Thursday, June 26, 2008

False Logic, Slandering & Mean:

The Buddha said it is always good to give, no matter how little and therefore anyone who advocates the withholding of giving, even if it is state governments, of free water even if it is only $10 a month is incurring karma. Because she says it is wrong for the state government to give free water especially when it may have to import water, it is a pittance for the poor but will cost millions to the state government and water is already dirt cheap compared to London, she is unwittingly incurring karma on herself.

You may think there is nothing intrinsically true or false, right or wrong with what Sing Biz correspondent Pauline Ng wrote and she is entitled to her opinions and but this will be wrong view because whatever she said can be examined and objectively proven to false and wrong and she is slandering the Selangor PR government. In so doing she is deluded, somnolently incurring karma and headed for woe.

What she is saying in her convoluted nice way liberally sprinkled with style intended to impress that is evident even in the body or substance of what she wrote let alone the style that must also be present in the way she will speak is that it is irresponsible or wrong of the PR state government to give the poor free water especially when there is a looming state water shortage that requires conserving water and the import of water from neighbouring Pahang. The rebate saving each consumer $10 is next to nothing or a pittance but instead the state stands to lose millions in revenue as a result. It means more that the state will lose millions than the poor will gain $10 each. Water here is already ‘dirt cheap’ compared to London.

On each count what she stated in her contorted way can be examined and proven to be objectively false.

Only if the Selangor state government is promoting unlimited free water would it be promoting wastage and be profligate in the light of a looming shortage that may necessitate importing water from Pahang but because it is proposing only the first basic 20 million cubic litres will be free and you must waste more than the given free water and therefore must pay if you irresponsibly allowed water to pour water down the drain, the PR free water scheme is not promoting wastage and the issue of looming shortage of water is an issue that does not apply here.

This first 20 million cubic litres of water is only sufficient as bare necessity and does not allow wastage that would require more and payment of the guilty and so she is wrongly accusing the PR government of promoting water wastage in providing basic free water.

What has the issue of having to import water got to do with not charging poorer consumers the first 20 million cubic L of water? You mean just because you have to import water you cannot be charitable and give the underprivileged a bare necessity of free water, you must be so stingy and not be generous?

It is only a person nurtured on a culture of meritocracy in Singapore who has a cold calculating heart that feels the downtrodden should not be assisted in any way, they are not the downtrodden victims of society and are to be blamed for their plight and they must learn to stand on their own feet and be treated as the same as the affluent and pay when to be charitable to the underprivileged is at the heart of all true religions and a caring society.

Rather than the $10-12 individually saved by the poor struggling to make ends meet counting like a drop in the ocean (insignificant) compared to the (significant) millions the state government will lose in revenue as a result of this exercise, she has perverted logic and perception because the opposite is true, the $10-12 will help towards making ends meet for the poor, is a gesture of care for them whilst the millions in lost state revenue is a drop in the ocean for the state government especially in the light of the millions wasted through useless projects and corruption by the previous governments.

If it is merely a savings of $10 per poor person as she contends, isn’t she instead mean or small hearted to quibble and make much about this small gesture by the state government to alleviate the plight of the poor? Drop by drop is the pitcher filled, if you assist the poor $10 here and $10 there, it may add up to quite a bit of assistance and care.

(The Buddha said that even if a man were to throw the rinsings of his food bowl into a pond and say may creatures there derive sustenance from it, there is merit in that act so there is merit in charitably giving $10 of water free. If someone wants to make a gift to another, no matter how small the gift is, you are a fool to advice against being charitable or caring because it is ALWAYS GOOD to give no matter how small the amount and bad to be stingy or not to give and because she is criticizing the move to give free water to the poor, she is unwittingly heaping karma on herself)

You cannot compare the price of water in London with the cost of water here because incomes are much higher there and the costs of living may be much higher there. If you think it is fair justify Malaysians paying more for water just because Londoners pay much more you may have seriously false perception.

FOR A PERSON NURTURED ON A CULTURE OF COLD CALCULATING MERITOCRACY AND ACCUSTOMED TO THE HIGH COSTS OF WATER IN SINGAPORE, SHE MUST VIEW WITH JEALOUSY AND DISLIKE ANY PROPOSAL TO GIVE THE POOR FREE WATER BUT FEEL EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY AND PAY, ESPECIALLY WHEN SINGAPOREANS AND LONDONERS ‘PAY THROUGH THEIR NOSES’ FOR WATER, HOW CAN YOU AND IT IS A GALL TO HER TO SUBSIDIZE WATER. WHAT SHE DOES NOT REALIZE IS THAT HER ARGUMENTS OR LOGIC IS OBJECTIVELY FALSE, SHE HAS FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WHAT SHE VIEWS IS CORRECT AND THAT IS THE PATH TO FUTURE MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION.

Quote: Pauline Ng, KL Correspondent: Similarly, his ally Khalid Ibrahim (colleague is more appropriate than ally, because they are in the same party) wants to give away free water. One of his first pronouncements as the new Selangor chief minister was for each household to be given the first 20 million cubic litres of water free every month. That this suggestion comes on the heels (a nice impressive way of saying ‘follows’, comes on the heels implies very close but the plan to import water was mooted long ago) of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage in the not-too-distant future given the latter's burgeoning population and industries, underscores the wisdom, or lack of it, behind the proposal.

Water is already unconscionably cheap (what has conscience got to do with cheapness? Just because Singapore is used to expensive water does not mean cheap water is unconscionable here) which is why in Malaysia a lot of it ends up in the drain unnecessarily. To be fair (unnecessary to say to be fair and she may be aping the American ‘lingo’), Mr Khalid appears to want better for the people of Selangor. But he would have done well (telling people what to do that if wrong, incurs karma, why should he have done well to do so?) to consult others on this, such as his fellow coalition partner Charles Santiago of the Democratic Action Party, who has pointed out the RM10-RM12 it would save each household is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions it would cost the state government - money the former non-governmental organisation activist rightly observed would have been better put to use in getting water-harvesting schemes off the ground, for example. (The $10 may mean more to the poor than the millions it will cost the state government, considering how much is lost to corruption and mismanagement in the past)

In a letter to the editor, a foreigner now living in Malaysia revealed his monthly water bills while staying in London was the equivalent of RM600. He is now paying just RM6 in good 'ol Malaysia. His point? Because it costs next to nothing, his family (it may be next to nothing to an arrogant expatriate like him but it is not to those struggling to make ends meet, when next he is born impoverished let me hear him say next to nothing)- previously thrifty in use - has turned careless about the precious commodity (just because water is very cheap does not mean you must waste it and it shows he is a hypocrite who is thrifty out of selfish considerations) . Much like the way Malaysians in the past treated the heavily subsidised fuel.

Is there anyone who upon reading what the reporter above said, could examine it the way I have and come to the conclusions that I have? Are the conclusions I make trivial or false or are they the truths that this world neither sees nor knows?

Long-term pain of populist moves

(Rather than long term pain for populist moves like free basic water and cheaper petrol that is not subsidized but still profitable to the state, they may be stabilizing and shields the economy from violent harmful swings. Rather than long term gains of the cold capitalist way, the capitalist world may be headed for a crash in the long term promoted by excesses committed in the name of capitalism eg a stock and property market and soaring oil prices as a result of evil speculation and manipulation.

By PAULINE NG
KL CORRESPONDENT

LAST week marked the Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) or People's Alliance's 100 days in office in Penang, Selangor, Perak and Kedah - states won in the March 8 general election.

After some five decades of the Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition's rule, it's too early to judge PR's performance in these states. Its critics maintain there's been more finger-pointing than actual governing. But few can blame the PR states for wanting to conduct a thorough audit, lest they be held liable for worms hidden in the accounts. Grandstanding antics by the federal government haven't helped either.

In any event (it is totally unnecessary and a matter of style to speak of ‘in any event’ as if it does not matter. If it does not matter, why talk about it?), few have had time to ponder its performance, given the early June announcement of humongous (even I do not know what this word means, nor does Microsoft Word) fuel and power hikes of 40-60 per cent - the fuel price increases kicking in (fuel prices don’t kick in, they take effect) immediately and the power rate hikes beginning in July. Individuals and businesses are still reeling (that is an exaggeration or false, I do not see them reeling), and wondering how they can mitigate some of the effects (Unless you see them ‘wondering’ or they tell you so, you are presumptuous to speak of it).

For some industries, the downpour did not end there (do you see a downpour, it is courting mad perception to associate it with a downpour, she likes to use colourful language that is not appropriate) . Those reliant on gas will also need to shell out 2-3 times more as much (shell out is an impressive way to say ‘pay’).

Luck certainly wasn't on the side (this is the language of decorous or nice people, how can she be certain that luck is not on his side and whether luck was involved at all?) of the hapless (whether he is hapless or not is a figment of her imagination and she is straying into false perception and fantasy) Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, oil prices escalating beyond belief soon after he took over office at the end of 2003.

His hand forced (she is speculating and she may be wrong, Badawi’s hand may not be forced), he nonetheless demonstrated real gumption in dismantling the over-two-decade-old policy of cheap fuel - an act which will in all certainty only send his ratings further south (if Malaysia produces all her oil that she is already selling at good profit locally and the current high prices are crazy, she is wrong justify the raising of prices).

Similar populist proposals by the PR leadership could come back to bite them (policies are not animals with teeth to bite and it reflects her aggressive nature).

De facto PR leader Anwar Ibrahim would have Malaysians believe he can reduce the price of fuel should PR come into power. But how he proposes to slash the pump price below the RM1.92 (S$0.80) per litre before it was recently hiked to RM2.70, he has not explained. (she is speaking as if it is incredible for Anwar to do so when it is very much within possibility if Malaysia is self sufficient in oil and it is up to the government to determine a lower price that is still profitable for Petronas)

The logic and wisdom behind such a suggestion has prompted some to question his sincerity in that he appears willing to sacrifice the nation's future on continuing unproductive and unsustainable subsidies in furtherance of his own ambitions (There are indications that the rapid unjustified price rises in the world is seriously deleterious the world economy and so she is deluded to think that such price rises are natural and good when they are manipulated and harmful than a fixed lower price that still gives Petronas good profits).

Similarly, his ally Khalid Ibrahim (colleague is more appropriate than ally, because they are in the same party) wants to give away free water. One of his first pronouncements as the new Selangor chief minister was for each household to be given the first 20 million cubic litres of water free every month. That this suggestion comes on the heels (a nice impressive way of saying ‘follows’) of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage in the not-too-distant future given the latter's burgeoning population and industries, underscores the wisdom, or lack of it, behind the proposal.

Water is already unconscionably cheap which is why in Malaysia a lot of it ends up in the drain unnecessarily. To be fair, Mr Khalid appears to want better for the people of Selangor. But he would have done well to consult others on this, such as his fellow coalition partner Charles Santiago of the Democratic Action Party, who has pointed out the RM10-RM12 it would save each household is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions it would cost the state government - money the former non-governmental organisation activist rightly observed would have been better put to use in getting water-harvesting schemes off the ground, for example.

In a letter to the editor, a foreigner now living in Malaysia revealed his monthly water bills while staying in London was the equivalent of RM600. He is now paying just RM6 in good 'ol Malaysia. His point? Because it costs next to nothing, his family - previously thrifty in use - has turned careless about the precious commodity. Much like the way Malaysians in the past treated the heavily subsidised fuel. (it may be next to nothing to him but he is showing no consideration for those who are much less fortunate for whom literally every sen counts)

Having seen the early horror (she is presumptuous because not everyone is horrified and if she can be horrified she is capable of suffering and headed for horror) of having to pay so much more for fuel - and it is still not close to market price - PR leaders should have some inkling of how insidious prolonged consumption subsidies can be. They mask true competitiveness, which in Malaysia's case is compounded by policies allowing for low-skills, low-waged workers. Imagine that 'advantage' also being removed (she is being sarcastic or false, she mean disadvantage)?

The very serious hand-wringing (again it is presumptuous to say it is serious handwringing) that is going on now over the end of cheap fuel has led the public to question where the petrodollars earned over the past three decades have gone. Some of the spending is evident - Malaysia has a reasonably good public healthcare system for example - much of it not, or so the average person thinks.

The will to ensure greater transparency in governance and to stamp out corruption - although tougher - should ultimately bring down living costs, and perhaps more importantly, ignite the spirit that collectively the nation can pull through these tough times. Can the unrealistic populist policies? By now it should be obvious they only bring greater pain in the longer term. (If the unfettered rise in petrol prices as a result of speculation is leading free market economies to the brink of disaster, then she is foolish to champion free markets)

Real Gumption?

Quote: His hand forced, he nonetheless demonstrated real gumption in dismantling the over-two-decade-old policy of cheap fuel - an act which will in all certainty only send his ratings further south.

Comment: Gumption apparently means ‘common sense’ and she is applauding Badawi’s move to dismantle the policy of cheap fuel.

If Anwar can promise lower fuel prices it means that raising petrol prices may not be forced but Badawi had a choice and chose to exercise it and therefore she is false misleading others to say Badawi’s hand is forced.

She is applauding the dismantling of the policy of cheap fuel. If the current high oil prices are artificial, the result of speculation and even manipulation on international oil markets and threaten the capitalist economies and Malaysia is not subsidizing petrol but merely electing not to profit too much from its populace, she has got it all wrong to imply that charging world rates is correct and it is bad to subsidize petrol locally when it may not be a subsidy at all.

Water is unconscionably cheap:

The cheapness or expensiveness of water never has any relationship with conscience. It is only when a matter arising physically (eg slap) or materially (eg cheating) harms or kills another does conscience or the lack of comes into play.

The cheapness of water does not harm anybody, if the state government want to charge less or not charge, who are you to quibble what is its right?

THUS SHE MAY THINK SHE IS VERY SMART USING HIGH SOUNDING WORDS BUT SHE IS TALKING NONSENSE THAT WILL DESCEND INTO MADNESS.

UNCONSCIONABLY CHEAP SOUNDS NICE OR IMPRESSIVE BUT IT IS FALSE.

Water can be unconscionably expensive:

If you are getting your water free and charging others exorbitantly or through your nose for it, then that is unconscionable.

If someone want to give you free water that he paid much for, it is not unconscionable but an act of sacrifice or merit.

Petrol is unconscionably too high:

Compared to its cost of production the current global petrol price may be unconscionably high, it is exorbitant reaping unjustified excessive profits to producers and so if Pauline Ng thinks that if it is the current market price it must be fair and everyone should abide it, she is deluded to perceive what is exorbitant is justified and the low prices in Malaysia as unnatural and breeds the lack of competitiveness.

Markets are not always right and often wrong:

It is a delusion to think the market is always right because markets are not guided by genuine reason but driven by emotions, greed for profit and fear of loss, a constant battle between buyers and sellers, between different buyers and sellers and so to think that because the price of petrol is such it must be the correct or fair price.

Not only must markets be regulated but they must be policed stringently to weed out crooks and fraud.

Style means more to them than substance:

Often their style or how they say things, the stylish or high sounding words they use to impress others is more important than the substance of what they say. They give much thought to how they will phrase their messages so that it is impressive rather than examine the veracity of what they are saying.

Mud slinging:

Badawi: If Datuk Yong Teck Lee was not greedy, he could have played a significant role in bringing positive development to Sabah, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

It is false perception that will end in mad perception to think Yong’s greed is connected to questions about his leadership.

What Badawi is doing is angrily attacking his assailant, trying to besmirch his integrity before the public instead of speaking and behaving in a manner that will vindicate confidence in his leadership.

This is a tit for tat rules logic that is a program or plan usually copied from others based on force or emotion not reason as foolish people think. You attack me I attack you, it is all about force or knee jerk reflex.

MAKE SURE YOUR LEADERSHIP IS IMPECCABLE OR BEYOND REPROACH. YOU ARE NOT CORRUPT, HAVE NOT ABUSED YOUR POSITION AND SLEEPING ON THE JOB OTHERWISE BY SLINGING MUD AT OTHERS INSTEAD OF CORRECTING YOUR OWN DEFICIENCIES YOU ARE ASKING FOR DIVINE JUDGMENT THAT IS FAR WORSE THAN HUMAN PUNISHMENT.

Has Badawi himself done his part?

By saying that Yong could have done more to bring positive development to Sabah if he had not been greedy, Badawi must make sure that he has been fair, has done his part within his powers to bring development to Sabah and not neglected or even gone against its interests.

If there are many things he could have done to develop Sabah and he has not done so, it is best he admit it and start restitution than to attack Yong for the same.

The correct and wrong reply to an accusation:

Whenever someone accuses you of something the correct reply that is the way to maintaining sanity is to answer the allegations, the wrong reply that is the way to mad logic and perception is to attack the other person that does not answer the allegation and indicate the allegation might have basis.

ANYONE WHO ANSWERS INCORRECTLY TO AN ACCUSATION IS COURTING MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WHAT IS NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER IS CORRECT.

SLINGING MUD CASTING ASPERSION AT THE OTHER PERSON IS THE WRONG REPLY TO HIS ALLEGATION AND YOU ARE COURTING FUTURE MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT YOUR REPLY IS CORRECT WHEN IT IS NOT.

Underscoring the wisdom or lack of it:

Quote: That this suggestion comes on the heels (a nice impressive way of saying ‘follows’) of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage in the not-too-distant future given the latter's burgeoning population and industries, underscores the wisdom, or lack of it, behind the proposal.

“Underscoring the wisdom or lack of it” is a style of speech that is false and contradictory, not a specific to an occasion substance of speech that she was not the first to use but she must have read it elsewhere, find it attractive, memorized it to be regurgitated and so she is a rehashing robot not just here but everywhere else.

There is a generic style that goes like this: “Underscore the XXX or lack of XXX” that captivates stylish people who think it is full of meaning when it is nonsense and contradictory.

What she intended to say is that it underscores (another stylish substitute for emphasizing) the lack of wisdom but she need to mislead others by first saying wisdom and then correcting herself to say it is actually ‘lack of wisdom’ not ‘wisdom’.

She is practicing controlled conflict that she wants to share with others and will descend into uncontrolled conflict in the future and for wanting others to experience conflict she has karmic debts.

Shirking responsibility in vain:

Quote: The logic and wisdom behind such a suggestion has prompted some to question his sincerity in that he appears willing to sacrifice the nation's future on continuing unproductive and unsustainable subsidies in furtherance of his (Anwar) own ambitions.

She might think she is merely quoting the opinions of others that if false and malicious slanders Anwar but in so quoting and if she secretly shares the sentiment, she is foolishly trying to absolve herself of blame because she is guilty of slander if Anwar’s decision to lower the price of petrol is not to court popularity or gain power but is viable and even beneficial to the people and thence the economy.

If Anwar is sincere, by quoting so you want to influence readers to think that as a result of trying to lower petrol prices, Anwar is not sincere, pandering to popularity.

Practicing the unnecessary is the path to certain madness:

Whatever a person says or does, HOW he says or does it can be examined to determine if it is necessary or not. If it is unnecessary he is practicing controlled madness that will descend into uncontrolled madness and the fact that you insist it is necessary only exacerbates your deluded condition.

Quote: In any event, few have had time to ponder its performance, given the early June announcement of humongous fuel and power hikes of 40-60 per cent - the fuel price increases kicking in immediately and the power rate hikes beginning in July.

You can remove ‘in any event’ and what is said does not lose any meaning and so it is an adornment or style of speech, and she is practicing controlled madness. The fact that she and you insist that it is necessary to say, ‘in any event’ only underscores the intensity of your false perception and logic.

No need to underscore:

There is no need to underscore the lack of wisdom but it is just unwise and so it is that stylish people must pad up their speech to be impressive.

It suffices to say “This suggestion is unwise when it comes on the heels of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage.

THERE IS NO NEED TO UNDERSCORE THE WISDOM OF IT, JUST SAY IT IS UNWISE. IT IS A PONDEROUS OR CONVOLUTED WAY OF SPEAKING NECESSITATED BY A NEED TO APPEAR IMPRESSIVE MORE THAN YOU TRULY ARE JUST AS SOME WOMEN FALSELY PAD THEIR BRAS TO SINFULLY MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES.

JUST BECAUSE SELANGOR MAY HAVE TO IMPORT WATER DOES NOT MAKE IT UNWISE TO BE CHARITABLE TO GIVE A BASIC AMOUNT OF WATER TO THE POOR TO ASSIST THEM FINANCIALLY. THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO IMPORT OR PAY FOR WATER IS AN EXCUSE TO BE STINGY, TO BE MEAN AND CHARGE OTHERS INDISCRIMINATELY.

That too is madness:

If there is no need to underscore the lack of wisdom, only necessary to say it is unwise you are saying something that is unnecessary ‘underscoring’ that is the way to madness.

It is your considerable at present indomitable will of self preservation that ensures you maintain a semblance of sanity now but as you continue to condition yourself to falsity and the unnecessary and your vitality ebb with age, you have a certain appointment with madness.

The purpose of underscoring is to be impressive and because it is false and for show you are practicing controlled madness in the name of courting popularity that you accuse others (eg Anwar) of.

Badawi Not A Man Of Truth:

Quote: “During the last general election, they made all kinds of promises but until today they have not fulfilled any. If they want to reduce fuel prices, let them provide the subsidy to reduce fuel prices in Selangor and Perak first.”

Comment: The opposition has fulfilled some of their promises like abolishing summons and providing free water in Selangor and so in saying they have not fulfilled any promises Badawi is slandering with serious consequences for him.

His challenge for them to reduce fuel prices is an unfair one that is not achievable because only the federal government controls the funds necessary to reduce fuel prices.

If he knows the federal government is not in truth subsidizing or using actual money to pay the difference in price and he expects the state governments to fork out money, then he is issuing an unfair or false challenge with grave divine consequences for him.

IF HE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE NOT TRUTHFUL IN SAYING THE OPPOSITION HAS NOT FULFILLED ANY PROMISES AND TO BE FAIR IN CHALLENGING THE OPPOSITION TO REDUCE STATE FUEL PRICES IN THEIR STATES, HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUTHFUL AND FAIR ELSEWEHRE.

Cheapness is only unconscionable to unabashed profiteers:

Only if you are an unabashed selfish profiteer out to extract a pound of flesh selling to others or you have perverse logic will it be unconscionable to sell anything cheap and thus by using the fashionable or stylish term ‘unconscionably cheap’ you are unwittingly acknowledging yourself as a shameless capitalist out to make big money.

Of course you may deny that and say instead that it is unconscionably cheap because expensive water promotes thrift and is environmentally ‘correct’ but they are not true reasons but excuses.

Something can only be unconscionably expensive in that it unfairly profiteers but never truly unconscionably cheap because cheapness never disadvantages the other party and the ultimate cheapness is when an item is free and that means it is a gift and it is always good to give whose rewards depend on the motive of the giver. For instance if the motive is to entice you to buy (buy three get one free) or it is a gift on condition that you buy, you have surplus useless stock you want to get rid of, then the merit in giving or providing something free is much diminished.

Thus to say that water in Selangor is already unconscionably cheap is always to say something that is false, to unwittingly acknowledge yourself as an unabashed profiteering capitalist or manifest perverse logic that you need to make water expensive to promote thrift and save the environment.

Jane Lived To The Fullest:

In their effort to be effusive in the praise of someone who was some sort of celebrity who has departed, people perceive they are good in saying someone has lived to the fullest and it is meritorious for someone to live life to the fullest when it is the opposite.

Jesus said you should deny yourself, carry your cross and go with him and you cannot be denying yourself if you live life to the fullest.

THUS IT IS NOT PRAISE OR GOOD TO SAY SOMEONE LIVED LIFE TO THE FULLEST BUT IF TRUE, YOU ARE SAYING SHE IS A PERSON WHO WILL NOT DENY HERSELF, SHE IS HEADED FOR PERDITION NOT SAFETY AFTER DEATH. YOU NEVER ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST UNLESS YOU WANT BAD KARMA YOURSELF BUT YOU ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DENY THEMSELVES.

HERE AS IN MANY PLACES PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD SAYING SOMEONE HAS LIVED LIFE TO THE FULLEST BUT THEY ARE DELUDED AND INSTEAD HEAPING KARMA ON THEMSELVES AND ENCOURAGING OTHERS NOT TO DENY THEMSELVES.

Not so much but so little:

It is not so much for Malaysia’s press freedom but so little for Malaysia’s press freedom.

So much for Malaysia’s press freedom is said falsely to be sarcastic and because people enjoy being stirred emotionally they find the statement that stirs their mockery meaningful when it is false or what is meant is the opposite, so little for Malaysia’s press freedom.

It cannot be meant that Malaysia’s press freedom is much when prominent news that the wife of the deputy PM was present at a murder scene is ignored by the press but it is so little for Malaysia’s press freedom when prominent news about the wife of the deputy PM was present at a murder scene is ignored.

Today’s Star has cautiously mentioned about the court statement but only mentioned it involved a prominent lady without mentioning details of the allegations.

IT AGAIN REFLECTS ORDINARY PEOPLE’S BEING INURED TO FALSITY, THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF FALSITY THAT THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG BUT SEE IT AS TRUE THE SARCASTIC STATEMENT ‘SO MUCH FOR MALAYSIA’S PRESS FREEDOM’.

Speaking against someone:

Speaking is opening your mouth and articulating something, and so speaking against someone is articulating a view against someone or disagreeing. Whether your speaking against is forceful (angry) or gentle is a matter of style that is meaningless and all about how you utilize force when you speak and you are a fool if you perceived that if you speak against someone ‘gently’ or softly you are being good. What matters is whether what you say is true or false, harmful or benevolent, not how musically gentle you spoke it. If what you say is nonsense, it is still nonsense no matter how gently you say it.

Whenever anyone speaks against another on any matter, his own view may be correct or wrong and he is speaking against another person whose view on that matter may be unique or it may be shared by many others that may be correct or wrong.

Because the views people can hold in this world are seldom if ever unique, there are others with the same views and they are usually if not always flawed if not totally wrong, when you speak against them (even if you yourself have a wrong or flawed view on that matter), you are yourself false speaking against falsity.

Because nobody speaks the way and what I speak, anyone who speaks against me is speaking specifically against me and nobody else, because nobody else speaks like me.

If what I speak on any matter is the truth then everyone who speaks differently on the matters I dwell have wrong view because in any matter there can only be one correct view, anything else that departs or disagrees with that view must be wrong and according to the Buddha, wrong view is not harmless but there are two destinations for wrong view: hell or the animal womb.

When you speak against another person you are not speaking specifically against him because there are many others who share his view on that matter and if his view is false (as is likely if not certainly), you are merely speaking against what is false, a case of one person with false view (you) speaking against another person with a different false view that is not exclusively his but shared by many others in this world.

IF WHAT I SAY ON A MATTER IS TRUE THEN ANYONE WHO SPEAKS ON THAT MATTER THAT DIFFER IS WRONG OR DEVIANT AND IF NOBODY ELSE ESPOUSES MY VIEW THEN YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY AGAINST ME IN RELATION TO THAT VIEW THAT IF TRUE, YOU ARE SPEAKING AGAINST THE TRUTH AND WHOEVER SPEAKS AGAINST TRUTH TO UPHOLD FALSITY WILL GO THE WAY OF FALSITY AND IF THAT IS TORMENT AND INSANITY, THAT IS WHAT YOU FOOLISHLY OR DEFIANTLY WILLED FOR YOURSELF.

WHEN YOU SPEAK AGAINST ME (DISAGREE WITH ME) YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY AGAINST ME (BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD WHO ESPOUSES MY VIEWS) AND IF MY VIEWS HAPPEN TO BE CORRECT, THEY DESCRIBE THE TRUTH AS IT ACTUALLY IS, THEN YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY AGAINST TRUTH THAT HAS SO FAR BEEN DENIED YOU, NOT MADE KNOWN TO YOU AND SINCE YOU DISAGREE WITH TRUTH WHEN IT IS MADE KNOWN TO YOU, YOU WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN IF IN ADDITION TO DISAGREEING WITH ME, YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF HARM TO OTHERS IN YOUR MISGUIDED WAY AND ARE UNREPENTANT OR SEE NO WRONG WHEN THERE IS COMPLETE WRONG. IF IT MEANS YOU CAN AND WILL HAVE TO PAY IN PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR YOUR DEBTS, THEN THAT IS YOUR LOT FOR DISAGREEING AND SPEAKING AGAINST ME OR THE TRUTH THAT I SPEAK THAT YOU THINK IS WRONG AND YOUR VIEW SHARED BY YOUR COHORTS THAT DIFFERS FROM MINE IS CORRECT.

Coming to the wrong conclusions:

Given facts, stylish emotional people have a tendency to come to wrong conclusions far more than they realize because a lot of the conclusions they perceive as correct are actually incorrect.

Coming to the wrong conclusions from given facts is actually a result of giving excuses or ascribing false reasons for what happened (eg you did not attend function because you were sick) and because people tender excuses far more than they are aware, they also come to wrong conclusions far more than they are aware.

Thus asked, “Everyone shits and whose shit smells nice?” they come to the wrong conclusion that shit is neither good nor bad (harmful), since everybody shits, just shut up and join in or no, my shit though smelly is not as bad when the correct conclusion is that everyone shits and it is smelly and harmful, should not be upheld and we should refrain from shit if possible and deny ourselves and extricate ourselves from this world where everyone shits.

And what is this shit that everyone produces that is possible not to produce?

This shit that everyone produces is the style in their speech and actions that is nothing more than how they use force to forcefully stretch their syllables or units of motion, change speed and loudness within and between syllables that kills themselves and others with stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness and feeling hurt.

The fool will say yes everyone has style, I don’t like some styles but my style is charming, benevolent and I am doing good to others. The stress I experience is because I am so good, I go out of my way to stress myself in order to benefit others.

The wise or discerning person will conclude that everyone has style or stretch their syllables, change speed and loudness and that is stressful and meaningless and it is correctible and I will deny myself by not expressing style and say goodbye to this world of falsity and mutual harm.

Not just robots:

Not only are all ordinary or stylish emotional people robots, they have great faith and grim determination despite great stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate to continue behaving as robots which is the only way they know how to behave and they have never behaved otherwise than as robots.

How is one said to be a robot?

Anyone whose speech and actions are according to a plan that exists in their minds that they keep rehashing or repeating from to meet the demands of situations at hand is a robot programmed to say or do certain things in certain ways in response to certain events that have some similarities and differences from others but is always consistent almost to perfection in him.

For those who are undiscerning, people are spontaneous, ‘unique’ and alive but to those who discern, who see things clearly as they actually, all stylish animated people are robots always saying and doing the same old things in the same old way and whatever new things they say or do must be copied from others or recombined from pre-existing pieces in their minds, memorized and then replayed from memory.

Thus when a medical student learns how to act like a doctor, he watches seniors behaving, selects the ones he likes to imitate, memorize and reproducing first haltingly even as he commences for the first time behave like a doctor and with increasing practice to become refined until he does not even need to pay attention.

EVEN WHEN A ROBOT LEARNS A NEW ACT EG MEDICAL STUDENT LEARNING TO SPEAK LIKE A DOCTOR, HE IS FIRST MEMORIZNG AND REPRODUCING FROM MEMORY JUST AS A THREE HEAD CASSETTE RECORDER IS RECORDING WITH THE RECORD HEAD AND PLAYING BACK FROM THE PLAYBACK HEAD EVEN AS IT IS RECORDING TO TAPE.

WHATEVER A ROBOT LEARNS HOW TO SAY OR DO MUST FIRST BE COMMITTED TO MEMORY AND THEN REPRODUCED FROM THAT RECORDING, ROBOTS CANNOT SPEAK OR DO THINGS OTHER THAN WHAT IS RECORDED OR INSTRUCTED BY THE MENTAL INSTRUCTIONS IN THEIR HEADS. IF YOU THINK STYLISH PEOPLE CAN BEHAVE SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT DEPENDING ON A COPY OR MOULD IN THEIR HEAD, YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT.

THE CONSISTENT BRAND OF SUBSTANCE AND STYLE THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHERS BUT IS ALWAYS THE SAME IN THAT PERSON CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT REHASHING FROM A COPY IN THE MIND AND BECAUSE ALL STYLISH PEOPLE HAVE A CONSISTENT STYLE THEY MUST BE ROBOTS.

JUST AS THEY DO NOT REALIZE THEY ARE PURELY REHASHING OR BEING A ROBOT WHEN THEY ARE SINGING A SONG WHOSE TUNE AND LYRICS ARE PREDETERMINED AND THEY ARE MERELY REHASHING ROBOTICALLY, THEY ARE UNAWARE THAT THE WAY THEY ALWAYS SPEAK AND DO THINGS IS ALWAYS REHASHED ROBOTICALLY AND THEY ARE (OVERRATED) BIOLOGICAL ROBOTS.

NOT ONLY ARE THEY ROBOTS, THEY ARE DEFIANT, SEE NOTHING WRONG, HAVE GREAT FAITH IN THE WAYS THEY BEHAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY SUFFER GREAT STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT OFTEN THREATEN TO DRIVEN THEM MAD OR VIOLENT.

Whenever a person sings he is behaving as a robot:

The plan of any song is its sequence of musical notes accompanied by lyrics that have already been predetermined that in order for anyone to reproduce, he must commit both tune and lyrics to memory and rehash from memory and therefore whenever a person sings he is functioning purely as a robot.

ALTHOUGH A SINGER MIGHT JAZZ THINGS UP, HE OR SHE HAS NO SAY OVER THE LYRICS AND TUNE OF A SONG THAT LIKE IT OR NOT HE MUST MEMORIZE AND REPRODUCE FAITHFULLY FROM MEMORY, EVEN IF HE MODIFIES THE LYRICS AND TUNE HE IS STILL MEMORIZING AND SINGING HIS MODIFIED VERSION.

JUST AS HE IS TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT HE IS FUNCTIONING PURELY AS A ROBOT WHEN HE IS SINGING, HE IS SIMILARLY UNAWARE THAT BEING A ROBOT IS THE USUAL WAY HE CONDUCTS HIMSELF IN RELATION TO WHATEVER IMPINGES HIS CONSCIOUSNESS EXTERNALLY OR INTERNALLY.

NOBODY SAYS WHAT I SAY ABOVE AND SO IT MAY BE RIGHT OR WRONG. IF IT IS RIGHT AND YOU SPEAK AGAINST IT, YOU ARE SPEAKING AGAINST THE TRUTH THAT IF IT IS CRUCIAL, YOU ARE ASSIGNING YOURSELF TO TORMENT TO CONTINUE EXISTING AS A ROBOT EVEN FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY FIRST AS ANIMALS AND THEN AS HUMANS WHEN THE AGE IS COMING TO AN END.

What is the danger of being a robot?

Apart from suffering constant stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness and vulnerability to hurt, the danger of being a robot is that it is not you but the copy in the mind that is the origin of your actions and with practice it can bypass you and activate inappropriately against your approval and should the mental jukebox become corrupt as it will with old age, it will seize you to activate speech and motion that is totally inappropriate that you are then powerless to stop.

Anyone who is a robot whether he can see or not, will admit or not must suffer from these eight madnesses:

Mad stress,

Mad restlessness,

Mad distraction or inability to concentrate, mind scattered,

Mad sadness, hurt and emotions (like and dislike),

Mad violence (it is force that powers robotic actions and it is force that is the source of violent urges that must assail all robots)

Mad rote behaviour (eg urge to utter profanities)

Mad logic,

Mad perception.

Whatever is forceful is conditioning that gets easier to arouse to more intense levels that gets harder to shake off and so because stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness, hurt and emotions, rote behaviour, false logic & perception are derived from force they are conditioning that will descend into insanity unless the person turns back.

Speak against me by all means:

Speak against me by all means but make sure you are not a robot because if you are a robot, no matter who you think you are and how good and in control of your destiny you think you are, you are doomed to certain future insanity, to mad stress, restlessness, distraction, violence, rote behaviour (‘good morning, how are you’ or ‘cheers’), mad logic and perception, mad emotions (sadness, hurt, like and dislike) if what I say that nobody else will tell you is correct.

Jesus: Therefore I tell you, every (not some) sin and blasphemy will (not may) be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever (anyone who) speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Jesus: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (like Jesus was a counselor, a person who came), to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive (Jesus said this world cannot receive him), because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells (literally will live amongst) with you, and will be in you.
"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit (The counselor is the Holy Spirit), whom the Father will send in my name,
he will teach you all things
, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (if the church has brought you remembrance of what Jesus taught, it would not be necessary).
But when the Counselor comes (he will not come immediately), whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.
But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
And when he comes, he
will convince the world
(if I have convinced you as no one has done before, I will have superseded the counselor) concerning sin and righteousness (goodness) and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (When the counselor comes, it will be time for mankind to be judged)
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (Only a consciousness change that the counselor will initiate would be enabling and I was the trigger of consciousness changes that swept around the world after 1977 and in recent years) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he
will not speak on his own authority (he appears to be someone speaking on his own authority), but whatever he hears he will speak (if the counselor knows everything, he will not need to hear and then speak) and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you

Jokes for you and me:

I was sent an email purported with jokes for you and me by a regular recipient of my emails.

If he had understood what I write, he would not be appreciating jokes and sending the email to me and it is because he does not understand, he thinks it is good clean fun that he sends it to me.

There are no jokers in heaven and jokes are not appreciated in heaven. If you are disappointed then you will go to the destinations where there are plenty of jokers namely hell or the animal womb.

You do not believe that joking and appreciating jokes is appreciating falsity and laughing at the misfortune of others but if that is the case, then you are not going anywhere near heaven and if that means another eternity of suffering wandering as animals then that is your lot.

In order to appreciate jokes you must stir up your mental force to be attracted to and laugh at the matter at hand and that is conditioning your mind to force and agitation that becomes increasingly compelling that will end in insanity. Further by wanting others to appreciate jokes you also want others to suffer and that is karma which is not the way to heaven.

Beings are detained in this world as a result of foolishness and wickedness. Some beings are more foolish or vulnerable to falsity than wicked whilst some beings are more wicked than foolish.

Being foolish or gullible or susceptible to falsity is not blameless but blameworthy. It is because a being is eager to accept things, to say or do things that he did not see or know as true in the name of getting along, to profit, to impress, please, deceive, intimidate and dominate others that he is foolish or susceptible to falsity. Once he accepts falsity, because falsity is based on force and conditioning, his mind becomes increasingly cluttered with beliefs that are false that he holds as true and he becomes deluded, even incurably deluded with so many different conflicting beliefs he cannot tell head from tail.

There is another being who is more wicked than foolish. He enjoys making others suffer and wants to deceive and harm even kill others. He must also be foolish because it is impossible to harm others without harming self, but in his own way he is shrewd, only that he is motivated to harm or kill others.

EVEN THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE VERY GOOD AND INTELLIGENT WHO HAVE REGULARLY RECEIVED MY EMAILS DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY MESSAGES AS MANIFEST BY THEIR CONDUCT AND IT REFLECTS THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS NOT TRULY GENUINE BUT PROGRAMMED BECAUSE IF THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD HAVE STOPPED HAVING STYLE, STOPPED JOKING AND BE INTERESTED IN MATERIAL THINGS BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY TO MADNESS AND EVEN ANOTHER ETERNITY OF PERDITION.

Why they do not understand:

Just as a camera with its lens out of focus cannot image an object clearly, just as a distorted mirror or flexible lens cannot focus properly, the constant bombardment of stress, restlessness and distraction (division of their consciousness between the simultaneous substance and style) is a cocktail too potent to permit beings under their spell to see and understand things as they truly are.

Because all beings express style, constant forceful stretching, changing speed and loudness and they are bombarded by the same from everyone else here, their minds are seized by constant stress, restlessness and division of the concentration that never fall below a critical level that does not permit them to truly see and understand, whatever understanding they have are copied from others, cobbled by themselves from bits and pieces borrowed from others and rehashed to explain things, not specific case by case working out or understanding what is happening.

People’s minds are often too distracted or divided to enable them to understand things and they are filled with delusions, false beliefs that they have accepted as true and they are conceited or opinionated, they think they are perfectly capable of reasoning and their explanations are correct to be amenable to change. Further they are not as good or scrupulous as they like to think and they possess ill will, the urge to attack and oppose others and ideas that are alien to their creeds.

SO LONG AS THEY REFUSE TO PAY ATTENTION TO MAKE SUSTAINED EFFORT TO WEED OUT THEIR CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND THEY EVEN GAIN PERVERSE PLEASURE FROM DOING SO, SO LONG WILL THEIR CONCENTRATION BE PERMANENTLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SIMULTANEOUS SUBSTANCE AND STYLE PRESENT IN THEIR SPEECH, THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS AND THUS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND AND NOT UNDERSTANDING THEY ARE HEADED FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY OF PERDITION.

The Buddha said there have been innumerable eons and each eon lasts innumerable years and you have shed your own blood greater than the four great oceans, a being who has not been a father, mother, sibling in some past life is hard to find and yet you are still here is a reflection that it is very hard for beings trapped in the lower realms to turn to be healed. They are deluded that they are right, they understand and can see very well when they don’t and as a result they must be allowed to wallow in the mire.

Jesus spoke of those chosen out of this world that indicates that the vast majority that are not chosen are beyond help; incurable even for many more eons to come.

NOBODY ENJOYS STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, SADNESS AND HURT BUT THEY ALL SUFFER EVEN TO UNBEARABLE HOMICIDAL OR SUICIDAL LEVELS AND THERE IS NO OTHER CAUSE OF THIS THAN THE INCESSANT BOMBARDMENT OF STYLE OR FORCEFUL STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE PRESENT IN THEIR SPEECH AND MOTION AND SO NOBODY WHO TRULY UNDERSTANDS WILL CONTINUE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND IT IS A REFLECTION THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE GENUINE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE STYLE EVEN AFTER I HAVE POINTED IT OUT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS WHAT STYLE IS.

Practicing controlled madness:

He is pursing his lips so tightly that his mouth is contorted in shape and it is involuntary, driven by the intense stirring of his mental force as a result of a certain thought.

His pursing his lips so tightly may be to express dislike, doubt or just to impress but because they are meaningless, he is practicing controlled madness that will end in madness.

You have not gone mad yet so do not be so sure you won’t mind being mad. To be mad can be even helplessly tormenting.

If he move his lips to speak or chew then he is using his lips purposely but to purse his lips so intensely is purposeless and reflects involuntary intense mental force rising in his mind.

IF YOU THINK HIS EXPRESSION IS MEANINGFUL, SERVES USEFUL FUNCTION THEN YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR WRONG. IF YOU ARE WRONG THEN IT IS WRONG VIEW THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS THE WAY TO HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB NOT HEAVEN.

I SAY IT IS MEANINGLESS AND HE CANNOT HELP IT OR TO EXPRESS DISLIKE THAT IS NOT REASON BUT A REPULSIVE STIRRING OF HIS MENTAL FORCE AND HE IS HEADED FOR TORMENT.

Bohong But Who:

I watched Najib refuting charges by Raja Petra and the caption seems to say he accuses the latter of lying.

There are no perfect lies and no matter how slick a liar is, there are tell tale signs in expressions and the way it is said that tells the discerning that the person is not quite telling the truth.

You can see from his expressions, rapidly shifting eyes, a facial demeanour that is not his usual smiling confident self but uncomfortable, occasional suppressed tongue poking that he is not quite telling the truth.

To ordinary people who come to the wrong conclusions far more than they realize, who are themselves dishonest and therefore sympathize with him, it is understandable that he should be uneasy because he is under attack, his reputation is at stake but to one discerning, it is an indication that what he is saying is not quite true.

The Buddha said telling lies can send one to hell, especially if you are a lowly person who has done little or no good and hence if what is said is not true and you slander another person by accusing him of lying then you are setting yourself up for agony that is in addition to the agony of being involved in Altanturya’s murder.

Ordinary people actually have a full house, they indulge in all the sins listed below and are in grave danger of hell and another eternity of perdition:

Vipaka Sutta: Results

"Monks, the taking of life -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

"Stealing -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.

"Illicit sexual behavior -- is something that leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry & revenge.

"Telling falsehoods -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused.

"Divisive tale-bearing leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of one's friendships.

"Harsh speech -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.

"Frivolous chattering -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart.

"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."

Why is Najib not angry?

A person in his position accustomed to getting what he wants, if he is truly innocent of such a serious accusation, he would be outraged and displaying his anger for all to see ‘and more’ if that was possible.

Thus the fact that he was subdued, even uneasy suggest there must be fire where there is smoke.

IF HE WAS INNOCENT, HE WOULD BE BARELY ABLE TO RESTRAIN HIS ANGER OR OUTRAGE AND THE FACT THAT HE MADE A MUTED DENIAL AND COUNTER ACCUSATION INDICATES THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN APPARENT.

Ingenious operation:

Quote: It was an ingenious operation where thieves coated eight CCTV screens with black paint to prevent the devices from recording them robbing three automated teller machines of more than RM600,000 at a bank here.

Comment: It does not take a genius nor is it ingenious to coat or spray the cameras with black paint and if the cameras are carefully overlapping in coverage, the spraying would have been recorded.

If it is not an act of ingenuity then you are speaking carelessly or wrong to call it so and it may encourage potential thieves to emulate and be classified as geniuses.

Genius is usually reserved for acts that are praiseworthy and so to call a dastardly act ingenious is asking for judgment.

ATMs cleaned out:

It is strong language that is false designed to stir readers’ emotions to ‘wow’ by saying thieves cleaned out the ATMs.

Emptied may be more appropriate and if there is something left behind then it is false to say ‘clean out’ without seeing or knowing it is so.

The use of strong language does not issue from true reason but it is driven by force or urge or desire to use strong language to stir up others and it is conditioning that will end in insanity and hell.

Unless you have seen the ATM was emptied you should not say it was emptied, just that it was robbed.

Hitting below the belt:

Datuk Seri Najib Razak dismissed Raja Petra Kamarudin’s statutory declaration linking his wife and two others to the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaaribuu as “total lies, fabrication and total garbage.”

The Deputy Prime Minister said the allegations in the statutory declaration were a “desperate and pathetic attempt to discredit and taint my political image.”

Raja Petra’s allegation merely stated Rosmah was present at the scene, he did not say it was anything else.

Thus Najib’s description of the declaration as pathetic is scurrilous, hitting below the belt or mudslinging that is not the appropriate reply to the question.

There is nothing pathetic about the declaration, it is either true or false and if you perceive it is pathetic you are courting future mad perception. When you become intensely paranoid, all your food is poisoned then that is mad perception.

There will be painful karma:

Whoever you are, if you labelled as Najib did that Raja Petra’s declaration is pathetic, there will be karma for you even if it turned out that the allegation is false in which case Raja Petra will have karma for making a false allegation.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO CALL ANOTHER’S ALLEGATION PATHETIC, IT IS ATTACKING ANOTHER WITH WORDS AND IT INCURS KARMA WHETHER THE DECLARATION IS TRUE OR NOT.

He is angry and upset:

He is angry (a form of dislike) and probably upset (hurt) and no matter how you might justify it, it is applying force on your mind that is painful and conditions it so that it becomes increasingly easy to get angry and upset that will end in madness.

His anger also harms others and there is karma.

Further he is also prolonging, using force to prolong his mental and bodily state longer than necessary and that is the route to sadness.

The Buddha said you must be skilful because life is like a minefield full of potential karma that you must avoid. Thus to call another’s allegation pathetic is unskilful and incurs karma that cumulatively is like an ocean and lasts an eternity.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Why oil companies are making record profits:

Although oil companies like Esso, Shell, BP etc do not actually own oil fields they are quite happy to see prices rise and continue to rise because herein is opportunity to gain windfall profit.

How is that so?

Because oil companies usually have reserve stocks bought at the lower prices, if oil prices rise, they immediately raise pump prices so that they sell the (considerable) old oil they bought at the old price at the new prices and pretend to be innocent when they are quite happy to see oil prices rise and continue to rise so that they can continue to profit on the sidelines.

EVIL SPECULATORS ARE THE ONES WHO CAUSE THE PRICES TO RISE SO THAT THEY CAN REAP PROFIT FROM PRICE RISES.

OIL COMPANIES BENEFIT BY SELLING OLD CHEAP STOCK AT NEW HIGHER PRICES.

OIL PRODUCERS ARE PASSIVE BIGGEST BENEFACTORS IN THAT THEY GET MUCH MORE FOR THEIR OIL THAT STILL COST THE SAME TO EXTRACT.

How speculators raise oil prices:

Quote BBC: Oil prices have leaped amid concerns that demand will outstrip supply, taking crude near record highs.

Comment: It is natural for sellers to hold on and sell to the highest bidder. Thus if you have crazed speculators raring at the leash ready to bid higher in case oil prices take off without them, they would have snapped up available oil just based on rumour of demand outstripping supply so that when the genuine buyer comes along, he has no choice but to pay a higher price to get it from the speculator who now owns the oil this genuine buyer wants.

THUS UNLESS YOU BELIEVE ALL THE BUYERS ON THE MARKET ARE IN NEED OF OIL, ARE NOT IN THERE TO PROFIT FROM PRICE RISES, THEN IF THE OIL HAS TO CHANGE HANDS 10 TIMES BEFORE IT GETS TO THE GENUINE BUYER INSTEAD OF DIRECT BETWEEN SELLER AND GENUINE BUYER, THE PRICE IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE INFLATED.

Reduced oil consumption may not cause prices to fall:

It may be wrong view and foolishness, as many experts are expressing that the way to reduce prices is to reduce demand or consumption by raising pump prices.

Even if there is considerable reduction in oil demand (20% drop in oil demand in UK reported), it may or will not cause a price drop so long as the momentum created by speculators pushing up prices outweigh downward pressure created by reduced demand.

Perhaps only if total oil consumption falls drastically like 50% globally will speculators feel the pain of propping up prices.

THUS YOU MAY BE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE TRYING THE DOUSE THE FIRE OF RISING OIL PRICES BY REDUCING DEMAND WHILST KEEPING A BLIND TOLERANT EYE TO THE SHENANIGANS OF OIL SPECULATORS.

REDUCED DEMAND TENDS TO PUSH DOWN PRICES BUT SPECULATING BUYING TEND TO RAISE PRICES. ONLY WHEN REDUCED DEMAND IS ASCENDANT VIS A VIS SPECULATING WILL PRICES START TO FALL AND THAT MAY TAKE SOME HEROIC REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION.

A Deluded Man:

Here you read the argument of a chief executive of BP who says it is a myth speculators are to blame for driving up oil prices to such ridiculous levels. According to him it is purely a case of reduced production (0.2% globally) and increased demand (1.1% globally) that is the justification for price increases.

If you believe a reduction of production of 0.2% against a 1.1% increase demand with no evidence of shortage of oil in the world can translate into an oil price rise to $130 per barrel from say $50, you must have seriously flawed logic and perception.

NO MATTER HOW SHORT THE SUPPLY AND HOW GREAT THE DEMAND FOR OIL, THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF OIL REMAINS THE SAME AND SO WHATEVER INCREASE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND PURE PROFIT TO OIL PRODUCERS AND OIL COMPANIES LIKE BP SELLING OLD STOCKS AT NEW PRICES. IT IS ONLY OPPORTUNISM AND PROFITEERING DRIVEN BY SPECULATORS THAT CAN CAUSE SUCH HIGH PRICES.

IF WHAT I SAY IS TRUE HE IS A DELUDED MAN HEADING FOR THE DESTINATION OF DELUSION, INSANITY, HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB.

BP adds fuel to the oil price debate

Analysis
By Nils Blythe
Business correspondent, BBC News

High oil prices have had a knock on effect on petrol costs around the world

It's a great global debate. What has driven oil prices to their current dizzy heights?

According to the oil producers' cartel Opec, the blame lies with speculators in the international markets. But Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, describes that view as "a myth".

He argues that the main cause is the tight balance between global supply and demand.

BP's new Statistical Review of World Energy - a key information source for many people in the industry - highlights what has been going on.

Falling production

According to BP, global oil consumption grew by 1.1% in 2007, while total production fell by 0.2% or 130,000 barrels per day - the first decline since 2002.

Production in Opec countries was cut in November 2006 and February 2007.

The largest production cuts last year were in Saudi Arabia - the country which has by far the largest oil reserves in the world and is normally the world's largest producer. But BP says Saudi Arabia's 12.6% of global output was almost matched by Russia.

In 2008, BP expects Russian output to fall by around 1%. And although Saudi Arabia has committed itself to some small production increases, the balance between supply and demand looks likely to remain extremely tight.

The rise in oil prices has been remarkable. In 1997 the average price of a barrel of Brent crude was $12.72. In 2007 it was $72.39. And earlier this month it touched $137.

Demand growth

Can such huge rises be explained by changes in supply and demand? In theory, yes they can. If there is even a small shortage of supply oil buyers will bid up the price to make sure that they do not end up with less oil than they want.

Read BP's 2008 Statistical Review of World Energy

That upward pressure continues until some market participants are forced out of the bidding because they cannot or will not pay the market price. In other words, demand for oil falls back.

But in spite of the price increases, demand for oil around the world has continued to rise. That overall rise masks some important regional variations.

In the European Union consumption of oil was 2.6% lower in 2007 than the previous year. But in China and much of the developing world, consumption continued to rise.

BP's Tony Hayward argues that demand growth is concentrated in those emerging nations that subsidise fuel prices, thus shielding consumers from the rising cost of oil. This year a number of countries including India and Indonesia have cut their subsidies.

Tight market

There is some evidence that the latest rises in fuel costs are at last beginning to reduce demand. But the extent of that reduction remains to be seen.

So the tight balance between supply and demand creates an environment in which even minor news stories about disruption to oil fields can cause sudden leaps in market prices.

Traders certainly try to make money out of the rises and falls. But BP's argument is that the markets reflect the underlying fundamentals and do not create them.

Opec is planning a meeting of heads of state from leading oil producing countries in Saudi Arabia later this month. There will be pressure from around the world to increase production.

No doubt the debate about who's to blame for high oil prices will resume.

Increased demand, reduced production but no shortage:

Even if it is true production has decreased and demand has increased there is no evidence of shortage of oil in the world even today and so aren’t you jumping the gun to raise prices when there is no shortage?

IT IS AN EXCUSE OR FALSE LOGIC TO SAY REDUCED PRODUCTION AND INCREASED DEMAND IS THE CAUSE OF THE PRICE RISES BECAUSE THERE IS NO SHORTAGE YET THAT MAY JUSTIFY CRAZED BIDDING OF OIL.

IF THERE IS A PHYSICAL SHORTAGE, PEOPLE CANNOT GET OIL THEN IT MAY BE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT PEOPLE WILL TRY TO OUTBID EACH OTHER TO GET OIL. WITH NO EVIDENCE OF SHORTAGE ARE YOU CRAZY TO BID UP OIL SO HIGH OR IS IT THE EVIL SPECULATORS THAT HAVE COME IN TO CORNER THE MARKET?

Even if there is a severe shortage it is not justification to increase prices:

Even if there is a severe shortage or severe supply and demand mismatch it is not a reason to raise prices if cost of production remains the same but the price rises reflects emotional desperation of consumers willing to pay more and unscrupulous sellers taking the opportunity to make more money.

THERE IS NOT ONE CONSUMER IN THIS WORLD DESPERATE TO PAY MORE TO GET OIL BUT THEY ARE CLAMOURING FOR PRICE CUTS AND IT IS THEREFORE THE SELLERS WHO ARE DICTATING, USING THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN THERE IS NOT EVEN A SHORTAGE TO INCREASE PRICES. AND CHIEF AMONGST THE SELLERS ARE THE SPECULATORS (OR RESELLLERS) WHO HAVE BOUGHT OIL WHEN THEY HAVE NO USE FOR OIL.

Why shortages are never the cause of price increases:

Despite much explanations many even very intelligent people are suspicious, think I may be wrong and somehow supply and demand mismatch do cause price rises when they NEVER.

WHY IS IT INCREASED DEMAND AND REDUCED PRODUCTION EVEN LEADING TO SHORTAGES NEVER CAUSE PRICES TO RISE?

IF YOU ASSUME THE COSTS OF THE PRODUCT REMAINS LARGELY IF ENTIRELY THE SAME IT MEANS THAT AT THE NEWER HIGHER PRICE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEW AND OLD PRICE IS PURE PROFIT TO THE PRODUCER OR OIL PRODUCTION COMPANY WHO BOUGHT IT AT THE OLD PRICE.

HOW IS THAT IN THE PAST YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THE PROFIT MARGIN AT THE OLD PRICE AND NOW YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE OLD PROFIT MARGIN BUT YOU WANT MUCH MORE JUST BECAUSE THERE IS MARGINAL REDUCED PRODUCTION AND MARGINAL INCREASED DEMAND? IF THIS IS NOT OPPORTUNISTIC PROFITEERING WHAT IS IT?

THUS REDUCED PRODUCTION OR INCREASED DEMAND, EVEN SHORTAGES ARE NEVER RATIONAL REASONS FOR PRICE INCREASES ESPECIALLY THE RIDICULOUS LEVELS TODAY BUT IT REFLECTS HOLDING CONSUMERS TO RANSOM AND PROFITEERING.

I KNOW THERE ARE MANY WHO WILL ARGUE WITH ME, YOU WILL SAY HOW DO I KNOW I AM CORRECT DESPITE MY CLEAR REASONING ABOVE WHO WILL BE IN DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY THINKING MAYBE INCREASED DEMAND AND REDUCED PRODUCTION IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR. THEY HAVE ADVANCED UNASSUAGABLE FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION AND ARE HEADED FOR INSANITY.

Ask Petronas how much it makes per barrel:

Ask Petronas how much it made per barrel when the price was $25 per barrel and how much it now makes per barrel at $125.

If Petronas were to be honest and said it made $15 at $25 and $115 at $125 or thereabouts, it is profiteering passively from the price rises.

If Petronas has conscience:

If it is true Petronas made $15 per barrel in the past and $115 now then if it had any conscience it would not raise prices to rake in unfair profits from its own citizens and the fact that it has now done so must mean its political masters want the money for some reason.

Straight faced liars:

All these politicians who talk about the government being unable to continue to bear the burden of subsidizing oil prices may be secretly siphoning off huge amounts of money and now for some reason they want more money and they are giving an excuse to commence charging market rates or extracting more profit or blood out of its citizens, not reducing its burden.

If Petronas is state owned and it produces more than enough oil for the nation, it is making enough money at the old price and the new price reflects the sins of speculators who will bring the world economy to its knees.

If oil producers have conscience:

No person with conscience will accept $125 for a product he used to sell for $25 when there is no appreciable cost increases especially when it is an essential item that will cause social hardship to the poor.

Thus it reflects the complicity of oil producers that they all keep mum and refuse to disclose exactly how much profit they now make compared to the past and I suspect that oil companies like Esso and Shell may be under-reporting their profits too.

AN OIL PRODUCER WITH CONSCIENCE WILL SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND I WILL ONLY SELL OIL AT SAY $50 OR $70 PER BARREL, THE PROFIT THUS REAPED IS GOOD ENOUGH AND I WILL BYPASS THE MARKETS BY SELLING DIRECTLY TO ANY OIL COMPANY THAT WILL UNDERTAKE TO SELL THE PETROL FOR A REASONABLE PROFIT. THAT PRODUCER CAN MAINTAIN HIS PRODUCTION LEVEL AND ONLY SELL THE BALANCE OF WHAT HE CANNOT SELL AT THIS FIXED PRICE ON THE OPEN MARKET.

Petronas may not have declared their profits but their profits at $125 per barrel should be at least four times what it was at $25 per barrel and if it is not so then the excess profits must have been skimmed off.

THUS RATHER THAN AN ACT OF SACRIFICE SUBSIDIZING PETROL PRICES UNTIL NOW IT MAY REFLECT A LACK OF CONSCIENCE TO WANT TO IMPOSE MARKET PRICES ON MALAYSIANS TO REAP PROFITS THAT ARE ‘INDECENTLY’ HIGH.

IF OIL PRODUCERS THINK THEIR PROFIT MARGINS TODAY IS FAIR THEN THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE PRICE, IF IT IS INDECENT ESPECIALLY BEARING IN MIND THE HARDSHIPS CAUSED THEN THEY SHOULD DECLINE TO DEMAND SO MUCH. KEEP PRETENDING YOU ARE NOT MAKING MUCH, IT IS THE MARKET RATE AND YOU WILL PRETEND YOURSELF TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

Why government can promise no more rise this year:

First they say government will have to review oil prices every month and now they say no more increase this year.

What if oil prices rise to $1000 per barrel, will the government then have to break its promise about no increase?

THERE IS NO DANGER THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE TO BREAK ITS PROMISE BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUBSIDIZING FUEL PRICES AND NO MATTER HOW HIGH OIL PRICES RISES, PETRONAS IS ALREADY REAPING ‘INDECENT’ PROFITS AND SINCE MALAYSIA PRODUCES ITS OWN OIL, IT CAN KEEP CHARGING THIS PRICE COME WHAT MAY.

Proof There Is No Oil Subsidy:

According to the CIA world fact book, although Malaysia imports 278,000 bbl/day of poorer quality crude, it exports 611,000 barrels of more expensive high quality crude and consumes only 500,000 barrels and so it produces comfortably more oil than it consumes.

THUS THE GOVERNMENT IS TELLING A LIE THAT IT SUBSIDIZES THE OIL BECAUSE MALAYSIA PRODUCES MORE OIL THAN IT CONSUMES AND IT IS MERELY (UNTIL RECENTLY) WITHOLDING CHARGING EXORBITANT UNRIGHTEOUS WORLD PRICES TO ITS CITIZENS.

PETRONAS MAY BE MAKING FAR MORE MONEY THAN IT STATES AND IT IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PRIME MINISTER, NOT MINSTRY OF FINANCE AND YOU MAY UNDERSTAND THE RELUCTANCE OF PRIME MINISTERS TO RESIGN.

CIA world fact Book:

Oil - production:

751,800 bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - consumption:

501,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - exports:

611,200 bbl/day (2004)

Oil - imports:

278,600 bbl/day (2004)

Oil - proved reserves:

3 billion bbl (2007 est.)

Natural gas - production:

60.9 billion cu m (2005 est.)

Natural gas - consumption:

31.84 billion cu m (2005 est.)

Natural gas - exports:

29.06 billion cu m (2005 est.)

Natural gas - imports:

0 cu m (2005)

Natural gas - proved reserves:

2.037 trillion cu m (1 January 2006 est.)

Malaysian oil surplus comfortable:

Despite importing 278,600 bbl/day to supplement partially the domestic consumption of 501,000 bbl/day Malaysia is able to export 611,200 bbl/day that comfortably exceeds its domestic demand.

At current market prices, Petronas must be raking it in ‘like nobody’s business’ and so why should it come crying to the Malaysian public for an end to its ‘subsidy’?

Petronas Chairman Telling Lies:

Quote: Commenting on the fuel price increase, the Petronas boss said the corporation did not make a sen from the increase (this is a lie because Petronas stand to make much more than a sen from the increase. How can a price rise not increase Petronas’ profit? That he will tell a lie here indicates he will tell lies elsewhere).

Petronas could go bust by 2018

By WONG SAI WAN

KUALA LUMPUR: Petronas will go bust within 10 years if all its profits are handed to the Government to continue subsidising fuel, said its president and chief executive officer Tan Sri Hassan Marican. (Since there is no subsidy, it is already making good profit from Malaysian public even before recent price rise and on top of that it exports oil that is raking in indecent profit it is impossible that Petronas will go bust and unless he has advanced false perception and logic, he is telling a lie. Petronas does not need to hand over not even a sen of its profits to subsidize prices.)

He warned that many national petroleum companies in the world have ceased to exist or were in financial trouble today because all their profits were taken away from them (They may be in trouble or bust but not from national service subsidizing oil but from corrupt siphoning of company profits and so it is misleading to use it as a reason to stop subsidy that does not exist).

Speaking at a special briefing on Petronas’ contribution to the country, Hassan said that in the oil business it was important to reinvest profits in search of new technologies, reserves and continued revenue. Petronas has so far reinvested RM178.9bil of its profits (that may impress gullible ignorant public but it may be a pittance in terms of Petronas profits).

“Petronas has played a major role by giving back a substantial amount of its profits to the Government,” he added.

At the close of its financial year in March last year, the national petroleum company had given the Government RM52.3bil in taxes, royalties and dividends which worked out to be 32% of the Federal Government’s revenue. (Sounds impressive but should it pay even much more?)

“Since the formation of Petronas in 1974 to last year, the company gave the Government RM335.7bil out of a total profit of RM570bil,” Hassan said.

Commenting on the fuel price increase, the Petronas boss said the corporation did not make a sen from the increase (this is a lie because Petronas stand to make much more than a sen from the increase. How can a price rise not cause increase in profit to Petronas. That he will tell a lie here indicates he will tell lies elsewhere).

“All the oil companies get full market price for the petrol and diesel that they sell and the Government pay them the difference from the fixed price. This is where the subsidy comes into play,” he added.

Hassan revealed that oil companies operating in the country spent RM40bil a year in drilling and exploration works and a lot of this money was injected into the local economy.

Hassan also pointed out that it was now more expensive for Petronas to explore and extract oil.

“A lot of focus is placed on the high oil prices. There is very little talk about costs. The costs to explore and to drill for oil have increased by about 200% over the past three years.” (it may have increased by 200% but what is its magnitude compared to profits. You may spend $2 on exploration compared to $1 in the past and rightfully claim cost has increased 100% but what is that compared to $100 million profit?)

Hassan said Exxon Mobil made about US$40bil (RM130.31bil) last year, an increase of only US$1bil (RM3.26bil) from 2006, in an environment of higher crude oil prices.

“That is the world’s biggest, most efficient and most well-run oil company. Margins have eroded,” he said. (it is impossible that margin can erode when the oil that is being pumped is oil that is old or discovered in the past and oil prices have risen from $25 to $125. You are only justified to charge higher prices for oil you produced at the higher price and so if the oil being pumped is old oil, you cannot rightfully charge new higher prices. Herein is another likely lie.)

Hassan said Petronas was now “ scraping the bottom of the barrel” as far as finding and extracting oil was concerned. (That does not mean it must charge more for oil discovered cheaply in the past)

Asked about criticisms that Petronas' accounts and profits were not transparent, Hassan said the corporation published a very detailed annual report which was deposited in the Parliament library.

“For all intents and purposes, Petronas is a public-listed company because we are rated by agencies like Standard and Poors, and Moody. We do not hide anything,” he added. (the subprime crisis has shown that rating agencies like S&P are not infallible, they even have little credibility, all these agencies have been instrumental in grading subprime loans as premium so it may not be necessary authoritative to be graded by them)

Krugman’s follies:

Paul Krugman’s motive (not stated) in writing this piece is likely that he himself (and his parent company NY Times) is a victim of intellectual ‘theft’ in which everything intellectual can be digitalized easily copied with scant or little respect and more important remuneration to the owner. There are many visitors to NY Times’ websites but they balk at paying such that intellectual rights owners are forced to derive income indirectly (eg through advertisements, installing and maintaining free software and hats and tee shirt sales of performing bands). In other words, he has vested interests which he does not state but he hints that as a writer, he feels deprived of his rightful wages for his endeavours, whether it is truly meritorious or it deludes others, is another matter.

His message right or deluded, is very simple, he and his parent NY Times find their intellectual property pirated or otherwise not paid what is due so that they must find revenue by indirect means and this situation is lamentable and frustrating or disliked by him but he cannot do anything or much about it and he wants to point this out to you, stir your sympathy and just vent his frustration.

Quote: But they’ll have to find a way. Bit by bit (unnecessary, making a pun of digital bits as opposed to bit by bit of macro stuff), everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we’ll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.

It won’t all happen immediately. But in the long run, we are all the Grateful Dead.

What he is saying is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to charge others for your intellectual properties, you have to find not alternative models (sounds impressive but it just mean ‘ways’) to get paid but it will take time and in the long run we are all gratefully dead.

What has ‘in the long run we will all be dead’ got to do with the discussion that it will take time for alternative business models to develop? The phrase is copied by him from others, it sounds nice to him and so he tried to incorporate it in his finale not realizing it is not apt.

He is actually engineering his end paragraph to fit the style of what he wants to say not realizing it does not make sense and is bizarre logic. He may be scornfully hinting that by the time he gets paid he will be gratefully dead. The Grateful Dead is the name of a pop band and it is mischief because nobody is gratefully dead but it is always suffering to die which is why the Buddha shows the way to the deathless. Thus Krugman and the band who adopted the name may be courting judgment speaking of being gratefully dead.

Bits, Bands and Books

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Do you remember what it was like back in the old days when we had a New Economy? In the 1990s, jobs were abundant, oil was cheap and information technology was about to change everything.

Then the technology bubble popped (it may not be a mistake he used pop instead of burst, to make it as if it is fun). Many highly touted New Economy companies, it turned out, were better at promoting their images than at making money (probably if not certainly sarcastic) — although some of them did pioneer new forms of accounting fraud (again mocking). After that came the oil shock and the food shock, grim reminders that we’re still living in a material world (shock is not about reason but the stirring of force that is false and suffering, why should anyone be shocked. You should not be dismayed let alone shocked. Shock is an inappropriate mad reaction to anything occurring and is an admission the person’s mind is possessed by force not reason).

So much, then, for the digital revolution? (He is asking you a question) Not so fast (he is contradicting what he said earlier, allt his unnecessary and mad and necessary for style or show). The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march (can you see the envisioned future marching, if you cannot you are courting mad perception to say so).

In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction (let others decide whether it is striking or not, there is nothing striking in any prediction, it is a person’s false perception that it is): that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

For example, she described how some software companies gave their product away but earned fees for installation and servicing. But her most compelling illustration of how you can make money by giving stuff away was that of the Grateful Dead, who encouraged people to tape live performances because “enough of the people who copy and listen to Grateful Dead tapes end up paying for hats, T-shirts and performance tickets. In the new era, the ancillary market is the market.”

Indeed, it turns out that the Dead were business pioneers (it is totally unnecessary to say ‘indeed’, for show). Rolling Stone recently published an article titled “Rock’s New Economy: Making Money When CDs Don’t Sell.” Downloads are steadily undermining record sales — but today’s rock bands, the magazine reports, are finding other sources of income. Even if record sales are modest, bands can convert airplay and YouTube views into financial success indirectly, making money through “publishing, touring, merchandising and licensing.”

What other creative activities will become mainly ways to promote side businesses? How about writing books?

According to a report in The Times, the buzz at this year’s BookExpo America was all about electronic books. Now, e-books have been the coming, but somehow not yet arrived, thing for a very long time. (There’s an old Brazilian joke: “Brazil is the country of the future — and always will be.” E-books have been like that.) But we may finally have reached the point at which e-books are about to become a widely used alternative to paper and ink.

That’s certainly my impression after a couple of months’ experience with the device feeding the buzz, the Amazon Kindle. Basically, the Kindle’s lightness and reflective display mean that it offers a reading experience almost comparable to that of reading a traditional book. This leaves the user free to appreciate the convenience factor: the Kindle can store the text of many books, and when you order a new book, it’s literally in your hands within a couple of minutes.

It’s a good enough package that my guess is that digital readers will soon become common, perhaps even the usual way we read books.

How will this affect the publishing business? Right now, publishers make as much from a Kindle download as they do from the sale of a physical book. But the experience of the music industry suggests that this won’t last: once digital downloads of books become standard, it will be hard for publishers to keep charging traditional prices.

Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors’ other activities, such as live readings with paid admission. Well, if it was good enough for Charles Dickens, I guess it’s good enough for me.

Now, the strategy of giving intellectual property away so that people will buy your paraphernalia won’t work equally well for everything. To take the obvious, painful example: news organizations, very much including this one, have spent years trying to turn large online readership into an adequately paying proposition, with limited success.

But they’ll have to find a way. Bit by bit, everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we’ll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.

It won’t all happen immediately. But in the long run, we are all the Grateful Dead. (What has ‘in the long run we will all be dead’ got to do with the discussion that it will take time for alternative business models to develop? The phrase is copied by him from others, it sounds nice to him and so he tried to incorporate it in his finale not realizing it is not apt)

Not subsidizing but profiting nicely:

EVEN AT THE PREVIOUS $1.90/LITRE PRICE PETRONAS WAS PROFITING QUITE NICELY ONLY NOT AS MUCH AS IT WOULD IF IT WAS $2.70/L AS NOW AND SO IT IS MISLEADING OR LYING TO SAY IT OR THE GOVERNMENT IS SUBSIDIZING THE PUBLIC. NOW FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM, THEY FEEL THEY WANT TO CHARGE MALAYSIANS MORE AND THEY COME CRYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO SUBSIDIZE THE PUBLIC.

PETRONAS IS MAXIMIZING ITS PROFIT BY EXPORTING ITS HIGH QUALITY CRUDE AND BUYING CHEAPER LOW QUALITY CRUDE FOR LOCAL CONSUMPTION.

No wonder Anwar is so confident he can lower oil prices:

As a former finance minister, Anwar must be more aware than most what is the exact status regarding oil production in Malaysia and so the fact that Anwar says he will resign if he cannot lower prices and Badawi can turn around to categorically promise no more oil price increase must mean that the ability to determine domestic oil price is all in the hands of Malaysia, not dependent on world market forces.

Misleading comparing Petronas with ExxonMobil:

Even if it is true ExxonMobil is suffering from diminishing returns it is unfair for the Petronas president to compare Petronas with Exxon because Petronas owns and produces oil that has jumped from $25 to $135 in price reaping pure ‘fabulous’ profits whilst Exxon is largely a purchaser, refiner and retailer of oil not privy to the fat profits of this unprecedented jump in oil prices.

If what you say that Petronas is suffering diminishing returns is true, you do not have to rope in ExxonMobil and tout it as the most efficient company as if to say if the most efficient company is suffering diminishing returns what more Petronas, it is because what you say is not true that you have to recruit Exxon to bolster your case that you want to sell to the gullible.

Oil falls below $136, eyes Nigeria strike threat:

Quote Reuter Headline: Oil falls below $136, eyes Nigeria strike threat.

Comment: Oil itself cannot adjust its price and eye Nigeria strike threat but it is the dealers and those whose buying and selling can dictate market direction who do so. This means the price for petrol consumers pay is dictated by this band of traders who control the market, who do not necessarily or never have consumers’ interests at heart, only their selfish hoarding if they think threats to shortage occur and dumping if they think there is a glut that might diminish the value of the oil they hold.

IT IS THIS MAD BAND OF OIL TRADERS AND SPECULATORS WHOSE BUYING AND SELLING DETERMINES WHAT PRICE OIL ATTAINS AND WHAT PRICE YOU PAY FOR YOUR PETROL IN WHICH YOU HAVE LITTLE OR NO SAY. THE ONLY SAY YOU HAVE IS TO BOYCOTT PETROL BUT EVEN THAT MAY NOT DO ANYTHING TO THE PRICE. THIS BAND OF PEOPLE MAY FEEL VERY POWERFUL DICTATING OIL PRICE MOVEMENTS AND MAKING FAT PROFITS BUT EVEN HELL AND INSANITY AWAITS THEM.

Congress is currently conducting hearings as to the existence of manipulation in the oil market. Do you think Congress is paranoid, crazy or does this suggest market manipulation is a distinct possibility.

US govt steps up review of oil price surge

Probe launched last Dec into possible manipulation of US oil market

Email this article

Print article

Feedback

(WASHINGTON) US regulators stepped up their efforts on Tuesday to determine why prices for oil and a range of other commodities have surged dramatically this year.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that an interagency panel, including the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and others, will assess price increases and trading in a range of commodities.

'High commodity prices are posing a significant strain on US households,' the CFTC said.

Other regulators on the new panel include the Securities and Exchange Commission and officials from the Energy and Agriculture Departments.

At a meeting with top Wall Street energy market players, a CFTC official said the government must investigate the run-up in oil prices, which topped a record US$139 a barrel last week.

'The bottom line is, we need to investigate, in a comprehensive and probing manner, what is happening in these markets before making a rush to judgment about what is or what is not causing these unusual price movements,' said Bart Chilton, a member of the CFTC, at a meeting of the agency's energy markets advisory panel.

Mr Chilton, a Democrat, spoke after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asserted that speculators were not causing the run-up in oil prices.

'Perhaps the secretary has a crystal ball, but I don't, and given what I'm seeing and hearing in the markets and from market users, that seems to me to be a premature determination, at best,' Mr Chilton said.

One member of the energy industry panel, John Heimlich of the Air Transport Association, questioned whether the trading arms of big Wall Street firms were benefiting from oil price forecasts from their firms' research divisions.

Mr Heimlich noted that recent forecasts calling for higher oil prices have been followed by a spike in such investments.

'We have absolutely no connection with our research department,' said Donald Casturo of Goldman Sachs.

The CFTC launched a nationwide investigation last December into possible manipulation of the US oil market.

'The CFTC is committed to ensuring that our nation's futures markets operate fairly and efficiently, and that commodity prices are determined by the fundamental forces of supply and demand, rather than by abusive or manipulative practices,' CFTC chairman Walter Lukken said in remarks before the panel. – Reuters

Petronas Must Be Raking In Fabulous Profits:

Out of a daily production of 750,000 barrels, Petronas exports 611,000 barrels or most of its production and being high quality crude at current insane prices, Petronas must be raking in ‘fabulous’ profits and since it is a state company, the government must be earning a lot of money so why is it desperate or insistent to charge insane unfair world prices on its own citizens, claiming it cannot bear the subsidy burden?

Surely some of the exported oil can be diverted to local consumption and if you do not divert then the ‘fabulous’ profits at current world prices could be used to subsidize domestic oil consumption without need to charge citizens world prices?

SINCE PRODUCTION COSTS SHOULD REMAIN LARGELY UNCHANGED, THE RISE IN OIL PRICE FROM $35 TO $135 SHOULD TRANSLATE INTO FABULOUS PROFITS FOR PETRONAS AND SINCE IT EXPORTS 611,000 OUT OF THEE 750,000 BARRELS IT PRODUCES A DAY, PETRONAS MUST BE RAKING IN A LOT OF MONEY.

YOU MAY SAY THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZES, PAYS WORLD PRICES FOR THE 278,000 BARRELS A DAY WE IMPORT TO CONSUME BUT SURELY IT IS NOT PAYING WORLD PRICES TO PETRONAS FOR THE BALANCE OF 222,OOO BARRELS WE CONSUME AND SURELY PETRONAS BEING A STATE OWNED COMPANY MAKING UNPRECEDENTED HUGE PROFITS FROM THE EXPORT AT WORLD PRICES OF 611,000 BARRELS OF HIGH QUALITY OIL, THAT SHOULD OFFSET WITH PLENTY TO SPARE THE SUBSIDIES FOR LOCAL OIL CONSUMPTION SO AS NOT TO NEED TO RAISE THE ALREADY ELEVATED LOCAL PETROL PRICES?

IN OTHER WORDS, SURELY THE PRODIGIOUS PROFITS PETRONAS A STATE OWNED COMPANY MAKES FROM EXPORTING 611,000 BARRELS SHOULD HANDILY OFFSET (WITH PLENTY TO SPARE) THE REDUCED PRICES FOR CHARGED ON LOCAL CONSUMERS FOR THE 500,000 BARRELS THEY CONSUME DAILY? IF THE PROFITS REAPED BY PETRONAS FROM INDECENT WORLD PRICES DO NOT BELONG TO THE CITIZENS, TO BE SHARED BY THEM, THEN WHO DOES IT BELONG?

JUST BECAUSE WORLD MARKETS DEMAND EXORBITANT UNFAIR PRICES FROM CONSUMERS DOES NOT MEAN MALAYSIA MUST DEMAND THE SAME PRICE FROM ITS CITIZENS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAN HELP BECAUSE IT IS SELF SUFFICIENT IN OIL?

Why no oil subsidy:

Why is it that there cannot be any oil subsidy in Malaysia and if there was, it is paid entirely to Petronas and nobody else and therefore the Petronas chairman is lying to say Petronas does not gain a single sen from recent price increases?

Countries like Taiwan, China and India buy oil at world prices on world markets and their governments do not afterwards pass on the costs to its citizens and so they are subsidizing the oil and the subsidies are paid to foreign oil producers. In Malaysia’s case, it produces more oil than it consumes and all the oil is produced directly and indirectly (imported inferior oil is offset by superior exports) by Petronas and so whatever subsidy if it exists must be paid to Petronas and nobody else and it is impossible and absurd the government will pay Petronas the subsidy because Petronas is state owned and if it is paid its coffers will be very swollen.

Whatever cheaper crude oil that Malaysia import is offset by expensive crude Malaysia exports and so that imported oil is also effectively locally produced and whatever oil Malaysians consume is effectively locally produced and Petronas is the only local producer and so any subsidy paid by the Malaysian government on our behalf must be paid to Petronas and nobody else.

IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY PAYS PETRONAS THE SUBSIDY BECAUSE PETRONAS IS STATE OWNED AND PETRONAS WILL BE VERY RICH IF IT IS PAID ALL THE SUBSIDY.

THE CURRENT WORLD OIL PRICE IS UNJUST, REFLECTS PASSIVE CRASS PROFITEERING OR GOUGING BY OIL PRODUCERS AS A RESULT OF SPECULATIVE MANIPULATIONS BY MARKET PLAYERS THAT HAS NOW REACHED INSANE PROPORTIONS WITH HARM TO THE WORLD ECONOMY INCREASINGLY VISIBLE AND IT REFLECTS POOR JUDGMENT AND GREED, EVEN CORRUPTION ON THE PART OF THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT TO NOW WANT TO MAKE ITS CITIZENS PAY EXORBITANT WORLD PRICES ON OIL WHOSE PRICE IT HAS FULL CONTROL OVER, IS ALREADY GIVING HANDSOME PROFITS AT RISK OF CERTAIN ECONOMIC BACKLASH APART FROM PUNISHING DISPROPORTIONATELY ITS POOR CITIZENS. TO SAY IT CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE OIL PRICES MAY BE A BLATANT LIE BECAUSE IT IS OT SUPPORTING BUT REFUSING PREVIOUSLY TO IMPOSE OIL PRICES TO COLLECT UNRIGHTEOUS EXCESS PROFITS FROM ITS CITIZENS.

Voluntary profiting less not subsidizing:

Even at the old pump prices the profit margin of Petronas is considerable and now that it has been raised from $1.90 to $2.70 it is even much more despite cash refunds with road taxes.

This reduced but still handsome profits from the 500,000 barrels Malaysians consumed is accompanied by the record profits reaped at the unreasonable manipulated world price from the export of 611,000 barrels and so as a token of social responsibility and good corporate citizenship, Petronas and the government should ensure that lower domestic prices be maintained rather than finding excuses that the subsidises are too much to bear to raise prices and profiteer from its own citizens just because every oil producer is doing so in the rest of the world.

A sense of responsibility:

Petronas and its political masters should know how much Petronas is making at current exorbitant world oil prices and it should ask itself whether it is fair or not to make such indecent profits from its own citizens especially bearing in mind the hardship it will cause to the underprivileged.

Petronas is already making a lot that will keep increasing if oil prices keep rising from the 611,000 barrels it exports compared to the 500, 000 sold in local markets at lesser but still very profitable margins.

AND SO BEARING IN MIND THAT THE CURRENT WORLD OIL PRICES ARE UNFAIR, EXCESSIVE AND THE RESULT OF WICKED SPECULATORS, PETRONAS SHOULD BE CONTENT WITH THE ALREADY FABULOUS WINDFALL FROM THE EXPORT OF 611,OOO BARRELS THAT IS MORE THAN THE REDUCED WINDFALL FROM SELLING 500,000 BARRELS AT REDUCED BUT FAIR PRICES.

Rudd foolishly heaps karma on self:

What Asian countries do regarding fuel subsidies is none of others’ business and Rudd’s call to end Asian fuel subsidy is not motivated (intention is karma) out of goodness or selflessness but selfish because it is reasoned wrongly that the end of subsidy will reduce demand and therefore prices of oil that will then benefit Australia.

Do not underestimate the capacity of speculators to undermine the price lowering tendency of reduced demand.

If you want to intervene into others affairs, make sure that what they are doing is wrong and what you advice is morally good otherwise you are putting your head on the chopper board that you cannot see and do not believe exists.

If current world prices are insane, the result of wicked manipulation then there may be a case for Asian governments for subsidizing fuel prices. In Malaysia’s case it is not a subsidy just like Brunei because Malaysia is self sufficient and it is the nation’s right to set a price it thinks is right for itself.

Rudd to press for petrol subsidy slash

  • Josh Gordon
  • June 15, 2008

The Federal Government is preparing to launch a major assault on Asian petrol price subsidies in a bid to curb regional demand and bring pump prices down for Australian motorists.

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson has warned of a new threat for Australian motorists: the huge subsidies and price caps prescribed by Asian governments to promote development.

Mr Ferguson said 55% of Asian consumption occurred in countries with some form of subsidy, warning the practice was artificially bolstering demand — and prices — across the region.

He said he did not want to be critical of countries that had used the subsidies to promote development, although "the challenge of dealing with energy subsidies in our region is a serious one", requiring a concerted international effort.

"When it comes to energy, particularly oil, and increasingly gas, the world is retreating from the open markets and free trade we have worked so hard to achieve since World War II," Mr Ferguson said.

He said 85% of the growth in global oil demand had occurred in China, India and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, all areas with heavily subsidised markets.

The Federal Government is planning to pursue its agenda to convince countries in the region to abolish their petrol subsidies and price caps through the regional Energy Working Group and the East Asian Summit's Energy Co-operation Task Force.

It follows comments from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd urging wealthy nations to "apply the blowtorch" to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and force the world's top crude-oil producers to increase production for the international community.

Already, the financial burden imposed by soaring oil prices has forced some countries in the region to rethink the level of petrol assistance.

Indonesia last month raised its fuel prices by 30%, although Indonesian motorists are still paying just 65 cents a litre, compared with about $1.63 a litre in Australia. The Malaysian Government was this month forced to cut subsidies, resulting in a 40% price rise. India and Vietnam are also considering action. But China has no plans to remove price caps, while the Thai Government is considering increasing the level of assistance for its motorists.

Mr Ferguson raised questions about the extent to which economic growth in the region had been propped up by petrol price subsidies. "Given that both demand and GDP growth over the past few years has been strongest in those Asian economies with artificially low prices, a question also remains about the extent to which cheap fuel is underpinning their growth."

Selfish Motive & False Reason:

The move by Australians to exert pressure on Asian governments to stop fuel subsidy (so that prices will rise in Asia forcing people to use less fuel reducing demand that leads they think to a price reduction that will benefit Australians) is based on false logic and motivated by selfish considerations and because they perceive their reasoning is correct when it is false, they have advanced false perception and logic that will end in tears, insanity and even another eternity of punishment.

Whatever reasoning stylish emotional people are capable are never freshly composed specific to an occasion arising but they are rehashed rules or instructional logic or orders without which they cannot function or do not know what to do or say. Sometimes these rehashed rules logic appear to be appropriate or at least all fellow robots tell you it is correct and thus deluded they think they are great logicians when they are fools who do not know what they are doing.

The rules logic behind Australian calls for Asian governments to stop fuel subsidies is that it is shortages caused by increased demand or reduced supply that is the cause of price rise and so by increasing fuel prices, it will (hopefully) reduce demand leading to an absence of shortage and a drop in prices. But if there is no shortage and it is speculators who are the devils behind astronomical price rises then you are barking up the wrong tree and after you have reduced demand, you may find yourself still with high prices because speculators are choking supply and manipulating prices for their own profit. The interests of speculators do not coincide with the interests of consumers but they are even antagonistic and it is speculators not shortages that is the cause of such phenomenal price rises.

By asking Asian governments to stop subsidies, you want Asians to suffer from high prices just like you are suffering and if current high prices are unrighteous, reflects crass passive profiteering by oil producers catalysed by the market manipulations of speculators, then you want to impose unrighteous prices and suffering on others so that you can hopefully enjoy a price drop because of reduced demand and this is selfish motivation and karma.

Even if the oil supply has reduced to the last drop, provided the costs in its production has remained the same, there is no justification for price increases and whatever increases is due to greed driven opportunism and profiteering, not the shortage itself.

Until you have driven the last speculator (people with no use for the oil buying oil in the market to sell at profit or loss later) you cannot see a price drop except temporary driven by fear but as soon as you have purged the last speculator from the oil market or people with no interest in oil from the market, you will see a precipitous drop in oil prices.

THIS IS A RULES NOT GENUINE SPECIFIC LOGIC THAT IS INDOCTRINATED INTO SOCIETY FROM TOP ECONOMISTS TO SIMPLE MINDED LAYMEN THAT IT IS SHORTAGES AS A RESULT OF AN IMBALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND THAT IS THE CAUSE OF PRICE RISES AND THEREFORE BY REDUCING DEMAND OR INCREASING SUPPLY YOU CURE THE PRICE RISE.

THE TRUTH MAY BE OR IS THAT SHORTAGES NEVER CAUSES PRICE RISES AND SHORTAGES MAY EVEN BE ENGINEERED (AS IN THE CASE OF OIL BECAUSE THERE IS NO SHORTAGE YET) BUT IT IS HOARDING, THE ENTRY OF SPECULATORS, OPPORTUNISTIC PROFITEERING THAT IS THE CAUSE OF PRICE RISES. IF THIS IS CORRECT THEN IF YOU BELIEVE INCREASED DEMAND AND REDUCED PRODUCTION IS THE CAUSE OF HIGH PRICES, YOU HAVE WRONG LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION AND LOGIC THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT EVEN HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY.

AUSTRALIANS ARE SELF CENTERED IN CLAMOURING FOR AN END TO ASIAN SUBSIDIES AND IF OIL PRICES ARE UNREALISTIC HIGH YOU ARE CLAMOURING THAT UNREALISTIC HIGH PRICES BE IMPOSED ON OTHERS AND THAT IS KARMA.

YES, CONSUMPTION SHOULD BE REDUCED EVEN IF THERE IS NO HIGH PRICES, YOU SHOULD NOT REDUCE CONSUMPTION JUST BECAUSE PRICES ARE HIGH BUT VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE OF CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND AVOIDANCE OF WASTAGE. IMPOSING HIGH PRICES TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION IS THE WRONG ENFORCED, FORCE DRIVEN REASON FOR REDUCING CONSUMPTION. IF YOU MAKE SURE ALL YOUR OIL CONSUMPTION IS NECESSARY (EG NO REVVING CAR AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR SCALDED CAT TAKEOFF OR VIOLENT BRAKING, AVOID UNNCESSARY SHOPPING TRIPS), THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION.

YOU SHOULD ALWAYS RESTRICT THE CONSUMPTION OF OIL AND EVERYTHING TO THE MINIMUM OR THE NECESSARY FOR YOUR OWN SAKE AND OTHERS, NOT BECAUSE OF HIGH PRICES WHICH IS A HYPOCRITICAL REASON TO RESTRICT CONSUMPTION.

ANYONE WHO CONSUMES OIL MORE THAN HE NEEDS TO, WHETHER HE SEES OR KNOWS IT IS SO IS PRACTICING CONTROLLED MADNESS OR WHAT IS UNNECESSARY (USING TOO MUCH OIL) AND HEADED FOR MADNESS. ONLY IF EVERY DROP OF OIL YOU CONSUME IS WITH GENUINE PURPOSE OR NECESSARY ARE YOU HEADED FOR SAFETY. IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE OTHER MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS TO ATTEND TO, YOU MAY BE HEADED FOR PERDITION.

Petronas helping out:

Minister Shahrir assured the public that Petronas is helping out and handing over its profits to help subsidize prices. That may be a false statement with grave consequences for him no matter how good he likes to think of himself.

Petronas may be handing over profits but what proportion of its profit? Is it a pittance or sizeable amount?

Further, Petronas is a major vendor of petrol in the domestic market and even at the old prices it is not subsidizing but collecting less but nevertheless handsome profits from local consumers and by raising prices now, it will collect even greater profit.

IF CURRENT WORLD PRICES ARE UNREALISTICALLY EXORBITANT IT IS UNRIGHTEOUS OF PETRONAS AND THE GOVERNMENT TO WANT TO CHARGE WORLD PRICES ON MALAYSIANS.

TO SAY PETRONAS IS HANDING OVER MONEY TO HELP OUT IS NOT THE SAME AS IF PETRONAS WAS COLLECTING FAT PROFITS EVEN AT THE OLD PRICE BUT IT WILL NOW COLLECT EVEN HIGHER PROFITS AT THE NEW PRICE. IF PETRONAS STANDS TO GAIN MORE WITH CURRENT PRICES COMPARED WITH THE PREVIOUS PRICE WHICH WAS NOT A SUBSIDIZED PRICE BUT A PRICE WITH A MORE REASONABLE OR HONEST PROFIT, YOU ARE MISLEADING THE PUBLIC TO SAY PETRONAS IS DOING ALL IT CAN TO HELP OUT.

SINCE PETRONAS IS THE SOLE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF MALAYSIA’S OILFIELDS ALL THE PROFITS AFTER EXPENSE MUST ACCRUE TO IT AND WITH CURRENT HIGH PRICES, ITS EXPORT OF 610,000 BARRELS AS OPPOSED TO DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION OF 500,000 BARRELS MUST BE PRODIGIOUS. IF THE PROFITS DO NOT BELONG INDIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, WHO DOES IT BELONG TO, WHO OWNS PETRONAS, THE PEOPLE OR ITS POLITICAL MASTERS? AND SO KNOWING IT IS MAKING INDECENT PROFITS INTERNATIONALLY IT SHOULD WITHOLD COLLECTING UNRIGHTEOUS PROFITS FROM THE LOCAL POPULATION WHO ARE ITS TRUE OWNERS.

Importance of correct diagnosis:

Just as a correct diagnosis is crucial even a matter of life and death for the patient, in the same way it is crucial to make the correct diagnosis in whatever situation otherwise you stand to suffer, lose and even your life is at stake.

Thus if in truth, there is no shortage of oil in the world, increased demand and reduced supplies are not the cause of the current phenomenal price rises but instead it is the entry not just of oil speculators but hoards of them armed with margin trading, including hedge and pension funds with considerable financial muscle then by diagnosing shortages caused by increased demand and reduced supply you will target the wrong people (consumers, governments, oil producers) whilst letting the culprits (speculators) off the hook, prices will not fall and the bubble will continue to inflate until it is monstrous and burst with great impact on the economy.

If you diagnose correctly that speculators are the cause, you ban anyone without reason to buy oil from buying and the price of oil will swiftly drop from lack of support and things will rapidly return to normal.

JUST AS RIGHT AND WRONG DIAGNOSIS IS CRITICAL IN MEDICINE, RIGHT AND WRONG DIAGNOSIS IS CRUCIAL IN ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE INCLUDING WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE ASTRONOMICAL OIL PRICE RISE.

Attacking fellow consumers:

The Australian call for Asian governments to curb fuel subsidies is to attack fellow consumers whom you perceive as your enemy when your enemy in truth may be the speculator not Asian consumers.

Look at the angry protesters on the streets, they should protest at the energy exchanges of the world and clamour for the weeding out of those who buy oil without any use for it rather than attacking governments and oil producers (for refusing to increase production).

THUS ANGRY CONSUMERS ATTACK EACH OTHER, ATTACK GOVERNMENTS, ATTACK PRODUCERS BUT THEY DO NOT ATTACK THE TRUE CULPRITS, THE EVIL SPECULATORS.

YOU SHOULD NOT ATTACK ANYONE, NOT EVEN OIL SPECULATORS BUT YOU SHOULD USE REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE OIL MARKET BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL, LAZY PEOPLE WANTING THEIR MONEY TO DO THE WORK FOR THEM MAKING MONEY SO THAT THE FRENZY OF PUSHING UP OIL PRICES BECAUSE OF NEWS OF NIGERIAN UNREST OR SOME OTHER WHIM IS ELIMINATED FROM THE MARKET.

Humans have no genuine reason:

No superhuman intelligence or supernatural powers are required to know that speculators are the only culprits for the phenomenal rise of oil prices just as they are responsible for the phenomenal rise of share and property prices all over the world.

If humans have genuine reason they would have reasoned out for themselves what is the cause of the unprecedented oil price rise, at least those with greater pretence to be intellectuals in the higher echelons of society.

JUST AS THEY, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE PRETENSE TO BE VERY SMART AND DISCERNING CANNOT WORK OUT THAT IT IS SPECULATORS WHO ARE THE CAUSE OF THE CURRENT RIDICULOUSLY HIGH OIL PRICES, THEY THINK IT IS SHORTAGES, IN THE SAME WAY THEY CANNOT WORK WHAT IS THE TRUTH BEHIND THIS WORLD.

It is not science that makes the internet work but it is the will of God. Just as the Buddha can stop the strongest man with the sharpest axe from splitting a wooden log but he can cause 500 logs to split spontaneously, it is not science that makes the internet or your Pentium chip work but it is the will of God who can instantly make your Pentium or internet stop working.

Thus you may think you understand science, understand how this world works but you may be deluded, it is God who determines what works and what does not work. If God wants he can instantly create piping hot bread of a greater consistency than you for a whole mass of people.

The emotional (false) and reasoned (correct) response to shortages:

There is no fuel shortage in the world so far, if you have money you can get oil anywhere in the world so it is a myth there is a shortage.

There may be a shortage in the future but you should not jump the gun and raise prices in anticipation of that.

The correct response to a perceived shortage eg Nigerian unrest disrupting supplies is not to panic snap up supplies paying whatever price sellers demand but to wait for the supplies to become short and then to ration or restrict what each person is allowed to buy or to curtail temporary all unnecessary usage of cars.

THUS THE CORRECT RESPONSE TO A SHORTAGE IS TO ORGANIZE RATIONING OF PETROL IN THE AREA THAT IS SHORT AND TO VOLUNTARILY RESTRICT CAR USE UNTIL THE SHORTAGE HAS VANISHED.

THE EMOTIONAL AND SELFISH RESPONSE IS TO FRANCTICALLY BID UP PRICES SO THAT YOU WILL NOT BE SHORT WHILST THOSE WHO DO NOT BID UP WILL BE SHORT AND IT IS THIS SELFISH LACK OF CONCERN FOR OTHERS ORCHESTRATED BY SPECULATORS THAT IS PARTLY DRIVING UP PRICES.

Oil price up on report of unrest:

When you hear a news report that ‘oil prices have shot up $2 on report of Nigerian unrest’ you are hearing a knee jerk selfish quick snap up the supply so that it will be others who suffer shortage reaction to the news which will make matters worse for everyone.

There is nothing anyone can do should the unrest reduce supply but you should wait for the unrest to indeed reduce supply and then organize to distribute the remaining supplies fairly without price increases, to voluntarily restrain oil consumption until supplies revert to normal.

THUS IT REFLECTS A MAD WORLD WHEN THEY THINK IT RIGHT, THERE IS NOTHING ODD THAT OIL PRICES SHOULD SHOOT UP BECAUSE OF UNREST IN NIGERIA OR A PRESIDENT IS SHOT DEAD.

Even 10% oil shortage no problem:

Can you reduce your oil consumption by 10% for 1 week or 1 month with little or no inconvenience until oil supplies revert to normal?

If you can reduce your oil consumption with minimal or no disruption of your activities of daily life then it is possible for most if not all people to do likewise with minimal disruption of the economy that would be much less than the likely disruption when oil prices soar to $150 or $200 per barrel.

If you examine most people’s usage of oil it is largely profligate or wasteful and they can easily curtail their consumption without any distress.

It is mostly vehicles that need oil, factories can use gas or coal and so oil shortages will mostly affect vehicle use which is significantly for leisure or optional purposes.

THUS IT IS MUCH MORE PREFERABLE FOR YOU TO BEAR WITH SOME INCONVENIENCE A SHORTAGE OF 10% WITHOUT PUSHING UP OIL PRICES THAN FOR YOU TO PUSH UP OIL PRICES TO $200 PER BARREL AND SUSTAIN SERIOUS IF NOT IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY.

MOST ADVANCED NATIONS HAVE OIL RESERVES THAT THEY HAVE NOT EVEN TAPPED LET ALONE THAT THERE IS A PHSYICAL SHORTAGE AND THEREFORE IT IS HYSTERIA NOT WITHOUT PURPOSE BUT TO PROFIT UNRIGHTEOUSLY TO PUSH THE PRICE OF OIL TO THE RIDICULOUS LEVEL OF $135.

THERE IS NO USE AND IT IS MAD TO PUSH UP OIL PRICES BY A FEW DOLLARS JUST BECAUSE OF RUMOURS OF NIGERIAN UNREST WHEN IT MAY NOT CAUSE A SHORTAGE, OTHER SUPPLIERS MAY INCREASE PRODUCTION AND EVEN IF THERE IS A SHORTAGE, MANY NATIONS HAVE STRATEGIC RESERVES TO TIDE THEM OVER AND A TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF CONSUMPTION OF 10% CONFERS LITTLE IF ANY INCONVENIENCE TO MOST PEOPLE.

FACTORIES CAN USE COAL AND GAS AND IT IS MOSTLY AUTOMOBILES THAT NEED OIL AND THEIR USE IS LARGELY UNESSENTIAL, CAN BE EASILY REDUCED DRASTICALLY WITHOUT ANY DEPRIVATION.

THUS ALL THESE GYRATIONS OF OIL PRICES WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL SHORTAGE REFLECTS HYSTERIA AND GREED TO LOCK IN OIL STOCKS SO THAT IT IS OTHERS AND NOT THEM WHO WILL BE DEPRIVED OF OIL SHOULD THERE BE A SHORTAGE RESULTING IN AN ARMS RACE OF TRYING TO OUTBID EACH CAUSING PRICES TO RISE CRAZILY.

What do you do in a power cut?

What do you do should there be a power or water cut in your area?

You may moan and groan compounding your agony but you just manfully bear it until power or water supply resumes, you do not rush out to bid up your water or electricity prices just to stave off power cut for your area and it is no use because if the power will be cut it will be cut whatever price you pay.

Thus it is mad all this chasing up the price of petrol for a shortage or cut that has not happened and it is no use paying more for petrol that has not become short and if it will become short, no amount of money will make it not short.

The Meaning Of $1.22 petrol in Brunei:

Brunei is not subsidizing its petrol which retails at RM$1.22 per litre.

Brunei is unlikely to be selling it at cost.

But Brunei is selling even for a decent profit at $1.22/L.

Thus the fact that Brunei can sell petrol for a decent profit at $1.22/L means the cost of production is very low and whatever price paid above this is pure profit at the expense of consumers.

AS A PRODUCER OF OIL, BRUNEI IS NOT SUBSIDIZING ITS PETROL, NOT EVEN SELLING AT COST BUT EVEN AT A DECENT PROFIT AT $1.22/L. THUS IT IS A MASS OF LIES THAT COSTS HAVE GONE UP, THE TRUTH IS THE COST OF PETROL IS GENERALLY VERY LOW AND THE CURRENT HIGH PRICES REFLECTS PROFITEERING BY PRODUCERS REAPING THE SHENANIGANS OF SPECULATORS.

AS A SELF SUFFICIENT PRODUCER OF OIL, MALAYSIA TOO IS NOT SUBSIDIZING ITS PETROL AS IT FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS BUT IT IS SELLING EVEN AT A FAT PROFIT AT $1.90/L ONLY NOT AS MUCH AS IT WOULD IF IT CHARGED WORLD PRICES ON ITS CITIZENS. BECAUSE WORLD PRICES ARE CRAZY, INDECENT, THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO CHARGE INDECENT PRICES ON ITS CITIZENS TO PROFIT INDECENTLY FROM ITS CITIZENS.

Indications of speculation in oil:

If speculators are crucial in driving up oil prices to insane suicidal levels and you (as many economists including Krugman tells you) say they are not to be blamed, you have grave karma misleading others:

Quote: But the sheer size of the money flowing into commodity futures has become the most important fact about it.

According to Barclays research, about $200 billion in managed assets was invested in commodities at the end of 2007 — up from barely measurable levels just seven years ago. Latest estimates suggest that figure rose to $230 billion in the first four months of this year, but at least half of that growth came from rising commodity prices, not new money flowing in, Mr. Hornsell said.

He said that this entire investment stake is dwarfed by the amount of money invested in, say, ExxonMobil. But the commodity markets are much smaller than the equities markets, and this flood of new capital is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.

“Speculators have seized control of these markets,” Senator Levin said.

Lawmakers know that markets need speculators, the senator said, but are using “speculation” simply as shorthand for their real target of concern, which is “excessive speculation.”

But while federal law orders commodity market regulators to prevent “excessive speculation,” the law does not define the term — and neither has Congress. “That’s what regulators are for,” Senator Levin said. “It’s up to them to put some flesh on that term.”

Senator Lieberman disagreed, saying Congress must clarify the standard for regulators to enforce. America must not hang a sign on its commodity markets saying, “no speculators allowed,” he said. “There is a difference between speculation and excessive speculation.”

But Congress has to “define and legislate that definition better,” he added. “We can’t just say, as Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography, that we know it when we see it.”

I’ve got a present for you:

Note to estranged wife by man who gassed himself and children in a car: I have a present for you and it will be in the news.

Ordinary people who think they know and understand the truth will read what he said and not know whether it is true or false when it is always false and he is not innocent but asking for punishment saying it.

A present is always something good or pleasant to the recipient and it cannot be a present when you kill your children under her custody and yourself to spite her and therefore he told a lie or was sarcastic, did not mean what he said when he said he has a present for her.

He may be self righteous, he is aggrieved, his wife forced him to commit suicide with the children as a result of acrimony but he himself is far from blameless and for taking the children’s lives without their consent, telling a lie that he has a present when he has hurt for her and for wanting to hurt her with his actions, he has grave karma, even hell awaiting him.

WHAT I SAY MAY NOT BE THE TRUTH BUT IF IT IS THE TRUTH, DID YOU SEE AND UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH IN THIS SITUATION? IF YOU DID NOT SEE AND UNDERSTAND THE TRUE NATURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN A SIMPLE SITUATION LIKE THIS, MIGHT YOU ALSO OVERESTIMATE YOUR SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING THE TRUTH ELSEWHERE?

Speaking against Jesus & The Holy Spirit:

Jesus: Therefore I tell you, every (not some) sin and blasphemy will (not may) be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever (anyone who) speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Why did Jesus specifically compare speaking against him and speaking against the Holy Spirit and not God?

When you disagree with someone you are speaking against him.

The reason Jesus compared speaking against him and the Holy Spirit may be that the Holy Spirit too will come (just as Jesus came) and he will speak and if you speak against him or verbally oppose him you will not be forgiven.

The reason Jesus did not compare himself to God or the Father is because God has not spoken to you and as Jesus said, men do not know his Father.

THUS IT MAY BE BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME AND HE WILL SPEAK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT JESUS STATES THAT WHOEVER SPEAKS AGAINST HIM WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.

Take it or leave it:

Because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, what he says will be the truth so you either take it or leave it. If you leave it then you will embrace falsehood and if that is tormenting, leads to insanity and even an eternity of perdition building a pile of skeleton as high as a mountain then that is the price you pay for your insolence or delusion that what is true is false.

All striking is sin:

The current fuel tanker driver strike in the UK has brought chaos with fears of fuel shortage there.

Striking is unjust, intimidating or arm twisting, putting people to ransom with deadly karma for those involved.

If you want a wage rise you negotiate and should there be no agreement then you resign from your job. You strike because you want your job and your wage rise and threaten chaos if your demands are not agreed to.

THIS IS THE PRICE OF EXISTENCE IN THIS WORLD, EVERYONE IS HELD TO RANSOM, EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC AND IT IS ONLY FOOLS WHO WILL NOT DENY THEMSELVES AND GET OUT OF THIS MAD WORLD THAT ENDS IN TORMENT.

Oil being manipulated from London?

Oil Trading's Powerful "Dark Markets"

WASHINGTON, June 17, 2008


(CBS) As gas prices skyrocket, attention has turned to public "pits," where brokers trade "oil futures" - the right to buy or sell crude oil at a specific price, on a future date.

But far away from the hue and cry, hundreds of millions of barrels of oil futures contracts are traded electronically every day, CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports.

More than 30 percent, experts say, exchanged in so-called "dark markets," the exact size and scope unknown to U.S. regulators.

"If you can trade out of the sight of U.S. regulators, you can manipulate these markets," said Michael Greenberger, a former top staffer at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, which regulates the trading of commodities like oil in this country.

He recently told Congress that speculation is placing a huge premium on the price of oil.

"How much per barrel?" Keteyian asked.

"Well, there have been various estimates - anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent," Greenberger said.

"People can actually corner the market and drive up the price," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. "When there is no policeman on the beat, you know that crime can go up."

More and more fingers are pointing at one of the least-known but most powerful foreign exchanges - the InterContinental Exchange, or ICE.

By the end of 2007, the all-electronic exchange accounted for nearly a 50 percent market share of all global oil futures contracts, a total of 138.5 million contracts - up 49 percent from 2006.

Today it boasts more than 2,100 individual traders representing virtually all of the major players in oil - banks, hedge funds, energy companies, investment giants.

And according to a securities filing, two of those giants, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, were founding partners of ICE.

"The fact that they started this shows the intent of where they wanted to go," Greenberger said. "Which was to trade crude oil and energy products without any police in the United States supervising it."

That's because it's considered a foreign exchange. Taking advantage of a loophole created by the CFTC, the company says its "energy futures business" is conducted in London, it is not subject to U.S. laws. Over strong criticism, the CFTC agreed.

All this despite the fact ICE headquarters are on the fifth floor of a building in Atlanta, it's primary data center in Chicago, and nearly all its trades settled in U.S. dollars.

"It is a charade, and ... it defies explanation," Greenberger said.

In a statement, ICE CEO Jeffrey Sprecher told CBS News that ICE is committed to providing "the same visibility in our oil markets that exists for U.S. Exchanges," and that ICE Futures Europe is "fully regulated" by the British government.

But British financial authorities are notoriously lax.

Now Congress and others are asking just how much of the crude oil futures market is being manipulated by either excessive buying designed to drive up the price, or phony transactions that imply a supply problem that does not exist.

Today, under pressure, ICE finally agreed to impose stricter limits on certain trading, shedding some much needed light on the dark side of oil.

Ku Li Talks nonsense:

Quote Ku Li: The country will go bankrupt if the billions in subsidy is maintained and we must also understand that the 600,000 barrels is not for local consumption and we still have to import diesel and tar.

Comment: He implies that the country is physically ‘pouring’ billions to subsidize petrol prices and if this is not the reality then he is talking nonsense.

If the 600,000 barrels that is not for local consumption is exported on behalf of say Brunei what he said is understandable but it is exported by Petronas and belongs to the nation then even if it is not for local consumption the proceeds belong ultimately to the people. If the people must buy oil overseas, why not divert the exported oil for local consumption.

Thus what he says does not make sense and because he thinks he is talking sense, he is practicing controlled madness that will end in madness and here is a man who touts himself as your saviour.

Feed yourself before you sell others food:

What Ku Li says that you must understand the exported oil is not for local consumption implies that even if we have no food to eat, we must sell food to others.

Surely you make sure you have food to eat first before you sell any surplus to others.

Petronas may not belong to Malaysians:

Petronas may belong to Malaysians in name but not in reality. A selected group may control it to their advantage so that they distribute its profits to citizens according to whim. This may explain why people need to understand the 600,000 barrels are not for local consumption.

It takes much expense in terms of commissions, bureaucracy, transporting to both import and export so why export when you have to import to replace what you exported? If the oil exported is of a higher quality and that imported is lower and it is to reap the price difference then there may be some logic in doing so. Again it may be easier to manipulate the proceeds if exported oil is paid overseas away from prying local eyes.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO EXPORT OIL AND THEN IMPORT OIL BECAUSE BOTH INCUR CONSIDERABLE EXPENSES THAT WOULD BE OBVIATED IF THE PRODUCED OIL IS CONSUMED LOCALLY AND ANY SURPLUS THEN EXPORTED. HOWEVER IF THERE IS A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL OR HANKY PANKY INVOLVED THEN IT MAY BE REASON FOR THIS ABSURD ARRANGEMENT.