gammadust

I give in certainly here: where banking institutions which were not involved in the scheme, and indeed were also losers. They were in loss as much as the society as a whole was due to the systemic nature of the scheme. All power to you, and I would recommend you to hit the streets werever you are, because indeed (if this is the case) you have reasons to be upset, don't take the wrong route here and defend the deregulation system which enabled this crisis. Yes, nominaly, they're the biggest tax contributors. BUT as a percentage on the dollar they pay tax that ammounts to around 12% of income in contrast with smaller income businesses which pay from 25% to 40% depending on the fiscal regime. In reality banking sector pays less taxes then remaining businesses (small and big), about half then everyone else. And with an activity with brings much more risk to a society stability as the current crisis demonstrates. You are in blatant ignorance. It is a matter of historical record that I voted against my banks accepting government bail outs. That most shareholders did. They tried to force Barclays to take one, but Barclays stalled them until it got private investment. I voted for that too. Almost all banks refused government bail outs. If you keep selecting what suites your needs and what not from my quotes of course I make less sense, please don't do that. Full quote: The removed part makes all the difference and also distinguishes when is a bailout justified and when it is not. If you were a shareholder in bank did you pay any compensation for the depositors loss? Because, you know... you were managing their money! I will simply not address this rant, because I never claimed anything of the like, you are simply extrapolating carelessly what I have said. Put some sense in your words, one topic at a time, and I will be pleased to share my opinion on it.

So you were indeed refering to the "Community Reinvestment Act" thing... the problem is that THAT does not enforce anything, it is an "encouragement" an "incentive": The stated "enforcement" if one can even call that is: ...a track record of compliance. (WOOOO, scary enforcement LAW) If I have a bad track record of credit I am also blacklisted to apply for other financing. Would it be fair to not require the banks to comply the same way? Wrong premise again. Ok... I haven't claimed that. My exact quote is: CDSs are what made AIG collapse (insurance), and their inability to payback the investors wich insured their CDOs with AIG, in a market "free" to insane levels of speculation. The "junk" CDOs rated AAA, in a mixed bag of good loans, became perceived by the market for what they are worth, their real value, which was criminaly inflated by Rating Agencies, bringing good ones along with it. (in other words, it's when those arrows turned red that AIG iniciated the domino effect throughout the system. Everybody looses but those privy with the scheme and in a position to benefit from it) Sory it was hard for me to accept that was the law you were refering to, because THAT one does not enforce any significant penalties as I have sourced previously. I am not making an apology of National Banking over Private Banking, by current standards they both lead to nationwide and globalwide injustices. And if in practice they both don't serve direct public interest (the first because it fails on its mandate, the second because it is not supposed to), I am left theorizing about what could be that system which upholds justice. That would be one where management decisions are processed through democratic means. Definitely NOT "One Dollar One Vote". Any decision, wherever its made, about whichever topic, which influences society to a sufficient extent should be left to societies' means of consensus building. Fundamental principle here, and also one which lays foundation for Politics, nevermind what that means in practice today (the concept is as perverted as it can be). I was talking about a 3% on the leveraged value. With the latter (~30:1), a mere 3% loss of value is sufficient to wipe out banks assets. Therefore the critique of these insane leverage ratios. Even the banking sector recognizes the requirements of core capital in sufficient amount against operating financial values. Herein lies the REAL danger of having a mergers of the commercial with the financial banking system, previously prevented to occur with the Glass Steagall Act which was instated after the Great Depression with exacly this in mind. This was a known danger. See also related Basel accords, which estabilish the failsafes for when things turn bad. "Crowd pleasing punishments" you say? Crowd took the punishment by bailing them out with their tax money, NOT the CEOs and Shareholders which took both their bonuses and annual dividends for years until sh*t hit the fan. "Don't for a minute think that banks were wanting bailouts form governments..." you are in blatant denial, unless by "banks" you mean their management and shareholders alone which already had benefited. Depositors which would lose their savings otherwise were legitimately concerned, and to some extent justified recipients of the bailout.

I was mentioning investment banks, not your local lender. Sory if I cut one corner there and mislead you. Since I suspect there might be some truth to that still, I would appreciate a source. What was the legislation in question? I will search for it anyways but some pointers would be nice. This is relevant to measure to what level that eventual requirement was imposed and its order of effect on the crisis. Anyways, the loan banks, given the new regulation* were risk free through the selling of CDOs, getting rid of the risk to investment banks which by their turn got rid of it through CDSs (Credit Default Swaps) leaving the risk to investor funds and insurance. This was the scheme. It is important to make the destinction between all roles of each investor type if we're going to get deeper. But the general point is they weren't forced to make bad decisions, though in the end of the day that is exacly what they did. Why woudn't they embrace the subprime market (even if enforced)? The subprime lending increased 20 fold to 600B/year from 3B/year in less than a decade. Countrywide Corporate (lending bank) increased profits 5 fold in 4 years, from ~0.5B in 2000 to ~2.5B by 2006. They did profited while it lasted. 2008 bankrupt Lehman Brothers is an investment bank, not a bank which you turn to get a mortgage. They do provide the directives (with the money attached) for local lenders to ease credit criteria. If this was legaly enforced or not will just tell how deeply the government was involved in the scheme. Of course they collapsed in the end, when the REAL wealth started to strike out the speculation from their balance sheets. Until then CEOs made their way (along with their "golden parachites") with a Jail Free card provided by the deregulation I mentioned. *New Regulation which deregulated the market, see how deceiving this all is? There exists regulation to deregulate, just the concept is pure lunacy. Being so, howcome we accept for them to leverage the system to ratios of the order of 30:1, why haven't we, as shareholders/investors of those banks, a voice in the decisions which are made at the high level which put our pensions and savings to incomprehensible risk? Just because the REAL money (with REAL collateral) I have there is a fraction of those of the main investors? If just 3% of the bank perceived value evaporates in a bust ALL the wealth is put at risk when it collapses as a consequence. I will loose as much (all that I had there) as a big depositor (all that he had there). Unless the government intervenes (it is indeed trending) making the big depositor a much bigger burden on the taxpayer. This makes the scheme worthwhile and prone to fraudulent management decisions of which smaller investors have no influence. Even if the issue here is of the private domain, can you see the injustice this leads to, that of: One Dollar One Vote? EDIT: Either the banks are left to their demise, by their responsabilty in bad decisions OR government, with social concern in mind, bails the bank out. Having it both ways is the root of many injustices. In the first cenario one at least may inpect a private bank's historical decisions and act accordingly (under effective competition) and in the second cenario the Bank is a public service where only public authorities management.

Cities XL 2012 is about to be released in october. If you're going to take a look into it might as well wait a month or so... I was beta tester for the first instalment of these new series, it was slightly enjoyable, some good pluses on graphics (though the cartoon look of characters was ridicule). If you are looking for transports it is the most flexible there is, you will have trading between cities (something Simcity fanatics always wnated). Management wise it was near Simcity, I never appreciated it as much. Maybe this new version might worth a look even for me. It is the 2nd instalment since the Cities XL beta I tried), long time I don't check forums to get the feeling of the community about 2011 version... these bookmarks might guide you (forums): http://www.generation-city.com/citiesxl/ (this one is in french) http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/

Is the glass half empty or half full? For deregulation defenders the market is always seen as too much regulated. Of course others think otherwise. "Too regulated" is not an objective way of measuring. We have to take into account two sides at least, regulatory inheritance and opening of new markets (or previsouly closed to private enterprise). As markets develop into new areas, by inherited standards of required regulation, naturaly there would be new regulations introduced, therefore increasing the perceived amount of regulations, but "free market" apologists (greatly influenced by Autrian School) they both vision new markets to be opened without any regulations, destabilizing the inherited economic equilibrium, but also defend the existing markets regulations to be retired, further exacerbating the destabilization. Doesn't really matter how Austrians shout and scream criticism about economic policy being introduced. They are getting it exacly they're way, just not as comprehensive as they would appreciate. Current economic policy is almost their own definition of Economy if we take into account theoretical and applied heritage of 20th century in Capitalist societies. It is also very significant how influencial economic schools have been by these "free market" theories, even Nouriel Roubini considered a moderate (and which also predicted the 2007 bust) looks up to those theories with almost no cepticism. Of course they might "honestly believe" in the benefit of deregulated competition. The problem is that reality is showing how wrong that theory presents itself when put to practice. Unless we accept that Economy is going fine and dandy looking at these huge corporations profits and at the same time negleting the rest of the society grievances. QFT; this is exactly right. It is government intervention that caused the problem in the first place; more government intervention in the form of regulations is not the way to solve it. Banks were not "forced" to make bad loans, they profited from it hugely through high interested rates characteristic of risky lending, and since they are driven by profits they went all the way to hell with it bringing the rest of the economy along. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am pulling up some slides and accompaining legends which demonstrate my previous points more objectively: (emphasis and some comments are mine) All this enabled by a Deregulation Act. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. No wonder, even if insufficiently aware of the complexity of all this, the Occuppy Wall Street movement turns to Wall Street as a symbol of their grievances. They don't want economy to fail, they just don't want economy to turn against them specially if they weren't in the slightest responsible for its already ongoing failure. Occupy Wall Street movement, though small, but growing, is representative of ALL which are taking unbarable losses in the current crisis. And I would extend that representability far outside the US borders.

I see you keep reading people. Assuming as much... Walker will talk for himself, but my interpretation of the quote and its timely use is refering exacly to the current Federal Reserve Bank, the "America's current position was feared by its founding fathers." part. If that wasn't what he meant, its verified by reality anyways... This is not a blanket comment on private Banks in general. Funny, how much you are into your own ramblings that you missed the sarcastic tone. I was stating what is obviously NOT the case. Large sections of the society nowadays have to choose between pharmaceutical products or food, go to a doctor or lunch that day... People do move on... while they can. Current unemployment levels and trend will exacerbate these unwelcome consequences. Don't put this in the same level as skipping a video game or anything of the kind. It is TOTALY different and at great society's expense. "That is why the consumer is rational"??? Dear me. Have a good night sir.

Consumers act the exact same when the products in question are life or death related... - Water - Pharmaceuticals - Health Care - Home - etc... They simply move on, of course! Walker was pointing exacly that! No? BIS (Bank for International Settlements - NOT to be confused with Bohemia Interactive Studios...)

Of course they are! They favour monopolistic practices because their in a position to benefit from it at the expense of everyone else. Some areas of the economy should simply be barred from private control. Hold this tought for a sec even if you do not agree with it... What alternate reality have you been observing? Wherever you find a monopoly as such, by definition that monopoly surfaces because of lack of competition, hence no minor competition serves as a consumer escape route, and by that means, threatning the monopoly in question with the ultimate consequence of allowing the monopoly to set not only prices, but quality standards, and even trending development of whichever product. Now connecting with the previous point... Two examples: Microsoft Monopoly on operating systems and British Regional Water Authorities (RWAs) on water supply. By all definitions, these are/were monopoly positions in respective markets. Do note though that RWA was a state/public monopoly, in 89 was privatized under Tatcher (with Austrian Economicists clapping their hands), MS by contrast was private since the begining. The significant diference between these two monopolies (from a social standing) is that water is an ESSENTIAL product to human life, while on the other hand no one dies for the lack of a trendy operating system. It is interesting to note that, despite the privatization water supply prices jumped almost 50% in the first decade (call it competition - 16 companies total), while the now private companies profits doubled (call it efficiency), and supply would be cut for the lack of payment (I call it sociopathy). That is the exact problem of both views, either one look at economy as if it was a "dynamic", "fluid" River. One, assuming good will, implements economic practices to "regulate the river" which are latter falsified over and over again never learning, the other one assumes that the River will inevitably flow out to safe waters, just "let it flow" that it will naturaly fulfil society's best interests. The first at least gives the example of trying to comprehend its underlying laws, even if it fails. The other quits comprehending the phenomenon altogether and becomes religious about how inevitably the "good ending" will be. But they fail most fundamentaly because economy is not a nature phenomenon. Economy is product of human behaviour. Not something totally out of control despite its complexity. It benefits from a solid objective base (statistics, math, verified causes and effects), equating it with something merely entropic is the wrong approach. Finally, much more than a mere suspicion, economy is obviously being operated objectively (markets ARE manipulated, confidence levels ARE induced, information IS concealed). Not to the benefit of society in general (the Social Collective Concern) but to a handfull of Sociopathic Parasites. Just ask Cui Bono (who benefits)?

True, but people want all sorts of "fun". In this case some of the audience DICE catered for was left disappointed (not any audience, just their very fanbase). They brought us "BC3" but marketed "BF3". Deppending how significant this audience really is and how disapointed they got will define if DICE will ever return to the origins which made them so successful initialy. For your reference, regarding what type of "fun" was marketed: GameInformer Print version 11 February 2011 | Karl-Magnus Interview - GameInformer Also this by Lars Gustavsson Sustaining A Legacy: The Battlefield Strategy Battlefield Origins: Designing 1942 Unfortunately we had to swallow their dubious DRM just to have the taste (of the least interesting "fun" sort - Op. Metro and locked Caspian Border servers). I am all for demos and betas... but I hate Carrot&Sticks dilemas, specially the "Sticks" part.

"Well... we shouldn't let Governments regulate markets should we? Specially if when they do, what it turns out to is the inverse they are mandated to[1]." "But, by all means, God, let there be a Government to come and bailout failing banks when the sh*t hits the fan[2], just wait until the main orgy beneficiaries (banks shareholders) leave with their pockets full[3] and only then let the Government and the Taxpayer come in and pay for the debts[4][5]." Privatizing Profits, Socializing Debt (courtesy of DEXIA). Like Dexia there are never ending examples all over western countries. All this is intimately related with speculative practices of Wall Street which drove many banks through the red line in their balance sheets. Now that those become public, let the public pay. This is, simply put, outrageous and criminal. The point being, a Government which regulates, or by other means, assures economic sustainability is not the problem. De facto Governments in current Capitalist system do its inverse, assure economic break down. There is no base to complain when they function according to the legitimate objective. And the other side of the question, should or should not a market let it handle itself? If nothing else lattest 2007 bust proves that regulation was ever more necessary. Not only regulation, but prosecution of the beneficiaries of the criminal activity which led to it. Current Capitalist System is a Austrian School of Economics wet dream, and everyone else pratical bloody nightmare. EDIT: I was forgeting the rest of the story, but as usual, as soon as the now nationalized division of the bank becomes lucrative again, no worries... it gets to be privatized again, in some instances by the very shareholders which had bankrupt the bank in the first place. Nahhh... there is no future in this System!

Not at all... despite some older pensionists having access to simbolic subsidies, these national companies were instead considerably lucrative, if anything these profits could be allocated to other ministries. And if is questionable how these profits were managed by the government, this was less agravating then it is now, because now neither the profits and neither their management are put at national service. Why always a all-or-nothing point of view that you have? Indeed the food issue is less about who produces it then with its distribution. But I see no problem in regulations with the stated objective to warrant better food access (ie a lower VAT tax on food products) and being effective to that end by this means. "Not even remotely close"? I give you two very significant examples of letting the market settle for itself. The first which removed existing preventive legislation and the second which prevented regulation to be instated. Commercial+Financial mergers - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 1999 (nail in the coffin for Glass-Steagall and peoples savings) under Securities and Exchange Commission inaction Derivatives market deregulation - Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000 (nail in the coffin for financial markets) under Commondity Futures Trading Commission inaction These are both hallmarks of Austrian School of economics. Supported by both "ends" of the American political spectrum. There is no point in denying evidence. It is also relevant to understand the causal effect of this as enabling the bust of 2007, and to a lesser extent the 2001 internet bust. I mentioned two ways by which the housing market bubble was inflated, if I get you right you added a third valid explanation for it, even if a more relevant one. No surprise there since economic phenomenons have usualy several confluent causes. We're not exacly in disagreement unless you claim what you mention as an exclusive cause for it. No doubt, but I would add: Real capitalism is about privatizing profits and socializing losses. The operating word being "Real" (de facto) as opposed to "Idilic/utopic/ideologic". Definetly not a sustainable model!

You really put a blind faith in the markets. Even when, again and again, is demonstrated how nefarious they become to the economy as a whole as they develop. The current crisis is the best corolary of this. I was told the same thing when telecommunications infrastructure went private here, and when public transport followed the same route. "Competition would bring efficiency and lower prices", populations got the exact inverse in no more than a year. And these are not resources, these are simply fundamental and strategic sectors of economy. Remaining companies today are huge monopolistic conglomerates, has they always come to. There might indeed be a stage in the process where there is not much disconnect between customers and a company's shareholders, but what we are inevitably lead to is a total disconnect between those interests. And no, profit, by current standards, is maximized by using criteria at odds with the customers best interest, examples abound at every scale of business. But I would add that having water to drink is beyond a mere "customers' interest", it translates a basic necessity in life which by definition amounts to much more than a simple "consumer product". Austrian school of economics (completely "free deregulated market", "spontaneous order" apologists, and also detractors of science as the best means to describe reality)... Austrian school of economics IS what is being applied as financial and economic policy TODAY in ever wider sectors. See "Financial Derivative markets" as their most preverse pinacle. I am sure Hanz_Ludwig here can share with us some input. What is "carbon emissions trading" then? If not a way of turning into business the exchange of an indirect tax on air? Can you see how perverse all this is? (Can I hear you say green communist scare?) I wasn't simply pointing at the vacant homes... I was trying to vehicle how artificialy vacant homes were kept throughout the lattest housing market bubble (~2001-2007) in order to inflate their end prices, and also how artificial the very publishing of those numbers are. There is alot of speculative ways the market operators extract/suck value, these I mentioned are just two of them.

You are making no sense... You took the example of Air since it is a good example of a "plentiful resource". You proceed by saying, because of that there isn't "incentive to fight over it and trading isn't necessary". On the other hand if you take the example of Water, which is also "plentiful", it is being traded by big corporations* through concessions, and I don't simply mean bottled water, I really mean clean source water. * Compagnie Générale des Eaux is a good example Tap water in my country is about to be concessioned/privatized, a national resource (therefore its nationals own it) is about to become managed and exploited by a private company. I find this outrageous (not because its private in the name mind you, I have no gripes with private property) but simply because a company serves its investors interests, it is obligated by law to be so, that it is naive and unrealistic to think nationals interests will be uphold as THE priority by that companies administration. The conflicting interests issue and in this case in a matter of life or death. If you can follow this self-evident truth it might be possible to understand that there are some resources, which by their scarcity, by their importance to populations should simply not be allowed to private exploitation. Water is essential to life, Air as much, howcome an eventual private exploitation of the latter would be shocking just to think about it? And the former appears to be more acceptable? In my view it is the exact same thing, but due to corporate disproportional influence on government the concept is subreptitiously sliding into populations minds, many times as an accomplished fact. This is true and I pick the example of the housing market. In this case it is speculation by "deflating a number" the number is pointed to be around 11.4% of vacant homes, but taking in account the number of foreclosures and the stagant market it is most probably much higher.

DEFEATISM is the least that the movement needs. Help raise awareness of that real possibility instead. Help the movement or its elements understand that the "liberal establishment" is part of the problem and helped to create the current crisis. Help the movement organize themselves and build an alternative program which includes the social concerns instead of financial ones. One of the reasons movements don't even begin is because we are lead to believe it is condemned from the start. Yet effective movements have flourished at the same time. Defeatism is not welcome imo.

This is an important issue you raise. I have some thoughts on it, and I will be long, spare me the TL'DR comments. Certainly one needs to describe the problem before one starts developing solutions for it. The silence over solutions is very understandable from where I am at. Individually, I can not claim to be authoritative in whatever solution I may present, firstly because for one to gain any shadow of authority in whatever subject one must understand it comprehensively, secondly the solution needs to be comprehended and benefit from wide support. Authority on given subject - In my opinion the only way to achieve the this is by cientificaly studying the subject (be it economics, social, communication, etc). I say "cientifically" because it is demonstrably the best tool to unambiguously define reality. I am therefore laying on reality (or nature) the ultimate authority on anything that surrounds Men. This relates to a certain pragmatism. Solutions' wide support - To gain support for a certain measure, people must really comprehend it and not jump into bandwagons mindlessly. Also whichever solution one individually comes to, it also has to take in account a collective concern for it to be able to conquer the best support possible. Solutions which do not pass this filter will certainly face trouble from the get go. So this is the problem and how I would describe it individually, but to put it now more in collective terms: People need places were the discussion may occur with the objective of providing a collective conscience and be able to embbed it in our rationale for following solutions. Without this place, without this collective conscience we are less able to respond to a basic requirement. From apathy > to recognition of the existence of a problem > to the comprehension of the problem > to obtaining unifying solutions of the problem > putting the solutions to practice In my view, it is not possible to skip these steps. The lack of solutions is part of the global problem itself. (One could also say that the very reason the system is crumbling is precesely because the ones which control the system have run out of "solutions" much less these being collective, which they are not) In general terms, Wall Street Occupation shows that the first two steps have been achieved in part. But people, at each own individual rythm, do have to bring up themselves to speed with a very effective collective comprehension of the problem, for this there needs to be discussion and places for it. People need to shut the television off and literly start talking to each other about their grievances and what needs to be done. And so, to follow my own advice, let me briefly start... My expertise is generaly in Communication, and specifically Design. Many times I wondered how my constructed knowledge could help me define the big problem I see... Problem - Society based/dependent on myths Solution - Dismount the myths, bring other fellow partners aware of it so they can employ their own knowledge to do the same, share with them my concerns, discover new ways to solve the problem (it does not matter the scale one does this, it is always relevant) The bad news is that, the problem is big, and there are many of them, "almost" overwhelming. The good news is that people are showing to be giving a first step, those concerned are positioning themselves, and that if there is anything overwhelming is humanity united. In the end of the day, the biggest hurdle is in achieving a "scientific collective conscience" of THE problem, so there can be an valid (and authoritative) solution. This the reason why whenever I stumble with any Science detractor, or Individualism apologist I usually do not restrain myself, because it messes with the most important thing. For this I am usualy considered a subversive element, but I accept the compliment. It is questionable if "real free markets ever existed". In 5 centuries of Capitalism one is still to observe a "free market capitalism" that wouldn't inevitably develop it self to an imperialistic phase.

Yes... he does not follow the schools of economic thought which brought about the current crisis. "Free market" is a total misnomer, it is "free" given very strict conditions which always favour big capital, small investors or business risk takers are as caged as a domestic bird is. Socialist?... no prejudice against it! I am totally social over finance! EDIT: Finance, economics, politics, everything at the human service. Turn this around and you get what you observe today!

It is better then to start thinking about it, there simply is no way a society can even be thought about without equating some form of government along with it. We can't simply dismiss the government function just because it is not functioning the way it is supposed to. Its like dismissing a car clutch because it makes the car go backwards instead of forwards. There is no way around it. We have a murderer around, and they are so many, that justice cannot cope with them. Would we simply scrap the law that frames that crime? That does not make sense. We need a functioning Government! People want a functioning Constitution! People want justice! Those are some good phrases to take down there in Liberty Park and many other cities across the states.

Very much correct. "Politicians" favour a minority of their constituency because they are criminaly paid to do so. Why they do that I think is obvious, why they fail to have any hint of an idea their job is all about is something we all should denounce, and demonstrate agains... by going to Liberty Park, for instance. I would claim that the economic and social impact of that would be the maintenance of a much better and balanced status quo.

Agree that it constituted a mallicious attack. Just ignore it as best as you can, it is hard I know. But I disagree on the second part. People who choose to break forum rules and be banned as a consequence do it by their own accord. To prive the well behaved ones of the important discussions that may occur because of that is not, imo, the way to go. Political discussion is intimately related with what is happening with Wall Street Occupation movement. I have as my own belief that one of the reasons that allowed "politicians" to get away with selling themselves out to corporations instead of serving their constituency is precisely because of lack of political discussion, its economical underlinings, and social impacts. That discussion brings about awareness of the issues involved and allows one to better face against what is being imposed on the most affected by politics.

The point I was trying to make is that regulation is an essential function for a sustainable and balanced society given its inner conflicting interests. The fact that Capitalism drives for complete deregulation is old (ie laissez-faire laissez-passer, removal of protectionist economic spaces), is also in contradiction with a long term vision of any society. Globalization forced on countries (to whatever extent they were economicaly Capitalistic) a higher step in deregulation so business could stay competitive. Legislators are mere tools in the hands of corporate interests, the latter ones are the main beneficiaries of deregulation, not its inverse as you try to put it. Legislators are mere enablers of all this (despite being criminally well paid ones). Remember though that if they were functioning in their electorate interests things could be slightly different.

Yeah Gilded Age... and Slavery at the same time! How hard can it be to make you understand that "Regulations" are a requirement for proper coexistence of conflicting interests? One of the main reasons the whole world is observing a "Systemic Crisis" is precisely because of non-conformance to regulations as a general practice. Sometimes those regulations are even removed... Glass-Steagall (1933) act was removed by the introduction of the Financial Services Modernization Act (Bill-Clinton - 1999), in a move that could be seen itself as criminal by the legislative branch given the negative economic impact therein, in order to allow the criminal Citicorp merger with Travelers (1998). This merger was unlawful because it occured under Glass-Steagall and constituted a merger between Commercial and Financial banking. The previous legislation was important because it prevented lunatic levels of banking leveraging (capital ratio to risk) and to put in the same box risk free assets along with high risk ones. With that deregulation it became possible to observe exacly what you are observing today in world wide finance, it only took 8-10 years for the effects to surface. So lets remove even more preventive legislation that exists, let the bloodsuckers take it all and consider it normal lawful practice (even with retrospective effect - one of the big "No-No"s of legislation). If anything more regulatory legislation should be introduced, but it is too late for that. The system requires one and its inverse at the same time! Conclusion: The system is unsustainable and its inner contradictions are forcing an inevitable descent phase.

link no comments...

Apparently ---beta testers--- are being threatened having their EA Origin accounts shut for anyone that is detected joining these hacked servers, at the prejudice of remaining games in that account. This is stunning behaviour, I say! Not that it makes me happy see all these gamers having to put up with this, but I AM VERY GLAD I AM NOT. The sad thing about all this is the stubborness with which EA+DICE is "trying" to shove down players throats so called Battlelog and BF3 as a different genre of gameplay of that which was advertised. See external game server browser issue + squad system implemented through Battlelog and also not in-game. BTW: The ilimited RPG spamming on that video is just the counter for the "limited destructability" introduced in the BETA. Players are definitely pissed. EDIT2: Now that I've seen through the video... I am actually in awe at all this. I think about the developer I learned to like and can't help myself but think how this can be disapointing to them and the players at the same time. So much spite from players, so much spite from the publisher and developer... I coudn't care less for EA, in fact I tend to believe, they were the ones that brought this all about.

Not supporting LAN (in its original sense) is very trendy these latter years for these overhyped titles. I didn't mean to be condescending, only to make clear the distinction between this and the alternative presented which is bs. Sorry for that.

Social Cientists don't guess, they don't claim to be deterministic either as in more objective science such as Math or Physics. Social phenomena cannot be looked over the same way a lightning strikes earth's surface. This does not go to say that we are dealing with complex subjective occurences alone either, there are very objective dimensions of the social "problem" where Men is part of the object being studied. When you say Marx "guessed wrong" can be easily disputed. Capitalism was going through an Industrial phase (though also very imperialistc). Given this context many of his analysis and conclusions are valid. Carelessly extrapolating his analysis to the current Financial Capitalism will get one into dead ends. He himself pointed that his method (historic materialism) would require constant update along changing contexts, the very recognition that History aside of being writen by Men is also his own product and in constant transformation. Capitalism as a set of economic rules, has been deemed by marxists, as self desctructable, because historicaly as been proven to diverge from economic sustainability and social balance. Current Financial Capitalism (I would also add "Lunatic") is proving, by the exact same token, to be facing its own demize. This is where our disagreement comes obvious, there exists significant sectors of society which think we are facing a system with no end in sight. See Fukuyama "The End of History". But to keep that view one has to shut his eyes to the way society systems come and go along the centuries and milenia. The crisis we all are observing today, as grave as it is, as wide as it reaches all corners of the world is the omen for significant transformation of society. Nevermind what is the solution the agents of that transformation will opt for. What economic system will they devise as intelligent beings to tackle the problems they will face. Those are all post-facto considerations. It is the inevitability of the transformation which is the main issue here. Don't bother too much with Capitalism vs Communism. You take it for granted that Communism failed... so be it! But one has to recognize, if not earlier, at this very moment in time that Capitalism has failed also. It is too relevant for the society future prospects the Wall Street Occupation movement and many other protest movements. Those movements represent how aware the society in general is and recognizes the need to change from a now crumbling system to any future one. It is the recognition of the inevitabilty, not of more austerity, but of radical transformation.