Thursday, October 30, 2008

Redistribution of Filth [Drill baby drill!]

Quick short humor before the story.. this has been in my head for quite a while, and I am sure I am not the first one to think it, but I haven't heard it:
"Where did the McCain camp get the idea for the slogan 'Drill baby drill'?
They wanted the population of the USA to essentially scream 'F*CK ME HARDER, I CAN STILL FEEL MY SOUL!" to the republicans, so they won't feel so guilty about the sodomizing of the 'American Dream', and the destruction of the country from within.

Anyhow,

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?cnn=yes

..
"Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier. That profit included $1.45 billion in special items.

The company's prior record was $11.68 billion in the second quarter of 2008."

This is all f*cking absolute bullshit. When any other industry's raw material jumps 40-60%, their mother f*cking profit declines. These gouging assf*cks can just increase at will, bring up margin even, and make so much damned money.. Redistribution of wealth is OK if its a business, or benefits business (which is absolutely the case here, and was sanctioned by the USA's neglecting to solve the problem of overinflated crude prices. ), but if it has anything to do with the common good, it's socialism. I will leave this at rest for now, I have already written a really long essay on oil prices, etc.. maybe I can find it, and put 'er up here.

~Nic

Thursday, October 16, 2008

wRONg PAUL

So there I was, about a year ago.. first time ever I was introduced to the idea of Ron Paul. It was great, Libertarianism; freedom for all, liberty, etc. It was a romantic idea: the end of the war on drugs, legalization of various other things, FREEDOM! For once, someone that agreed with me on all levels; or so I thought. Because I tend to be skeptical of everything, including things I hold as truths, I pried into it a little bit. Let me parse some stuff from his website:

"Are you confused by all the talk about monetary policy, fiat money and inflation? You’re not alone. Bankers and politicians have worked hand in hand for many decades to obscure their activities from the public. They hide behind elaborate structures designed to inflate the money supply while creating the false impression that they are looking out for our best interests."

Oversimplifications of complex issues are very sexy. If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's gotta be good. (that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, but "drill baby drill does"). This paragraph illustrates what turned out to be my key problem with the Ron Paul Revolution: he is an ideologue. His voting record confirms this, as I am sure he would have no problem with me saying he is. Whats wrong with ideologues? Well, human nature is not predictable. Things change, and when they do, those willing to adapt will be the survivors, and those who stick to their guns ("you're just not looking hard enough for the WMDs in Iraq.") look like assholes. I learned this long ago in reading philosophy, any time you set out to come up with a strict set of rules, they will always have exceptions. Even math has exceptions. If you ignore these exceptions, you become ignorant to what is directly in front of you.
So, back to the that paragraph; "They hide behind elaborate structures designed to inflate the money supply while creating the false impression that they are looking out for our best interests." Yes, they do. The fed has very little, if any oversight. This is wrong. But the correct answer is not the dissolution of the fed, IMO, the correct answer is oversight of the fed (and all other governmental institutions). What is wrong with the gold standard, why can't we go back to non-fiat money!? When I go to the bank, I want to be able to turn my cash in for the gold that backs it! No. If we used the gold standard, instead of fiat currency, we would not be able to adapt to the crisis at hand, the government wouldn't be able to make loans to banks to allow them liquidity to make loans to consumers. (various places on the Internet explain these concepts) The [printing] creation of money for loans is what has allowed people all across the US (and the world) to be able to buy homes on credit, instead of buying a home outright, or with considerable amounts of money down. Despite the current problem, the main source of a persons wealth is long, constant payments on a house over the span of 30 or so years. If everyone rented instead of owned homes (Not everyone, but far more), money, instead of going into that persons equity/wealth, would instead be funneled to people who already have plenty of money (or enough at least to own rental property), and is effectively a concentration of wealth. So yes, at first glance, dismantling the fed seems like a good idea, but some diving into the subject, at least if your not rich, reveals more, and prompts the question: why does Paul pander? Is he pandering, or does he really believe these things? I choose to believe that Paul really believes this is what is best for the country, albeit IMO, wrong. Read his website's fiat money/inflation paper with these things in mind now, it would then seem as if we shouldn't own houses because we can't afford them [outright], and that loans are the creation of money (which they are), and cause inflation (which they do). and think about this critically, and report back why inflation is not a bad thing per se. (Hint; I doubt there would be any raises in a commodity backed currency. Raises are generally to counter [if even that] inflation, however, not all things inflate at the same rate.) I have already gone over some of these issues about inflation, taxes, and otherwise in previous blog posts, and other essays, so read those.

I agree with Paul on some issues of course, the patriot act is one of the most appalling attacks on liberty America has ever seen. Of course the war on drugs is a goddamn joke, it's not to protect children, for goodness sake, when I was in High school it was far easier to get ahold of pot than it was to alcohol. I think this is the trap lots of people have fallen into; they agree with the personal freedom side of it, and figure, how in the world could I disagree with the other things?! Personal freedom! WOO HOO. But it's not just personal liberty.. not just for the PEOPLE, this is extended to business. Business should have very little freedom. Why am I anti business? I am not. Business is very necessary to the way of life in the USA, obviously. But business makes terrible mistakes. does anyone really think they can f*cking tell me that if business wan't told they couldn't dump their chems into rivers with no repercussions (at least immediate) that they would choose not to because they care about the environment? No. Would they have to when people found out they were doing it, and boycotted them? No, because all the other business that make the same product, or what-have-you, would be doing the same thing. Could one find a niche in a more green approach? Maybe, but their shareholders would shit bricks, since profit margins would decrease in contrast to the other companies, since the other companies were not paying extra to take care of waste. There's more examples, such as how employers treat employees, etc. maybe for another time.

It seems as if some of Mr. Paul's issues statements have disappeared from his webpage since last look. The last time I looked however, he had a short article about the Internet... against the Internet "regulation" (if you remember when this was a top issue, the Internet regulation was meant to tell ISPs that they couldn't restrict customers access to websites.) Paul was against this regulation, which really means that he would like to allow business to tell you what websites you can and can not visit. THAT WOULD BE THE IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT! THINK about that now. Do a thought experiment; Comcast can charge $1.00 per access to Skype, or to Vonage, but charge nothing to use their phone service. That is NOT A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET. This is why BUSINESS CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH FREE REIGN. And for now, I rest my argument before I give myself a heart attack.

~Nic

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Shareholder Votes

Something I was thinking about over the past day since I had my (insignificant) Microsoft vote.

So, let's say a person has $100,000 invested in a 401k. 401k plans hold securities in a wide variety of business. Every share has a vote, however in a 401k, these votes are proxies to the holder of the paper (in my case, Principal). Some of this is based on assumptions (namely, the assumption that the holding company gets/uses the votes. I can't confirm this anywhere, as it seems the question hasn't come up. If you find the actual answer to that, let me know). So let me break this down a little bit:
1. Social Security may damn well not be around by the time I retire (should I somehow live that long)
2. My generation has been told that (about S.S.) forever (I suppose, if they lower our expectations, we won't be THAT upset. Pay no mind to the fact that we've been holding up S.S. for the generations before us. *cough* bullshit, f*cking figure it out so we get ours too!)
3. We're told we have to have 401k/Roth IRA plans so we can retire one day. (Because with pension plans, we don't have the "freedom" to choose where to invest it, ignoring the fact that most people are not savvy stock market investors with the proper tools/knowledge to invest properly anyhow)
4. We put (maybe I should say I on a lot of these) money away from our paychecks every pay period
5. That money buys securities/shares/whatever in various companies
6. We are essentially giving our money to someone to allow them to have large amounts of sway in the business they use our money to hold.
7. This is all a f*cking scam to use our money to influence these businesses.
8. I hate republicans

Q.E.D.

Think about things, read stuff, do a tiny bit of homework. People need to stop taking things at face value, and look deeper into them. We are getting screwed in the worst way possible. This had been lingering in my mind long before there were market problems. I realize that the stock market goes up and down, the point is the interest lost on that money in the meanwhile (for CHRIST sake, my ING savings account has a 3% return, and is F.D.I.C. Insured!), not to mention the votes we are buying very rich people [shareholders]. Oh, and; what happens if Principal fails? What happens if the company that holds your 401k, or whatever fails? F*cked. We don't need 8% returns with the risk of 100% losses. I am sick of holding on to my ankles, it's time to grab some hot, tight ass. (What??)

(I just wanted another comment inside of parenthesis)

~Nic

Friday, October 3, 2008

Microsoft Shareholder Vote

Below follows my votes for my shares in Microsoft. Never in my life did I think I was going to get to vote AGAINST Bill Gates (Though I have a strange feeling I will be out voted)

01. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: STEVEN A. BALLMER
You Voted: For This Proposal.

02. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: JAMES I. CASH JR.
You Voted: For This Proposal.

03. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: DINA DUBLON
You Voted: For This Proposal.

04. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: WILLIAM H. GATES III
You Voted: Against This Proposal.

05. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: RAYMOND V. GILMARTIN
You Voted: For This Proposal.

06. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: REED HASTINGS
You Voted: For This Proposal.

07. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: DAVID F. MARQUARDT
You Voted: For This Proposal.

08. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: CHARLES H. NOSKI
You Voted: For This Proposal.

09. ELECTION OF DIRECTOR: HELMUT PANKE
You Voted: For This Proposal.

10. APPROVAL OF MATERIAL TERMS OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA UNDER THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER INCENTIVE PLAN.
You Voted: For This Proposal.

11. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS.
You Voted: For This Proposal.

12. RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP AS THE COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.
You Voted: For This Proposal.

13. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL - ADOPTION OF POLICIES ON INTERNET CENSORSHIP.
You Voted: Against This Proposal.

14. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL - ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
You Voted: For This Proposal.

15. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL - DISCLOSURE OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.
You Voted: For This Proposal.