Showing posts with label Control Frauds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Control Frauds. Show all posts

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Translation For J&J Sixpack: "No, Really. You're Better Off If You Let Us Rich Control Frauds Own Everything. Trust Us. YOU Don't Know How To Manage Your Country Anyway."

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)


I just received this brazen propaganda by email. It's so breathtakingly revealing that it's worth sharing, with in-line commentary. It's also nearly too cruel and mean to observe, without coming to tears. These people don't seem to think that J&J Sixpack are very intelligent. Where do we find obsessive, compulsive "advisors" like this? Under a crock?
Michael Likosky via cmail2.com
to rge
 
I want to pass along a quick update and a piece that I just published in the NY Times (see below). 
A China-led Infrastructure Bank is being created to promote private investment by Europeans and others into the Asia region.
The type of thing that we've been doing globally for a couple decades.
Those private investments have produced pretty good results, lots of quality infrastructure and many countries now giving us a run for our money as a result. Investors have gotten good returns as a result of the successes of these competitors.

While a lot of exciting stuff is happening right now at home - I will send a note on that soon - we are still having trouble figuring out whether to let private investors get some of our infrastructure built. Is American infrastructure a good investment for our pension funds, or is the future of Asia a better bet.
I include here a piece that I just published in the New York Times, related.
(clipped in below my signature)
More soon on progress happening.
- Michael

[RGE: Smooth, sweet, soothing ... just like strychnine-laced saccharine. :(  Since we trusted them on tax policy, why not trust them on ownership of The Commons too? ps: Michael somehow forgot to include this old image.]  

 So of course:
Taxpayers Benefit If Investors Absorb Risks of Infrastructure Projects

[RGE: Come again? Wow! If anyone believes this, I've got some Medieval Futility in the Dark Ages to sell to them. What's that old quote about the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get the naive to swallow? This is a double-blind test, America. Just how naive ARE you? And please note that an invisible government doesn't require an outright conspiracy. An expanding lobby of avaricious fools can easily lead a trusting aggregate astray, purely by blind drift alone. Speaking of which .... ]
Michael Likosky is the co-head of infrastructure at 32 Advisors. 
Few would dispute that America faces an infrastructure crisis as cities, states and the nation remain cash-strapped. Just look at the pending transportation bill, which would vastly underfund our needs, to see how low a priority infrastructure is in Washington. 
[RGE: Ooh, he's good! Note the classic propaganda technique. Baldly mingle an obvious truth linked directly to the biggest lie, and all IN THE OPENING SENTENCE! Then the reader is half accomplice, and playing his own devils advocate, as the price for reading the rest of the bullshit. Once they continue past the 1st line, the rest is downhill for the reader. Who knew that "32 Advisors" was a euphemism for "30 pieces of silver?"]
But investors see opportunities to finance the difference between what we need and what we can afford to pay by, say, upgrading a port and being repaid by fees from shippers. 
This is distinct from traditionally financed projects in that the investor can only recoup costs, and profit, as long as the port performs well. And the investor would only pay contractors when the job is done to spec. The contractor would have to cover any cost overruns themselves, rather than going back to the government for pay to complete a project. Ultimately, the private investor, not taxpayers, would bear the risk of poor performance or unexpected delays.
America's infrastructure needs vary greatly from project to project. Different investors have grown up to finance distinct needs. Private investment can present a genuine opportunity for governments and communities as long as both sides are attuned to the needs and requirements of the other and the right match is made. 
Some want only mature infrastructure assets that they can fix up and sell. Some pursue high risk/high return projects in which they will get paid only if their projections are realized and, if not, the government gets a cost-free project. A pension fund, for instance, might be willing to build a project from scratch even if they don't realize their return for a number of years. Other investors may agree to invest in infrastructure unable to be supported from user fees such as structurally deficient bridges, in exchange for regular payments from government over a period of time. 
Solving our infrastructure crisis can be as much about politics as about money, though. Labor groups might be wary of privately financed projects that pay lower wages than the ones several generations of workers have fought to gain. Rural communities might want water, but not if investors demand a high rate of return. 
But is being locked in a fight with no winner worth being passed over for investment that supports our economic competitiveness, growth and basic health? We do not simply need more money in the system, but more targeted investment opportunities where the key stakeholders, including financiers, are also willing to think innovatively and work through challenges that often derail projects.



BIO
Michael Likosky is the co-Head of Infrastructure at 32 Advisors. He has over fifteen years of experience providing advice to many of our nation's leaders and acting as an expert in infrastructure and public and private partnerships. 
Likosky holds a JD and DPhil (Oxford Law). He is an expert on infrastructure, oil and gas, mining, free zones, human rights, foreign investment, and high technology growth strategies. He has published five books in these areas including three with Cambridge University Press. His most recent book, Obama's Bank: Financing a Durable New Deal, looks at the Obama Administration's approach to public-private partnerships. His other books are: Law, Infrastructure and Human Rights; Privatizing Development; Transnational Legal Processes; and The Silicon Empire. 
Likosky is an Expert to the Clinton Global Initiative, the OECD, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. He co-chaired California Governor Edmund Brown Jr's Task Force to Modernize the CA Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, the country's oldest infrastructure bank with over thirty-two billion dollars lent out to-date. Likosky is a regular contributor to the World Investment Reports, Oxford Amnesty Lectures, and Trade and Development Report. 
Likosky's work has been supported by Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Arts and Humanities Research Board, Surdna Foundation, Markle Foundation, Chatham House, and others. 
He advises public officials, private investors, pension plans, and inter-governmental organizations. Likosky has advised US Treasury; US Senators John Kerry (then), Charles Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Bill Nelson; US Representative Rosa De Lauro; California Governor Edmund Brown Jr.; New York State Empire State Development Corporation; CA Business Transportation and Housing Agency; CA State Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; the cities of Chicago and Newark; D. E. Shaw; Deutsche Bank; Credit Suisse, McKinsey; Goldman Sachs; Standard and Poor's; broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN), International Development Law Organization; the capital stewardship programs of SEIU, AFT, UFCW, and LiUNA, and others. 
He has published opinion pieces and appeared in outlets such as New York Times, New York Times Deal Book, Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, Bloomberg, Associated Press, Reuters, Bond Buyer, American Banker, Institutional Investing in Infrastructure, Infrastructure Journal, PPP Bulletin, Engineering News-Record, Africa Investor, and elsewhere. 
Likosky has delivered keynote and featured talks to Project Finance International (Master Class), Bond Buyer's Annual Transportation P3 event, American Society of Civil Engineers, the US Chamber of Commerce; State Chief Financial Officers Roundtable, Oxford Law, Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Max Planck-Halle, and elsewhere. 
He founded and directed NYU's Center on Law and Public Finance and was a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Public Knowledge, was Professor of International Economic Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and has held fellowships and visiting posts at Oxford Law, NYU Law, Fordham Law, Wisconsin Law, and the University of Bonn. 
Since 2008, Likosky has convened the Reinvesting in America Series often in partnership with OECD, Partnership for NYC, Clinton Global Initiative, Citizens Budget Commission, Debevoise & Plimpton, Shearman Sterling, British Telecom, and Hogan Lovells. It features members of Congress; public officials from US Treasury, Defense, Transportation and Commerce; as well as state officials. The series includes small off-the-record discussions and large public events. It alternates between New York and Washington DC.


Damn! That's a very long-winded way of saying he's sold out to the best of the best of the worst ... if you follow my semantics. How many keynotes did Judas (or Quisling) make, before, during & after getting their 30 pieces of silver?

ps: He's also saying that China's Asian Development Bank is not competing with the remnants of England's East India Corp, or the G7's World Bank and IMF. No, he's saying that the 1% everywhere have teamed up, to own & hoard The Commons worldwide.

What's not to like?

What we've got here is failure to communicate .... honestly. (Blam!) You do have to admit that they have a relentless, killer-drone instinct.

For anyone who's ever taken biology-101, this is a mundane and boring replication of an age-old pattern, since the dawn of life on planet Earth. It goes like this. In any and all growing aggregates - even gas clouds pre biology - observers will notice that those components that CAN scavenge & hoard new surplus resources ... will. It's the straightforward statistics of of any recombination process, in any aggregate. Biology is just organized to find shortcuts, faster than thermodynamics alone. Either way, you eventually get some of every possible permutation of characteristics which support further recombination, in succeeding populations of components. That's what recombination produces ... whether molecular, sexual, behavioral or cultural recombination.

Yet hoarders never know what to do with said resources, any more than any other components. None of us is ever as smart as all of us working together, with all components adequately PROVISIONED! So the inevitable next step - among survivors, that is - after the inevitable blind hoarding reflex, is to re-distribute provisions in a way that enables the aggregate to invade new niches beyond the imagination of any of it's components. Hoarding is just a useless bit of noise in the ongoing recombination statistics. Discerning signal from noise always shows the path to progress. If we don't need hoarding, and can dispense with it, or repurpose it, then all the better.

It's called evolution. Get over it. It's happened. Countless times. And rest assured that it will happen again. One tombstone at a time. It's only a question of whether the next arrays of tombstones have to mark the graves of countless wasted human lives, or just mark the timely, graceful passing of their naive ideas about obsolete hoarding. As Wallace & Darwin implied, it's far more valuable to hoard and lust for Aggregate Adaptive Rate, rather than to be a dumb, King Midas member of the 1% - and be  merely statistical noise slowing down evolution.

In the history of planet Earth, subsequent aggregates always appear, slightly more able to hoard coordination methods on a new level, not just crude resources. That's how army ants evolved past snails, and how homo fiaticus will evolve past homo neoconinsis. It'll happen again, when we quit conning ourselves in neo ways.

Do we HAVE to subject another 7 generations of humans to yet another cycle of producing/hoarding/dying/evolving? Or can we just do it all virtually, right now, and just SAY we did it the hard way? Are we really fascinated with Grand Theft Culture, or can we just make an app for the 1%, and let them pretend to uselessly hoard real resources?

ps: Let's not hate Michael Likosky too much. Like Smedley Butler, he may yet realize that he's been a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers," and then seek more meaning in his life. If he's intelligent enough. It takes a culture to train a citizen. Likely, he's just had too little feedback to fully grasp the implications of what he's doing.




Monday, October 6, 2014

How to Fix "Counter-Neo-Liberalism?" Of Course "BLOING" Is Working! [Define "Working!"]

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)


Paul Staniland on How to Fix Counterinsurgency
"In his new book, Networks of Rebellion: Explaining Insurgent Cohesion and Collapse, Paul Staniland discusses the importance of material resources in explaining how insurgent groups form and fight. In this interview, the University of Chicago professor addresses why COIN failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as recent criticisms of [International Relations] scholarship for not being policy-relevant enough."
Interesting! How about
"How to Fix Counter-Neo-Liberalism" too? :(
I'm struck by the parallels between:
a) what "we" think is going wrong among all the small groups we try to micro-manage around the world, and 
b) what many think is going wrong amongst ourselves, as we repeatedly watch too few Centrally Planning "elites" try to micro-manage the policies of 320 million US citizens - while exporting the model to even larger populations.
What keeps us ignoring our own, endless criticism of Neo-Liberal Human Relations "scholarshit?" We're actively reviewing maladaptive persistence of a failed COIN model, while ignoring the unfathomable institutional momentum of BLOING*? That's like the old parable of obsessing over a speck in the eyes of both our DoD as well as the social mosquitoes we breed worldwide for them to keep busy swatting, all the while ignoring the several logs in our Policy Apparatus Eye, not to mention the veritable swamp of Neo-Liberalism that all the logs float in. Do those sound like accurate analogies, and ones that are far more important for shrinking our own, existing Output Gap, and for ensuring our very survival? Of course BLOING is "working."  Control Frauds run it FOR themselves, with the willing help of an army of Innocent Frauds! How do we cut to draining the swamp, instead of remaining distracted, endlessly tied up swatting mosquitoes?

Seriously, how DO we successfully counter the Neo-Liberal social disease that keeps regularly re-infecting social aggregates? To eradicate Neo-Liberalism, like we eradicated smallpox, we need to find it's environmental reservoirs and disinfect them too. Otherwise, we'll just guarantee that some of our grandchildren once again try to shoot all our grandchildren in the aggregate foot. Do we really want Dumb-Ass Neo-Liberals to persist through the ages, unchecked? The Flat Earth Society is no longer anything but a joke, why are Neo-Liberals not seen as the butt end of another joke, still aimed at ourselves?

What would Smedley Butler think? Or George Patton?

                       ###

* Brain-Dead, Luddite, Obstructionist, Ignoramus Neo-Liberal Gasbags


Monday, December 16, 2013

Isolating "Economics" From Politics? Get Real!

(commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

Seen this?

Chinese & US Navies Play Wargames in Sea Corner Between China, Japan & Phillipines

Seems like someone's angling to either:

1) protect something (but what? oil in South China sea?) or

2) cut a competitor off, before it gets any more competitive?

Tom Hickey astutely says:
China is pushing against the US "pivot to Asia" and the US [& Japan & Phillipines & Vietnam] is signaling it's not budging. This has been going on in the South China Sea for many decades but now China is trying to push out its territory of influence and the US is saying to forget about it.
Yet why "debate," now? Our elites have sold most of OUR entire manufacturing base to China's elites. Why not sell OUR access to other people's commodities and trade routes too? :(

Is this a sign that our elites want to own everyone else too, not just the US Middle Class?  And of course, EVERYONE else's little commodities too?

Orthodox economics IS national policy, of course. That's true, regardless of team regime or paradigm. The goal is to discriminate between wargames and economic policy games.

The real problem for the US Middle Class is that orthodox economics, by definition, developed as a way for a ruling class to "manage" it's assets, including the subservient classes. That's why people like Paul Krugman will suck up to anyone, and avoid any topic, in order to win a brownie button. Then, if the Middle Class ever lets itself out of it's own constricted-knowledge bag, the frauds - of all types - will claim that they "knew it all along" of course.

Parasites come in a whole palette of flavors. From venal Control Frauds (Rubinites?), to intellectually dishonest ones (Krugmans), and on to the truly Ignorant Frauds. Those last ones usually constitute the bulk of the electorate ... until they decide to set their own alarm clock, and to wake up early enough to see what's going on outside their old perspective.

Instead of our elites using us as cannon fodder against China's subservient classes, acting as proxies FOR China's elites ... why doesn't the US Middle Class and the Chinese Middle Class cut their own deal. Send our elites to shoot it out with their elites? Put it in a gladiatorial ring, make a SURREALITY TV show, and sell popcorn?

It could go viral.



Thursday, August 8, 2013

This Actually Crosses The Line ... To An Outright Lie

Commentary by Roger Erickson

Fannie Mae sending $10.2 billion to taxpayers as profit swells

Come again?  Is this an anti-SETI message from the R U Sirius?  One can't get much more misleading than that statement.

FM may as well mail that fiat currency credit off to a black hole somewhere?
No taxpayer will ever even detect that the returning fiat existed.

For the occasional WalMart & Harvard Econ, novice readers here ... you know, the issuer of fiat don't need to get no fiat back? ... 

  Is that the appropriate speech pattern? Does it contain just enough, but not too many, doubly ideological negatives? Move along folks, nothing either inflated or deflated here except some intellects.

ps: Where do we FIND these people who believe that we're running out of fiat? Among graduates of our fine schools? :(  BMHOTK! AND Double Face Palm!  This is triggering all known shades of dismay.

That, and maybe journalists on the pay of mobsters & Control Frauds? Anyone know whether this reporter, Margaret Chadbourn, has prior experience in the Big House? Or has any ... paying ... contacts there? Giving such people the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that they're frauds is actually less demeaning to their intellects. One has to take the high road in such instances, and appeal to ego over morals.  They may be crooks & junior Control Frauds, but they're OUR crooks & Control Frauds.  And damn clever ones too!!!

ps: ps: Where's Darth Libellius when we'd actually settle for fighting Dark Side with Dark Side?