In the most recent debate between the presidential contenders, both were disappointing. There was no knock out punch. The problem as I see it was that Obama failed to make a connection. He made the point that McCain was privy to Bush's plunders, but McCain was able to argue that he had opposed all the policies that are a blight on the Bush record.
This leaves open a blaring contradiction. Bush had the support of someone in the Republican Party. Now McCain is the main of the moment. The implications is that a lot of the people who supported Bush must be supporting McCain.
Not convinced? Well its the Republican Party that made it possible. It was Reagan that put the US in debt, it was Clinton that pulled the US through it. It was the Bushs' who put the US back in debt, now looks like it will fall upon the Democrats to again get the US out of debt. I had to laugh when I saw assertions by Republican congressmen that the problem was caused by greedy capitalists. The common denominator is the Republican Party.
REPUBLICAN PARTY = EXCESS DEBT CREATION!
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Why are CEOs being rewarded for self-serving packages
It really is not good enough for US Treasurer Henry Paulson to come out and say he will make concessions to Congress to have caps placed on US salaries. There are several problems with this:
1. Weak regulation - the government is not even looking at white collar crime; since they make no resources available for it.
2. Too late - what is the point of capping salaries 20 years after the problem started. The last generation of CEOs has retired or converted their options into shares, and in most cases sold out.
3. Too little - The CEOs have engaged in self-serving action at the expense of shareholders. In Australia that is a breech of duty. Not only should those funds be recouped, but directors should no longer be entitled to options.
4. Standard of value - The standard of value by which CEOs are paid should be the same by which shareholders are paid, the share price. The difference is that the CEO should be paid a basic salary plus a performance incentive based on the extent to which he out-performs the broad index. This would mean the best CEOs are attracted to the best performing sectors, which is where you want the best people. Though someone might argue you should compare them with same industry CEOs. I have some sympathy for that view.
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
1. Weak regulation - the government is not even looking at white collar crime; since they make no resources available for it.
2. Too late - what is the point of capping salaries 20 years after the problem started. The last generation of CEOs has retired or converted their options into shares, and in most cases sold out.
3. Too little - The CEOs have engaged in self-serving action at the expense of shareholders. In Australia that is a breech of duty. Not only should those funds be recouped, but directors should no longer be entitled to options.
4. Standard of value - The standard of value by which CEOs are paid should be the same by which shareholders are paid, the share price. The difference is that the CEO should be paid a basic salary plus a performance incentive based on the extent to which he out-performs the broad index. This would mean the best CEOs are attracted to the best performing sectors, which is where you want the best people. Though someone might argue you should compare them with same industry CEOs. I have some sympathy for that view.
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Monday, September 15, 2008
Unbloody believable - corruption under Bush
Being a supporter of small government, you might have expected me to be a supporter of the Republicans, however my contempt for Bush and the Republicans has sunk to a new level. I was reading about Alan Greenspan's forecast for the US economy. For the life of me, I don't know how Greenspan could be so blind or repressed, to be unable to see the consequences for his own actions. He talks down the economy, but he otherwise seems oblivious to the fact that he caused it. He is not alone. My mother's boyfriend, also a conservative seems to be suggesting that the Labor Rudd government is responsible for the weaker Australian economy. As much as I think Rudd has been a disappointment, I would have to conceed that he hasn't had the chance to really do any damage yet. I would love to be the journalist who asks Greenspan what part he played. I could retire after asking that question. It would be worth being blacklisted by every media outlet. Talking of blacklisting. In an interview on Dateline, George Negus was implying that Naomi Wolf was being sensational by suggesting that the USA had become a fascist state. Ask yourself why a bestselling author would now be blacklisted by the media. Why is she only showing on foreign media by a government TV channel, which has a reputation for political independence? I can't imagine that George Negus would have been bought off, though I guess he has worked before with the large private TV stations. Does he owe someone a favour. Read his transcript for his interview - it struck me as highly impartial. Poor interview as well, and quite condescending. I note that the media is particularly critical of the Independents in the Australian politics. Its true that some of these players are very unpolished. I guess for the media, unpolished politicians are a little uninteresting. Scandal though is valued when it comes from the main parties, but quashed when it comes from Independents. In the Philippines they of course kill critical journalists.
But in a related article I learned something shocking about America which I did not know. The government controls an appropriations committee which dolls out money to politicians around the country. We have this in Australia too, though its much more blatant in the USA. They function as personal investment funds, and there is evidence of course that these funds are used to pay backhanders to the sponsoring Senators. The bulk of the money goes to marginal seats, helping to keep the government in power. Just like campaign funds the burden of these dispersements are increasing each year.
I don't know how anyone can argue that we are not within a period of fascism. Would you like another example? Malaysia is benefiting from a resurgence of popularity by Anwar Ibrahim, the would-be prime minister of Malaysia, who was jailed by Mahathir cronies for sodomising his driver. Mahathir has long since disappeared after a long rein in Malaysian politics. But Anwar has again been charged with sodomy just prior to the leading party vote. I would not be surprised to see Anwar assasinated or jailed against for sodomy. And I would be surprised if this results in riots in Malaysia. So you would think that Western politicians would be outraged by these events in Malaysia, but no! Very little commentary at all. Why? I think its because they are scared to become under criticism themselves. I don't know if you realise the dichotomy that our elected officials have created. They have liberalised markets, and I guess you could argue they have increased market competition. But in politics they have entrenched their own parties position. Global governments support dual-party systems despite the fact that these are rife for collusion. You might think they are competitive, but understand they play in a certain way. There are rules of engagement. They know they will have power roughly half the time, and if they opportunity only comes once in a lifetime its worth it. It need not be a dual system. In Japan, its the omnipotent Democratic Liberal Party that has controlled government for 75 years, aside from a very short hiatus. The conceals the fact that the DLP comprises factions that distribute gratuities like its Xmas.
The Philippines is so corrupt its amazing. Its beyond comment. Its guilty by reputation. I notice that governments do seem to have rules of engagement. It was when evidence emerged that the Philippines government was engaging in political killings that the US government actually stepped in and said something. As far as I can see there are secret rules of engagement. They will permit anything but political killings. Clearly the reasons for this are self-serving. Imprisoning a person is OK under these rules. That's why no one cared when the 'red racist' Pauline Hanson was imprisoned by Tony Abbott in Australia, and no one cared when Anwar Ibrahim was imprisoned in Malaysia on trumped up charges, and will again. I would not be surprised if President Obama is assasinated by the Republican Party. Of course they will pay a white supremist with self esteem problems to do the damage, and then they'll kill the evidence trail. Its all very predictable if you look at the trend. That is of course if Obama is any different. Kennedy didn't want to play ball, so he got assasinated. There is no reason to believe that Obama is anything but a fascist team player. There is hope because he has been in politics for less time. Any idealism in him though will be corrupted or he will be eradicated. The rules change if you don't play by the rules.
The most cynical aspect of this presidential campaign I have seen so far is the appointment as Senator Palin as the Vice President nominee. Aside from the fact that she appears to be a credible candidate, I would make the following points:
1. Palin attracts the female vote that Obama snubbed when he shot down Hillary, which was the right thing to do. Hillary is a control freak who would never have played 2nd-in-command.
2. Palin supposedly a strong force against party corruption. I personally think that is political spin because she comes from the state (Alaska) which receives the greatest funding by 'earmarks' These funding instruments are a scam story in themselves. Alaska gets 10x more funding from 'earmarks' than any other state. That makes her vulnerable to the Republican party appropriations committee. So she is a puppet.
3. She is a gun-totting politician
I conclude that there is so much spin on Palin that she is not going to know which way is up. Just ask yourself why this woman from nowhere is elected. Its all politics of managing perceptions. The Republicans are vulnerable on the female vote and corruption. The media has painted this woman as the party sheriff who is going to clean up corruption. As soon as the election is over, the party will pull her aside and say 'If you don't play by the rules' we will cut funding to her electorate in Alaska. Global politics have become so dirty, and there are few places in the world where its so 'clean' and slimy as the USA. In the Philippines its far more impersonal. They just shot you from a distance.
What is more concerning to me is how the general population is so indifferent to these issues. They just turn off. Their attitude is - I can't do anything about it - so i'm going to look after number one. My problem is that these political parties are going to get a little desperate and start killing opponents. What will these compliant voters say then? The old idea that you can always vote them out is nonsense. These fascists are in both parties. No one represents the workers anymore. That is the rhetoric. Those union leaders who don't play ball are either paid off or removed by the upper echelons. There are few unions with any power anymore. This is not new. Union leaders in Japan have for decades been paid off. They were even given positions on the company board of directors.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
But in a related article I learned something shocking about America which I did not know. The government controls an appropriations committee which dolls out money to politicians around the country. We have this in Australia too, though its much more blatant in the USA. They function as personal investment funds, and there is evidence of course that these funds are used to pay backhanders to the sponsoring Senators. The bulk of the money goes to marginal seats, helping to keep the government in power. Just like campaign funds the burden of these dispersements are increasing each year.
I don't know how anyone can argue that we are not within a period of fascism. Would you like another example? Malaysia is benefiting from a resurgence of popularity by Anwar Ibrahim, the would-be prime minister of Malaysia, who was jailed by Mahathir cronies for sodomising his driver. Mahathir has long since disappeared after a long rein in Malaysian politics. But Anwar has again been charged with sodomy just prior to the leading party vote. I would not be surprised to see Anwar assasinated or jailed against for sodomy. And I would be surprised if this results in riots in Malaysia. So you would think that Western politicians would be outraged by these events in Malaysia, but no! Very little commentary at all. Why? I think its because they are scared to become under criticism themselves. I don't know if you realise the dichotomy that our elected officials have created. They have liberalised markets, and I guess you could argue they have increased market competition. But in politics they have entrenched their own parties position. Global governments support dual-party systems despite the fact that these are rife for collusion. You might think they are competitive, but understand they play in a certain way. There are rules of engagement. They know they will have power roughly half the time, and if they opportunity only comes once in a lifetime its worth it. It need not be a dual system. In Japan, its the omnipotent Democratic Liberal Party that has controlled government for 75 years, aside from a very short hiatus. The conceals the fact that the DLP comprises factions that distribute gratuities like its Xmas.
The Philippines is so corrupt its amazing. Its beyond comment. Its guilty by reputation. I notice that governments do seem to have rules of engagement. It was when evidence emerged that the Philippines government was engaging in political killings that the US government actually stepped in and said something. As far as I can see there are secret rules of engagement. They will permit anything but political killings. Clearly the reasons for this are self-serving. Imprisoning a person is OK under these rules. That's why no one cared when the 'red racist' Pauline Hanson was imprisoned by Tony Abbott in Australia, and no one cared when Anwar Ibrahim was imprisoned in Malaysia on trumped up charges, and will again. I would not be surprised if President Obama is assasinated by the Republican Party. Of course they will pay a white supremist with self esteem problems to do the damage, and then they'll kill the evidence trail. Its all very predictable if you look at the trend. That is of course if Obama is any different. Kennedy didn't want to play ball, so he got assasinated. There is no reason to believe that Obama is anything but a fascist team player. There is hope because he has been in politics for less time. Any idealism in him though will be corrupted or he will be eradicated. The rules change if you don't play by the rules.
The most cynical aspect of this presidential campaign I have seen so far is the appointment as Senator Palin as the Vice President nominee. Aside from the fact that she appears to be a credible candidate, I would make the following points:
1. Palin attracts the female vote that Obama snubbed when he shot down Hillary, which was the right thing to do. Hillary is a control freak who would never have played 2nd-in-command.
2. Palin supposedly a strong force against party corruption. I personally think that is political spin because she comes from the state (Alaska) which receives the greatest funding by 'earmarks' These funding instruments are a scam story in themselves. Alaska gets 10x more funding from 'earmarks' than any other state. That makes her vulnerable to the Republican party appropriations committee. So she is a puppet.
3. She is a gun-totting politician
I conclude that there is so much spin on Palin that she is not going to know which way is up. Just ask yourself why this woman from nowhere is elected. Its all politics of managing perceptions. The Republicans are vulnerable on the female vote and corruption. The media has painted this woman as the party sheriff who is going to clean up corruption. As soon as the election is over, the party will pull her aside and say 'If you don't play by the rules' we will cut funding to her electorate in Alaska. Global politics have become so dirty, and there are few places in the world where its so 'clean' and slimy as the USA. In the Philippines its far more impersonal. They just shot you from a distance.
What is more concerning to me is how the general population is so indifferent to these issues. They just turn off. Their attitude is - I can't do anything about it - so i'm going to look after number one. My problem is that these political parties are going to get a little desperate and start killing opponents. What will these compliant voters say then? The old idea that you can always vote them out is nonsense. These fascists are in both parties. No one represents the workers anymore. That is the rhetoric. Those union leaders who don't play ball are either paid off or removed by the upper echelons. There are few unions with any power anymore. This is not new. Union leaders in Japan have for decades been paid off. They were even given positions on the company board of directors.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Monday, September 01, 2008
The dishonesty & ignorance of Australian politicians
Its interesting what politicians convey when they argue in parliament. Consider today's parliamentary session in Australia. A string of Liberal Party MPs asked questions along the lines of "Why has economic growth fallen by half since Kevin Rudd, Labor leader has taken over the leadership". Why has inflation increased, why has interest rates risen, why has real wages fallen. These questions are surprising because:
1. The Liberal Party is blatantly and systematically dishonest for arguing the point, because it was an orchestrated campaign to discredit Labor for something that the Liberals did under their 10years in opposition.
2. It highlights the lack of respect the Liberals have for facts
3. It highlights the lack of respect for voters, treating them like the idiots they often are.
4. It highlights the idiocy of the government of Kevin Rudd because the best Kevin Rudd could do was say "Is that all you can do, talk down the economy".
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
1. The Liberal Party is blatantly and systematically dishonest for arguing the point, because it was an orchestrated campaign to discredit Labor for something that the Liberals did under their 10years in opposition.
2. It highlights the lack of respect the Liberals have for facts
3. It highlights the lack of respect for voters, treating them like the idiots they often are.
4. It highlights the idiocy of the government of Kevin Rudd because the best Kevin Rudd could do was say "Is that all you can do, talk down the economy".
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?
