by election Brown’s Labour Party candidate won a comfortable majority, against the odds and despite all the pundits predicting that this constituency was a shoo in for the Scottish Nationalists.
Gordon Brown achieved this morale-boosting victory in the Glenrothes by-election early today after Labour comfortably fought off a concerted challenge from the Scottish National Party who had mounted a determined campaign to inflict a humiliating defeat against the Prime Minister in his own political backyard. But Lindsay Roy, the Principal at the Prime Minister's old school delivered Labour's first by-election win for more than a year.
This is beginning to look like the beginning of an historic comeback for Brown and his party. They were previously thought so unelectable for the next general election that there were elements in the Party who were plotting to throw Brown out before the election.
Now Brown is looking like a potential winner and this is due to his appeal in a crisis. He looks like he can handle himself in the economic clinches, and in fact that might be the case. I have lost count of the number of people I have been in communication with who have said that they don’t like Brown at all, but they do think he’s the right man, maybe the only man to lead the country during the present crisis. That might be true.
As long as we are in this mess I think Brown can look like a leader with a future, but as soon as the crisis lessens he will be thrown out, just as Prime Minister Winston Churchill was summarily dismissed by the electorate after his victorious, almost miraculous war.
It will be a matter of timing and luck for Brown, as it will be for the people he governs, and the world that appears to be shadowing his every economic move.
President Calvin Coolidge was "distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement," wrote his Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. "His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history ... in a time of extravagance and waste...."
Let us hope that Barack Obama and Gordon Brown are similarly inspired.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
AfterTheParty
After the party usually comes the hangover. On this particular occasion the party was for the general celebration for the victory of Barack Obama and the problem remains mainly the economy.
Today in the UK The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee unexpectedly voted to reduce the official Bank Rate paid on commercial bank reserves by 1.5 percentage points to 3%.
This is the lowest since 1955 as these crucial U.K. policy makers attempt to put the brakes on the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.
This huge cut was not predicted by any of the main quoted economists.
``It's absolutely staggering and deeply impressive,'' said the director of economic research at Societe Generale in London, Brain Hilliard. ``They are clearly grasping the nettle and taking deep action. Boy, this is going to have an impact.''
The seizure in credit markets has helped push Britain to its first recession since 1991, which created the need for the initial 50 billion-pound ($80 billion) bank rescue package from the government and a half-point emergency rate cut on Oct. 8.
The British government immediately stepped up its already intense pressure on commercial banks to speedily pass on these rate reductions to their businesses and consumers.
As for us common folk, here are some of the exchanges between myself and some of my readers overnight. I have removed personal details and edited for space. Many thanks for the many contributions; I’m sorry I couldn’t use them all. They are in reverse time order, the most recent at the end.
From: Steve
To: Tony
Sent: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Subject: DOW down
So the DOW dropped 500 pts on Wednesday. The biggest post election drop in history. Do you think this is a sign of what's to come? I pray not.
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 5:11 AM
My guess is that it gets worse before it starts to get better. Breton Woods Mk 2 might begin to start up some new confidence, but I think there's a lot else needs to be done before the free market begins to look free and attractive again. Personally, if I had spare cash, and I am working on that, I would be investing it in the market right now. But that shows I am probably just as big an idiot as the rest of them.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve
Sent: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:27 am
Subject: Re: DOW down
You’re not an idiot. Warren Buffet advises to do exactly that. I too wish I had some "spare" cash to invest, as I would follow suit. Good luck to you. I enjoy our little chats.
Steve,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, which is probably undeserved. But I did predict the collapse nearly 2 years ago and was laughed at by my academic and consultant peers, especially those in banking!
Tony
From: Brad
Sent: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [tonybeingcreative] EverythingisPossible
Tony:
I have a friend who is opening a restaurant in Ohio (he used to have one here in town). All vendors want cash within a week of delivery. No credit whatsoever is being extended on equipment--with the upside that everything is radically slashed in price. This is the microcosm, but it's the same in the big international picture--credit is not moving at all--the pyramid scheme has folded.
Having said that, it's the first day of the 21st century.
Brad.
Brad,
You're in serious danger of becoming quite eloquent in your dotage, and
also accurate. It's a whole new world out there, and there are some
very bad aspects to that, and, let's hope, some really good bits to come!
The economy is seriously in the toilet, but after the toilet comes the flush!!
Tony
Today in the UK The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee unexpectedly voted to reduce the official Bank Rate paid on commercial bank reserves by 1.5 percentage points to 3%.
This is the lowest since 1955 as these crucial U.K. policy makers attempt to put the brakes on the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.
This huge cut was not predicted by any of the main quoted economists.
``It's absolutely staggering and deeply impressive,'' said the director of economic research at Societe Generale in London, Brain Hilliard. ``They are clearly grasping the nettle and taking deep action. Boy, this is going to have an impact.''
The seizure in credit markets has helped push Britain to its first recession since 1991, which created the need for the initial 50 billion-pound ($80 billion) bank rescue package from the government and a half-point emergency rate cut on Oct. 8.
The British government immediately stepped up its already intense pressure on commercial banks to speedily pass on these rate reductions to their businesses and consumers.
As for us common folk, here are some of the exchanges between myself and some of my readers overnight. I have removed personal details and edited for space. Many thanks for the many contributions; I’m sorry I couldn’t use them all. They are in reverse time order, the most recent at the end.
From: Steve
To: Tony
Sent: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:01 am
Subject: DOW down
So the DOW dropped 500 pts on Wednesday. The biggest post election drop in history. Do you think this is a sign of what's to come? I pray not.
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 5:11 AM
My guess is that it gets worse before it starts to get better. Breton Woods Mk 2 might begin to start up some new confidence, but I think there's a lot else needs to be done before the free market begins to look free and attractive again. Personally, if I had spare cash, and I am working on that, I would be investing it in the market right now. But that shows I am probably just as big an idiot as the rest of them.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve
Sent: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:27 am
Subject: Re: DOW down
You’re not an idiot. Warren Buffet advises to do exactly that. I too wish I had some "spare" cash to invest, as I would follow suit. Good luck to you. I enjoy our little chats.
Steve,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, which is probably undeserved. But I did predict the collapse nearly 2 years ago and was laughed at by my academic and consultant peers, especially those in banking!
Tony
From: Brad
Sent: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [tonybeingcreative] EverythingisPossible
Tony:
I have a friend who is opening a restaurant in Ohio (he used to have one here in town). All vendors want cash within a week of delivery. No credit whatsoever is being extended on equipment--with the upside that everything is radically slashed in price. This is the microcosm, but it's the same in the big international picture--credit is not moving at all--the pyramid scheme has folded.
Having said that, it's the first day of the 21st century.
Brad.
Brad,
You're in serious danger of becoming quite eloquent in your dotage, and
also accurate. It's a whole new world out there, and there are some
very bad aspects to that, and, let's hope, some really good bits to come!
The economy is seriously in the toilet, but after the toilet comes the flush!!
Tony
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
EverythingisPossible
America has resoundingly elected its first black President proving, that in America anything is possible. That’s the headline around the world, which generally celebrated the election of President Barack Obama. The world loves it when America rediscovers its normal spirit of optimism and this election represents a new hope in the eyes of those who have long been in opposition.
Whether you like him or not, whether you support or oppose him, Obama is seen as the agent of change, a phrase he has repeatedly uttered on his own behalf. The media had conspired to elevate Obama to almost Messianic status whilst, against him, McCain ran a sometimes very uninspired and strategically inept campaign.
It became apparent that Obama was seen as the future and McCain the past, and once that had become the common perception the older, whiter man had no real chance. Ironically Obama is more a product of Hawaii and his half white parentage than he is the normal African American urban black experience of his adopted hometown, Chicago.
However, what really killed McCain’s chances were two facts; the first that he was a Republican contender trying to follow on from President Bush and he is the most unpopular holder of that office, ever. Bush is more unpopular than Nixon was at his nadir and that is difficult to achieve. The second, and possibly even more decisive factor against McCain is the financial tsunami that has undercut and eroded the foundations of the American economy. During the election campaign every time the Dow Jones went down so did McCain’s popularity, and it has gone a long way down.
The electorate of the USA voted in record numbers to put Obama in the White House and, amid emotional scenes in many American cities and these were echoed around the world. Obama’s resounding success was celebrated with widespread and deep emotion bordering in some places on mass hysteria.
McCain accepted his defeat with the typical good grace of a true American hero, and the country now need to gather together behind Obama, because to rally to his cause is to be patriotic.
This column has repeatedly argued that Obama, if elected, will be tested by the leaders of America’s enemies, such as Russia and Iran and, of course, Al-Qaeda. I see no reason to change that view; and if that was not enough he also has to deal with the incredibly difficult economic problems facing the country and the world and let’s not forget Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also sure that there are crazies who will want to harm America’s new President before he even assumes office in January, since that is the way of the country’s extremists when confronted by agents of change.
The difference now is that there will be no acceptable excuses or blame attaching to anyone else. Now the American people will expect, in fact, demand, that their man Obama can change everything for the better.
The situation reminds me, emotionally, very much of Tony Blair with a tint, when he first came to power in the UK. It is hard to remember that at that stage Prime Minister Blair was thought by his supporters to walk on water, he could do no wrong. Blair walked on water until it was discovered that there were holes in his feet. Then we witnessed how supporters turn against their heroes when they feel let down by them. The very people who were so thrilled by his initial victories now loathe Blair. I am sure that Obama is aware of unrealistically high expectations that can and probably will haunt his term in office.
Obama does look and sound good, and projects a new and positive image for America and as a world citizen I truly hope that he can live up to his promise. He won this election against huge odds when many thought it was impossible, and I don’t mean his fight against McCain. No, when he overcame Hillary Clinton, he beat an opponent who had the money and the political machine behind her and that was a remarkable achievement. Now President Obama faces seemingly impossible odds again, this time in his new job, and I have my doubts, but then again, I didn’t think he could beat Clinton.
Change has come to America; Barack Obama will soon be in the White House. Many now say that they are again proud to be American. I believe Americans should have always been proud. We all pray for President Obama to enjoy every success but let’s hope that his countrymen don’t expect miracles, their new leader has an almost impossibly difficult job ahead of him.
Whether you like him or not, whether you support or oppose him, Obama is seen as the agent of change, a phrase he has repeatedly uttered on his own behalf. The media had conspired to elevate Obama to almost Messianic status whilst, against him, McCain ran a sometimes very uninspired and strategically inept campaign.
It became apparent that Obama was seen as the future and McCain the past, and once that had become the common perception the older, whiter man had no real chance. Ironically Obama is more a product of Hawaii and his half white parentage than he is the normal African American urban black experience of his adopted hometown, Chicago.
However, what really killed McCain’s chances were two facts; the first that he was a Republican contender trying to follow on from President Bush and he is the most unpopular holder of that office, ever. Bush is more unpopular than Nixon was at his nadir and that is difficult to achieve. The second, and possibly even more decisive factor against McCain is the financial tsunami that has undercut and eroded the foundations of the American economy. During the election campaign every time the Dow Jones went down so did McCain’s popularity, and it has gone a long way down.
The electorate of the USA voted in record numbers to put Obama in the White House and, amid emotional scenes in many American cities and these were echoed around the world. Obama’s resounding success was celebrated with widespread and deep emotion bordering in some places on mass hysteria.
McCain accepted his defeat with the typical good grace of a true American hero, and the country now need to gather together behind Obama, because to rally to his cause is to be patriotic.
This column has repeatedly argued that Obama, if elected, will be tested by the leaders of America’s enemies, such as Russia and Iran and, of course, Al-Qaeda. I see no reason to change that view; and if that was not enough he also has to deal with the incredibly difficult economic problems facing the country and the world and let’s not forget Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also sure that there are crazies who will want to harm America’s new President before he even assumes office in January, since that is the way of the country’s extremists when confronted by agents of change.
The difference now is that there will be no acceptable excuses or blame attaching to anyone else. Now the American people will expect, in fact, demand, that their man Obama can change everything for the better.
The situation reminds me, emotionally, very much of Tony Blair with a tint, when he first came to power in the UK. It is hard to remember that at that stage Prime Minister Blair was thought by his supporters to walk on water, he could do no wrong. Blair walked on water until it was discovered that there were holes in his feet. Then we witnessed how supporters turn against their heroes when they feel let down by them. The very people who were so thrilled by his initial victories now loathe Blair. I am sure that Obama is aware of unrealistically high expectations that can and probably will haunt his term in office.
Obama does look and sound good, and projects a new and positive image for America and as a world citizen I truly hope that he can live up to his promise. He won this election against huge odds when many thought it was impossible, and I don’t mean his fight against McCain. No, when he overcame Hillary Clinton, he beat an opponent who had the money and the political machine behind her and that was a remarkable achievement. Now President Obama faces seemingly impossible odds again, this time in his new job, and I have my doubts, but then again, I didn’t think he could beat Clinton.
Change has come to America; Barack Obama will soon be in the White House. Many now say that they are again proud to be American. I believe Americans should have always been proud. We all pray for President Obama to enjoy every success but let’s hope that his countrymen don’t expect miracles, their new leader has an almost impossibly difficult job ahead of him.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
VotingDiscuss
During the current American election I have received a pretty big electronic postbag. Here is a sample for you to share. These flowed from my blog of yesterday where I implored my American friends to vote, whatever their preference. I have edited for space, but kept the intent, typos and even my own errors, for which I apologize!
Many thanks to my contributors.
Tony, I could not disagree with you more. America is stock full of
idiots who have no knowledge of candidate platforms and will vote
blindly..
To which I responded,
Hi Steve,
If voting was just decided on IQ, it would be down to just me and you
and a couple of friends in MENSA who, I must be the first to state,
can't find their own ass in the dark. If voting was based on knowledge
then George W could not have stood let alone voted! The man's entire
foreign travel experience before becoming President was one trip to
Mexico. It used to be decided by your wealth, or land, in different
countries, and yet, in democracies it (the right to vote) is supposedly decided by universal suffrage. To be universal it should be mandatory, not because we all know so much, or are so clever, or rich or are men, but because everyone has a voice in a democracy, even the bloody idiots!
Steve’s answer;
I tend to agree with you but I still hold to the notion you should at
least know something about the candidate your voting for. The Howard
Stern radio show did a skit where an interviewer went to Harlem NY
and asked the "man on the street" questions such as who are you voting for. To a man/woman they said Obama. Then the interviewer went on to ask if they agreed with "Obamas" policies and proceeded to recite McCain policy and everyone agreed. Proving they had absolutely no knowledge of either candidate. Then the icing on the cake came. The interviewer asked if Obama wins will they be okay with Sarah Palin as the V.P.? Everyone said it would be fine.... go figure. Anyway it's sad that people don't take a more active role in educating themselves but it is what it is.
Next is one from Dick, to which there can be no response.
Let's hope that the next two days are among the happiest in history and that the crucial corner is turned. Will somebody please advise Howard Dean that he has two friends in Malibu who will celebrate his genius, dedication and compassion in the highest when those numbers roll in, Karl Rove's best efforts to steal history notwithstanding. Interesting that Rove spells his first name the same way any self-respecting Nazi might but... don't tell McPain this because it will inspire a new Palin speech... he also spells it the same way Karl... are you sitting?... MARX did. Does that make him a Marxist or merely a socialist?
Dick also wrote me another e-mail,
Tony, thanks... I'm not sure I go along with the Australians. I think
people who are too sloth to educate themselves about the candidates and the issues are better off left out of the count. I think every citizen who feels himself informed should vote.
From concerned citizen Marjorie there was this,
We're already having some insanity starting over the voting. There's a Republican guy on the overpass of the 101 in Santa Barbara with army fatigues and a gun screaming obscenities about Obama. I suppose tomorrow all hell may break loose! Aren't you glad you're in London? This may be politics answer to the West Hollywood Halloween celebration on Santa Monica Blvd. Stay tuned.........
And indirectly, via Stevie, what Ms. Brigitte Bardot think of it all;
French film legend-turned-activist Brigitte Bardot took a swipe at Sarah
Palin on Tuesday, saying the US vice presidential candidate was a disgrace to women.
"I hope you lose these elections because that would be a victory for
the world," Bardot wrote in an open letter to Republican John McCain's
running mate in the November vote.
"By denying the responsibility of man in global warming, by advocating gun rights and making statements that are disconcertingly stupid, you
are a disgrace to women and you alone represent a terrible threat, a true
environmental catastrophe," wrote Bardot.
The screen icon from the 1960s, who now heads an animal rights foundation, went on to assail Palin for supporting Arctic oil exploration that could jeopardize delicate animal habitats and for dismissing measures to protect polar bears.
"This shows your total lack of responsibility, your inability to protect or simply respect animal life," Bardot wrote.
In a final salvo against Palin, the 74-year-old ex-star picked up on
Palin's depiction of herself as a pitbull wearing lipstick and said she
"implored" her not to compare herself to dogs.
"I know them well and I can assure you that no pitbull, no dog, nor any other animal for that matter is as dangerous as you are," Bardot wrote.
My considered response it to ask what can you write when faced with such words, voiced by such a level headed champion of all things fluffy that bark?
I received this from Don,
Well said. It's a shame you don't have the e-mail address of every
American!
Perhaps I should have just featured Don’s message? Whatever way you look at it America, VOTE!
Many thanks to my contributors.
Tony, I could not disagree with you more. America is stock full of
idiots who have no knowledge of candidate platforms and will vote
blindly..
To which I responded,
Hi Steve,
If voting was just decided on IQ, it would be down to just me and you
and a couple of friends in MENSA who, I must be the first to state,
can't find their own ass in the dark. If voting was based on knowledge
then George W could not have stood let alone voted! The man's entire
foreign travel experience before becoming President was one trip to
Mexico. It used to be decided by your wealth, or land, in different
countries, and yet, in democracies it (the right to vote) is supposedly decided by universal suffrage. To be universal it should be mandatory, not because we all know so much, or are so clever, or rich or are men, but because everyone has a voice in a democracy, even the bloody idiots!
Steve’s answer;
I tend to agree with you but I still hold to the notion you should at
least know something about the candidate your voting for. The Howard
Stern radio show did a skit where an interviewer went to Harlem NY
and asked the "man on the street" questions such as who are you voting for. To a man/woman they said Obama. Then the interviewer went on to ask if they agreed with "Obamas" policies and proceeded to recite McCain policy and everyone agreed. Proving they had absolutely no knowledge of either candidate. Then the icing on the cake came. The interviewer asked if Obama wins will they be okay with Sarah Palin as the V.P.? Everyone said it would be fine.... go figure. Anyway it's sad that people don't take a more active role in educating themselves but it is what it is.
Next is one from Dick, to which there can be no response.
Let's hope that the next two days are among the happiest in history and that the crucial corner is turned. Will somebody please advise Howard Dean that he has two friends in Malibu who will celebrate his genius, dedication and compassion in the highest when those numbers roll in, Karl Rove's best efforts to steal history notwithstanding. Interesting that Rove spells his first name the same way any self-respecting Nazi might but... don't tell McPain this because it will inspire a new Palin speech... he also spells it the same way Karl... are you sitting?... MARX did. Does that make him a Marxist or merely a socialist?
Dick also wrote me another e-mail,
Tony, thanks... I'm not sure I go along with the Australians. I think
people who are too sloth to educate themselves about the candidates and the issues are better off left out of the count. I think every citizen who feels himself informed should vote.
From concerned citizen Marjorie there was this,
We're already having some insanity starting over the voting. There's a Republican guy on the overpass of the 101 in Santa Barbara with army fatigues and a gun screaming obscenities about Obama. I suppose tomorrow all hell may break loose! Aren't you glad you're in London? This may be politics answer to the West Hollywood Halloween celebration on Santa Monica Blvd. Stay tuned.........
And indirectly, via Stevie, what Ms. Brigitte Bardot think of it all;
French film legend-turned-activist Brigitte Bardot took a swipe at Sarah
Palin on Tuesday, saying the US vice presidential candidate was a disgrace to women.
"I hope you lose these elections because that would be a victory for
the world," Bardot wrote in an open letter to Republican John McCain's
running mate in the November vote.
"By denying the responsibility of man in global warming, by advocating gun rights and making statements that are disconcertingly stupid, you
are a disgrace to women and you alone represent a terrible threat, a true
environmental catastrophe," wrote Bardot.
The screen icon from the 1960s, who now heads an animal rights foundation, went on to assail Palin for supporting Arctic oil exploration that could jeopardize delicate animal habitats and for dismissing measures to protect polar bears.
"This shows your total lack of responsibility, your inability to protect or simply respect animal life," Bardot wrote.
In a final salvo against Palin, the 74-year-old ex-star picked up on
Palin's depiction of herself as a pitbull wearing lipstick and said she
"implored" her not to compare herself to dogs.
"I know them well and I can assure you that no pitbull, no dog, nor any other animal for that matter is as dangerous as you are," Bardot wrote.
My considered response it to ask what can you write when faced with such words, voiced by such a level headed champion of all things fluffy that bark?
I received this from Don,
Well said. It's a shame you don't have the e-mail address of every
American!
Perhaps I should have just featured Don’s message? Whatever way you look at it America, VOTE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
