to Wall St.: ‘Join Us, Instead of Fighting Us’
This statement is not guided by understanding
but naive driven by delusion and anyone who perceives it as c
has significant false perception that will end in mad perception.
Wall Street is about making money and that means at the expense of
others even cutting throats and cheating, the name of the game is not
to get caught or to have friends in high places or bought off politicians
to cover your backsides if you are caught.
For Wall Street to join you it means they must give up all their nefarious
ways and that means a sizeable amount of their profits will be lost.
Without trading on illegal insider information and fabricating false
products to sell to gullible customers, Wall Street cannot be so fat.
TELLING WALL STREET TO JOIN US IS LIKE TELLING THE MAFIA TO JOIN US.
WOULD YOU TELL THE MAFIA TO JOIN YOU AND WOULD THE MAFIA AGREE TO JOIN
EXCEPT AS A PLOY TO BETTER EXPLOIT YOU? IF WALL STREET IS THE MAFIA
AND YOU THINK IT IS DECENT AREN’T YOU A GREAT FOOL IN DANGER OF EVEN
BEING KILLED?
THUS IN SPEAKING SO, OBAMA IS SHOWING NAIVETY NOT WISDOM.
What do you think?
Without resorting to underhand tactics even criminality, cutting others’
throats can Wall Street generate jumbo size profits year after year?
Thus if Wall Street were to forego underhand, criminal tactics, firms
will be impoverished, their profits crimped.
IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR WALL STREET TO VOLUNTARILY COME CLEAN, THEIR
LARGESSE DEPEND ON WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW THAT BENEFITS THEM AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE SYSTEM AND YOU THINK THEY CAN VOLUNTARILY COME CLEAN,
DON’T YOU HAVE WRONG VIEW THAT IS THE WAY TO PERDITION NOT SAFETY?
What needs to be done?
What is needed is not reconciliation or friendship with Wall Street
but to scrutinize all the deeds (transactions) eg derivatives and see
if they comply with the rules existing, to objectively impartially apply
those rules and prosecute offenders, to not bail out (If Goldman Sachs
was not bailed out by being converted into a commercial bank able to
borrow vast sums from the Fed, it would have gone under).
TALKING ABOUT FRIENDSHIP AND WORKING TOGETHER IS BARKING UP THE WRONG
TREE, IS THE WRONG SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. WHAT IS NEEDED IS TO PROTECT
THE INTEREST OF SOCIETY, TO APPLY RULES, TO INTRODUCE NEW RULES WHERE
NECESSARY AND TO ENFORCE THOSE RULES IMPARTIALLY TO PROSECUTE OFFENDERS.
GOLDMAN SACHS WAS BAILED OUT, THE FED SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT TO FAIL
AND TAKE OVER AND THEN PURGED IT OFF CRIMINALS.
RATHER THAN REGULATING DERIVATIVES, THEY SHOULD BE BANNED BECAUSE
THEY ARE A FORM OF HAVING INSURANCE WITHOUT INSURANCE, AIG INSURED BUT
DID NOT HAVE THE BACKUP TO PAY SO THAT THE PUBLIC IS LEFT WITH THE BABY.
all cheat
Storm chairman reveals how former CEO explained salary cap breach
(An Australian sports club was stripped of
rugby titles because it was found to have paid its players more than
allowed salaries)
CHEATING BECAUSE EVERYBODY CHEAT IS A FALSE
REASON TO CHEAT THAT WILL END IN THE PERSON’S INSANITY. IF TRUE IT
MEANS YOU ARE A ROBOT APING OTHERS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING AND A ROBOT
IS HEADED FOR ROBOT FAILURE AND INSANITY.
THE TRUE BUT EVIL REASON FOR CHEATING IS TO GAIN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
OVER YOUR COMPETITOR.
Every dog has its day:
‘Every dog has its day’ is supposed to mean something like ‘everyone
gets a chance eventually’ although there are other variations in interpretations.
NOT ONLY ARE SUCH SAYINGS SUBJECT TO VARIATIONS IN INTERPRETATION,
THEY FOSTER FALSE PERCEPTIONS LIKE A DOG’S LIFE IS ROTTEN OR DEPRIVED
AND HAVING YOUR DAY MEANS HAVING GLORY OR CHANCE.
THERE IS NOTHING ROTTEN OR WONDERFUL BEING A DOG, A DOG IS JUST A
DOG AND TO PERCEIVE A DOG AS DEPRIVED OR WHATEVER IS TO FOSTER FALSE
PERCEPTION IN YOURSELF AND OTHERS THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
SIMILARLY A DAY IS JUST A DAY THERE IS NOTHING GLORIOUS OR TERRIBLE
ABOUT A DAY. THE DAY NEVER BELONGS TO THE DOG NOR IS IT SPECIFIED WHAT
SORT OF DAY IT IS.
THUS EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE BUT AFTER BEING COINED
FALSELY BY SOMEONE IT HAS BECOME POPULARIZED AS MEANING EVERYONE GETS
HIS CHANCE EVENTUALLY WHEN IT IS A DANGEROUS FALSE ASSOCIATION NOT JUST
HERE BUT IN A DOG BEING ROTTEN AND A DAY MEANING ‘DAY OF OPPORTUNITY’.
THE ATTRACTION OF SAYING ‘EVERYDOG HAS ITS DAY’ LIES IN ITS FALSITY,
ITS FALSE CRYPTICISM THAT IS PERCEIVED AS SUPERIOR OR INTELLECTUAL.
Not everyone gets his
chance eventually:
There are those who never get their chance eventually eg never get
their chance or shot at glory.
THUS IF YOU SAY ‘EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY’ YOU ARE IMPLYING SOMETHING
FALSE BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE GETS HIS CHANCE EVENTUALLY. THERE IS NO NEED
TO MAKE SUCH SWEEPING STATEMENTS EXCEPT TO STIR EMOTION OR FORCE THAT
IS BLIND AND MEANINGLESS.
WHY PICK ON A DOG, WHY NOT CAT OR SHEEP OR
GOAT? THUS BY PICKING ON A DOG YOU IMPLY A DOG IS SOMETHING THAT IT IS NOT EG OPPRESSED OR DEPRIVED. WHAT IS
SO DEPRIVED ABOUT A DOG?
Michael Lewis: 'The credit crisis was foreseeable'
So you want to reform Wall Street? This article
gives an insight into the culture that you want to reform.
amongst many others (eg Rubin) said the crisis was not foreseeable,
maybe it is true or they have eyes but do not see.
In the Eighties he laid bare Wall Street excess in
his book Liar's Poker. Now Michael Lewis is taking on the global recession.
He talks to David Prosser about sleaze, shorting and Goldman Sachs
This would not have been acceptable to Michael Lewis during his
days as a hotshot bond salesman at Salomon Brothers, the world's preeminent
merchant bank. Back then, Lewis the banker had a recurring nightmare
in which his five-star hotel room had no fruit bowl and the bellboy
forgot to fold the end of the toilet paper into a neat triangle; the
idea that a cloud of volcanic ash might interrupt his travel plans would
simply have been intolerable.
Today, however, Lewis is calmer. True, he has
been unable to make it to Europe to promote his new book, The Big Short,
which effectively completes the writing project he began 20 years ago
when he left Salomon and published Liar's Poker, the definitive insider's
account of Wall Street excess in the 1980s. On the plus side, he is
stuck in the right place to enjoy the exquisite agony of Goldman Sachs,
the bank that long ago toppled Salomon and other rivals from the top
rung of the Wall Street hierarchy.
Since it was charged with fraud a week ago
by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US financial regulator,
Goldman has been tying itself up in knots as it scrambles to protect
its reputation and Lewis has enjoyed every minute of its travails.
"I'm not surprised Goldman was doing this,
but I am surprised the SEC has finally had the nerve to bring a suit
against it," he says. "The SEC has shone a light right at
the centre of Goldman's business and that is going to lead to lots of
other revelations."
It should be said that Goldman strongly disputes
the fraud allegations. The facts of the case are that three years ago,
before the collapse of America's sub-prime housing market plunged the
world into financial crisis and economic downturn, the bank launched
an investment product that offered clients exposure to that market.
Unbeknown to clients, the securities in the
product were picked by a wealthy hedge fund, Paulson & Co, which
would subsequently become famous for making a $13bn profit betting on
the crisis (and figures prominently in Lewis's The Big Short). Goldman's
defence is that it broke no laws – the SEC says that by failing to
disclose the involvement of Paulson, which even then was known to be
betting on mortgage defaults, it fraudulently misrepresented the investment
it was selling. Some of the clients who lost money – including Britain's
taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland, which is out of pocket to the
tune of $850m – are presumably pretty cheesed off too.
"The consensus in the US is that this
scandal won't be too serious for Goldman in the long run," Lewis
says. "I disagree: I think this is the end of the bank as we know
it – the people at the top are going to have to step aside and the
bank is going to have to restructure, maybe even go back to being a
partnership."
Wall Street firms have ridden out such scandals
before, of course, but Lewis says the nature of the financial crisis
has changed everything. "Wall Street is not being made a scapegoat
for the crisis: they really did this," he argues. "And what
is different to previous crises is that people now understand Wall Street
has been enriching itself while impoverishing the rest of us."
As a result, in Lewis' analysis, the world
is finally moving towards bringing the banking industry to book. Whether
through fraud cases against its flagship institution, via the new taxes
on the sector to be discussed at this weekend's meeting of the International
Monetary Fund, or through "the sea change in our relationship with
financial culture" that took place when governments stepped in
to stand behind the global financial system at the height of the crisis,
the credit crunch has been a "game-changer". Lewis says: "When
the markets went through their turmoil in September 2008 and the banks'
risk was socialised, their relationship with society was suddenly turned
on its head – they went from being the master class to wards of the
state and now, finally, to enemies of the people.
"The bailout was the moment when society
realised that our economies have become perverse: when we had socialism
for the capitalists and capitalism for everyone else."
If you detect a hint of glee in Lewis's tone,
you're right. This is a moment for which he has had to wait far longer
than he ever expected – one which he says he finally began to think
would never come. "At some point I gave up waiting – there was
no scandal or reversal, I assumed, sufficiently great to sink the system."
Forgive him the loss of faith. Two decades
ago, after three gruelling years in the London office of Salomon, and
having gathered sufficient material for Liar's Poker, Lewis thought
he needed to get the book out as quickly as possible once he had quit
the bank in 1988. He couldn't quite believe the "most absurd money
game ever" would continue long enough for his account of it to
feel relevant.
"I thought Liar's Poker was a message
in a bottle – that in 20 years' time, no one would believe people
behaved like that," he says.
Lewis could not have been more wrong. It would
be more than two decades before he got to publish a sequel to Liar's
Poker chronicling the collapse of the money making machine for which
he had watched the assembly line being built at Salomon. The Big Short
tells the stories of the small handful of investors who foresaw the
collapse of American's housing market – and the staggeringly enormous,
blindingly complex financial contracts linked to it – and made more
money than anyone in the history of Wall Street.
Some of those investors faced the same sort
of nerves Lewis had felt when rushing to publish Liar's Poker. Steve
Eisman, a New York hedge fund manager regarded as a maverick, was, by
late 2005, desperate to find ways to bet on a blow-up of the sub-prime
mortgage market – he was convinced the implosion was so obvious that
the rest of the world's investment professionals could not fail to spot
it coming, wiping out his chance to score big.
As it turned out, Lewis explains, Eisman need
not have worried. "A small number of people – more than 10, fewer
than 20 – made a straightforward bet against the entire multi-trillion-dollar
sub-prime mortgage market and, by extension, the global financial system,"
he writes in The Big Short. "The catastrophe was foreseeable, yet
only a handful noticed."
In the years between the publication of Liar's
Poker and the collapse in 2008 that prompted The Big Short, the excesses
of Wall Street had telescoped. Salomon, Lewis's former employer, had
invented the mortgage bond – a group of mortgage loans parcelled up
and sold on to investors – in the 1980s. By the mid 1990s the sub-prime
end of the market – the loans made to less creditworthy customers
– was worth $30bn a year or so. By 2005 that figure had reached more
than $500bn, with huge numbers of those bonds linked to mortgages taken
out by borrowers in such dire financial straits that even the most unprincipled
of lenders would never have considered advancing money to them few years
previously.
The world had become surreal. What was once
metaphorically the case had become literally true. In Liar's Poker,
Lewis used a wonderful aphorism: "In the land of the blind, the
one-eyed man is king" (meaning that even a little information is
valuable, if you have more of it than the next guy in the market). The
Big Short tells the tale of one of Eisman's contemporaries, a fellow
gambler on a sub-prime disaster: Michael Burry really did have sight
in only one of his eyes.
In one sense, these are the heroes of Lewis's
book and the credit crisis – the tiny handful of men (and a couple
of women) who did not swallow Wall Street's received wisdom. "What
I hope people will take away from my book is that I do feel very positively
disposed to people who are prepared to stick their necks out,"
says Lewis. "But they're complicated heroes: it is pretty sleazy
to have made so much money from the collapse of the housing market,
from the end of so many ordinary folk's dreams."
Why didn't more people – particularly those
who might have warned the world about the impending disaster, rather
than rubbing their hands with glee at the greatest money-making opportunity
in history – see the crisis coming?
"Wall Street was a Ponzi scheme that nobody
wanted to look into more closely," Lewis says. "Look at Bernie
Madoff: he pulled the wool over the eyes of investors for so long because
people only wanted to look at his success, at the investors getting
rich – they didn't want to understand how it was done, so he wasn't
found out."
In fairness to those who might have been expected
to look more closely, by the time of the crash, the bond market had
long since spiralled out of control. Most people outside of financial
circles think of investment in terms of buying and selling shares –
little slices of ownership – in companies. That's the stock market,
a relatively well controlled environment that, size-wise, is piddling
in relation to the bond market, where supervisory standards have always
been weaker.
The genius, once-upon-a-time, of finance houses
such as Salomon, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and others was to recognise
the potential for the bond market – on which the debts of people,
companies, public bodies and governments are traded – and, eventually,
the derivative and insurance contracts linked to it. Not only would
it grow to be worth trillions of dollars, but regulators did not control
it, or even require the most basic of disclosure standards
"Complexity and opacity baffled almost everyone," says Lewis,
who is nonetheless scathing about the watchdogs who allowed themselves
to be so ignorant, the credit rating agencies who offered the
banks a free pass, and the investors who bought ever greater amounts
of investment products without having the first clue about what they
were getting for their money.
"The regulators did absolutely nothing,"
he says. "They were content with a financial order in which even
the CEOs of these giant Wall Street firms did not understand what their
employees were doing.
"And as for the people who allowed themselves
to be manipulated, it's outrageous – why is no-one going after them?"
What about Lewis himself, who has written regularly
about the most complicated financial products – and, of course, worked
in the business – and might therefore have been expected to sound
an alarm bell? "My instinct is to defend all the journalists who
cover this beat and who might have exposed this," he says. "The
entire system was dumb."
In fact, Lewis's greater responsibility, much
as he hates the idea, may be for having attracted people to places such
as Wall Street and the City of London in the first place. Lunching last
year with his former boss, John Gutfreund, the once all-powerful master
of the universe who ran Salomon, Lewis got a taste of some of the bitterness
some on Wall Street feel about Liar's Poker. "I think we can agree
about this," Gutfreund told him. "Your fucking book destroyed
my career and made yours." But such anger is far from universal.
While Liar's Poker was intended as an exposé,
an account of an environment in which greed and selfishness ruled and
obese men threw telephones at the heads of their subordinates just for
fun, the colour and vivacity it exuded was intoxicating. So much so,
that Lewis has met countless Wall Street professionals who say they
were inspired to join the profession by reading Liar's Poker.
"It is funny that people reacted that
way – it is not what I meant to happen and I find it astonishing,"
he says. "For myself, I stumbled into a job on Wall Street and
it made fantastic material, but I could just have easily wound up as
an art critic."
Stumble into the job he did, however, and for
a short while he was even one of the "big swinging dicks",
selling great armfuls of those accursed bonds. Lewis even admits that
for a short period after quitting, he missed certain parts of his life
on the trading floor: "The collaboration and feeling at the centre
of the flow of information," above all.
Those days are long gone, however, and Lewis
feels no guilt about the past as he enjoys life in Berkeley, California,
as far away from Wall Street as an American might get, both physically
and philosophically.
"My interaction with Wall Street was so
superficial that I don't even think about it any more," he says.
"Wall Street's bad behaviour was not my bad behaviour: I do not
feel implicated." On the contrary, finally, he feels vindicated.
Don’t fight reforms
Obama tells Wall Street:
This is another headline.
How can Wall Street not fight back, it is their rice or punch bowl
that you are attempting to take away. To expect Wall Street will not
fight back, is capable of not fighting back is delusion.
WALL STREET IS LIKE THE CHILD WITH THE BOWL OF JELLY BEANS. WOULD
YOU EXPECT THE CHILD NOT TO SCREAM IF YOU SNATCHED IT? SO WHAT IS THE
POINT OF TELLING THE CHILD DON’T SCREAM IF I SNATCH IT FROM YOU?
WITHOUT SHENANIGANS PICKINGS ON WALL STREET WILL BE LEAN AND MANY
WILL DIE AND SO WHAT IS AT STAKE IS THEIR SURVIVAL.
Food falsely dressed up:
This is not just food but food dressed up with much effort.
Emotional lustful people perceive it as meaningful, are attracted
sensually when it is meaningless just for show, does not enhance the
taste except in your false perception it does.
PEOPLE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS DRESSING UP AND ARRANGING THEIR FOODS TO
MAKE IT APPEALING AND THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE ATTRACTED FIND THEM MEANINGFUL
IS A REFLECTION OF THEIR FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION.
BOTH THE COOK AND THOSE WHO LIKE TO EAT DRESSED FOOD ARE HEADED FOR
MADNESS BECAUSE IT IS DELUSION.
believe in God' but Clegg puts 'Christian values' at heart of campaign
You and he probably thinks he is right to say
he does not believe in God when he is embracing falsity and in danger
of madness.
“I don’t believe in God” is
and so he is taking up a position on the matter of the existence of
God.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO SUFFER EVEN INSANITY, YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE UP POSITIONS
ON MATTERS YOU DO NOT SEE AND KNOW AND SO UNLESS YOU CAN SEE OR KNOW
THERE IS NO GOD YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE UP A POSITION ‘I DON’T BELIEVE
IN GOD’. IF HE SEES THERE IS NO GOD, HE SHOULD SAY ‘THERE IS NO
GOD’. IF YOU CANNOT SAY ‘THERE IS NO GOD’ AND YET YOU SAY ‘I
DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD’ YOU ARE STICKING YOUR NECK OUT TO BE CHOPPED
OR SUFFER. THE WISE PERSON DOES NOT COMMIT HIMSELF, SAYS HE DOES NOT
KNOW OR SEE.
Buffett Has ‘Great Confidence’ in Goldman Sachs, Murphy Says
You should not speak for others and Murphy
is sticking his neck speaking for Buffett because what he said has serious
karma.
If Goldman Sachs is evil, cheats then if Buffett truly has great confidence in
Goldman Sachs he has great confidence in evil and cheats that is the
way to perdition.
It is no great feat of business genius just
shrewdness for Buffett to invest in Goldman Sachs at the
of the crisis because being a businessman with a good nose for profit
he should know if anyone can get his way, Goldman Sachs can and so is
a ‘no brainer’ to side with Goldman Sachs. And now that he is fallen
in bed with the devil, it is difficult if not impossible for him to
tighten the noose more around his neck by expressing great confidence
in the devil. A good capitalist is far rarer than you think and anyone
who thinks Buffet is wise may be deluded. He is playing with fire and
will get burnt.
IF I WERE MURPHY I WOULD LET BUFFETT SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.
The motive is to deceptively
downplay:
If anything it is a case that not every dog has its day rather than
every dog has its day.
So what is the motive for such a false statement?
The motive is to downplay or deprecate in a concealed manner and to
this end, the selection of the animal dog has negative connotations.
Since every dog has its day, the particular achievement of someone
is ho hum, nothing to shout about.
Gutted:
'I'd heard about the volcanic clouds so I was worried we might have problems flying out. But I
never thought the flight would be cancelled. I am gutted.'
When people say they are gutted they mean their
emotions are stirred intensely uncontrollably and they are shattered.
What is being shattered or gutted?
It is a sense of hopelessness or helplessness associated with hurt
and anger, agitation and maybe sadness that they struggle to control.
IT IS NEVER A PLEASURE BUT SUFFERING EVEN INTENSE HARD TO CONTROL
SUFFERING TO BE GUTTED THAT IS CONDITIONING SO THAT THE PERSON BECOMES
EASIER AND MORE INTENSELY GUTTED IN THE FUTURE AND IT IS THE PATH TO
PERDITION THEREAFTER NEVER HEAVEN.
IF YOU CAN BE GUTTED BY EVENTS IT IS A WARNING OF FUTURE DOOM. NOWADAYS
I AM NOT GUTTED BY ANYTHING HAPPENING.
Correction: What is being
niceness?
I said earlier that to be nice is to stir the recipient’s mental
force attractively. This is wrong.
To be nice is to say and do things in a way as if your mental force
is stirred attractively or you like someone.
The person’s mental force may be genuinely stirred or he or she
may be faking it, even when it is faked, with lifelong practice the
nice person’s mental force is automatically stirred attractively whenever
he truly or fakes want to be nice to another.
The person who is nice to others can turn nasty, show his fangs eg
when thwarted or offended.
WHEN A PERSON IS NICE, HE IS TRYING TO SAY OR DO THINGS THAT GIVE
THE IMPRESSION HE LIKES YOU OR HIS MENTAL FORCE IS STIRRED ATTRACTIVELY
BY YOU. IT CAN BE FAKED AS WHEN A RECEPTIONIST AND SALES PERSON SPEAKS
NICELY BUT EVEN THEN THERE IS SOME ATTRACTIVE STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE
ACCOMPANYING THAT IS TIRESOME AND LEADS TO STRESS & CONFLICT.
Niceness is controlled
madness and absurd:
Regardless of what they say or do, the person wants to convey or impress
they like you or they are attracted to you or their mental forces are
stirred attractively by you.
This is meaningless and inappropriate, what is the meaning or purpose
of your mental force being stirred attractively by the other person
or what you say or do to him?
THIS IS CONTROLLED MADNESS, FAKING OR STIRRING YOUR MENTAL FORCE ATTRACTIVELY
TO CONVEY THAT YOU LIKE A PERSON.
NOT ONLY IS THIS CONVEYED LIKING OR NICENESS MEANINGLESS IT IS STIRRING
HARMFUL MENTAL FORCE THAT IS IMPARTED ON THE RECIPIENT.
OFTEN NICENESS IS FAKED TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS BUT NO MATTER HOW
GENUINE YOUR NICENESS OR STIRRED ATTRACTION FOR ANOTHER PERSON IS, NICENESS
IS NOT SUSTAINABLE INDEFINITELY, IT IS TIRING, LEADS TO STRESS, RESTLESSNESS,
DISTRACTION AND TENSION AND SO YOU MUST HATE YOURSELF AND THE PERSON
YOU ARE NICE TO THAT MUST FURTHER BE HIDDEN, DENIED FROM SELF AND OTHERS
IN MINDWARPING PRETENSE THAT WILL END IN INSANITY.
Nice, nasty and boastful
people:
There are people who are nice, they want to convey by the way and
what they say and do that their mental forces are stirred attractively
or they like you, like everyone and everything in order to exert pressure
on you to accede to them (eg salesman wants to unfairly clinch a deal)
or so that you may also like them (they want others to like them so
they are nice to others). Being nice is their default attitude of mind
and mode of behaviour but sometimes when spurned, stressed or upset
they may turn nasty but as soon as they regain their composure they
revert to their default nice attitude of mind and behaviour.
There are people who are nasty, they want to
convey by the way and what they say and do that they are mean, aggressive,
they dislike you, everyone and everything and you should not mess aro
with them. Being nasty or grumpy or sour faced or scowling is their
default attitude of mind and mode of behaviour but sometimes when something
done or said pleases them they may momentarily show liking before revert
to their default nasty mode.
There is yet another category of actors who are boastful, they want
to convey by the way and what they say and do that they are such wonderful,
clever, witty, charming, wealthy, powerful or important people that
you should like and worship. They may also say or do nice things to
please others so that they may like or admire them but their underlying
drive is to boast, they have an insatiable appetite that swells by conditioning
to want to impress others with their achievements (qualifications),
status (doctor) and wealth (live in Damansara Heights).
Niceness is evil and meaningless:
People say and do things in certain ways to be nice to others, to
convey they like you or their mental forces are stirred attractively
by you.
This is meaningless because why should your mental force be stirred
by me and of what use is the blind harmful stirring of mental force
that cannot be understood? Because it serves no purpose except to please,
it is meaningless.
Further this stirring of mental force to be nice is harmful, stirs
stress, restlessness, distraction and conflict in yourself and the recipient
even if you and the recipient cannot see it is so and so niceness is
evil.
NICENESS OR TO EXPRESS BY SPEECH AND ACTION THAT YOU LIKE OTHERS IS
EVIL OR HARMFUL TO SELF AND OTHERS AND IT IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE IT
IS JUST A BLIND STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE ACCOMPANIED BY VISIBLE EFFECTS
OF THE STIRRED FORCE. THE FACT THAT STYLISH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE PERCEIVE
BEING NICE AS MEANINGFUL AND GOOD REFLECTS THEIR INGRAINED FALSE PERCEPTION.
BOASTING IS FALSE AND MAD BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF YOU SAYING ‘I LIVE
IN DAMANSARA HEIGHTS’ IS NOT TO OBJECTIVELY INFORM ABOUT YOUR PLACE
OF RESIDENCE BUT TO BOAST ABOUT HOW HIGH CLASS YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE
IS. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TRULY YOU SHOULD SAY ‘I WANT TO BOAST TO
YOU THAT I LIVE IN DAMANSARA HEIGHTS’.
Boasting is inflating
things identified with self:
Boasting is an attitude of making much or exaggerating or inflating
in importance and wonder things a person identifies with.
Thus if the person is interested in astronomy, stock markets, economics,
cars, tea, women or America he tends to speak in a way that up plays
or exaggerate these entities.
BOASTING IS AN ADDICTIVE URGE TO IDENTIFY WITH AND UPHOLD THINGS THE
PERSON LIKES OR IS ATTRACTED TO. OFTEN THE PERSON IS NOT EVEN AWARE
HE IS QUIETLY BOASTING BUT OCCASIONALLY HE COMES TO AWARENESS HE IS
BOASTING AND BECAUSE IT IS SUFFERING AND SILLY OR MEANINGLESS, SOMETIMES
EVEN MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF, HE IS FILLED WITH RECRIMINATIONS THAT
HE CANNOT ACCEPTS AND SO HE IS DEFIANT, DEFIANTLY UPHOLDS WHAT HE BOASTS
IS TRUE SO THAT IS EVEN A STRONG IMPLACABLE DRIVE IN PEOPLE WHO BOAST
TO DEFIANTLY BOAST OR EXHIBIT THEMSELVES, THEIR VALUES AND THINGS THEY
HOLD DEAR.
Drunken sportsmen not
role models:
Such statements are silly or meaningless.
There are no good or bad role models, all modelling is bad because
you are then blindly aping others you admire as role models. Further
you do not play roles which means acting to a particular specification.
You don’t play the role of teacher but you teach what you know that
you want to impart.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND MEANINGFUL IS THAT YOU SEE TRULY THE NATURE
OF OTHERS’ BEHAVIOR AND YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR AND UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEY
ARE TRUE OR FALSE, MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS, HARMFUL OR BENEFICIAL
AND THUS SEEING TO ADOPT BEHAVIOR THAT IS TRUE, MEANINGFUL AND BENEFICIAL
RATHER THAN BE A ROBOT OR COPYCAT APING THE BEHAVIOR OF ‘GOOD’ ROLE
MODELS.
YOU DON’T FASHION YOUR BEHAVIOR AFTER ROLE MODELS IN WHICH CASE
YOU ARE COPYING WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING BUT YOU EXAMINE EACH PIECE OF
BEHAVIOR IN YOURSELF AND OTHERS TO SEE IF THEY ARE MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS,
HARMFUL OR BENEFICIAL AND ADOPT ACCORDINGLY.
THUS TO SPEAK OF DRUNKEN SPORTSMEN NOT BEING ROLE MODELS IS TO REFLECT
YOUR DELUSION.
Hung parliament would
cost consumers:
The above statement is a product of thinking and it is not guided
by reason but rote or conditioning driving by force according to the
program to assess any future scenario for potential financial or economic
effects so that one might exploit to gain or take actions to minimize
losses.
Without thinking greedily according to a program (eg assess important
events or possibilities for exploitable economic repercussions) one
could not come to the conclusion a hung UK parliament would cost consumers.
It is not that he sees and knows it is so but he is speculating or making
educated guesses that may turn out right or wrong. Because he is guessing
or speculating he is conditioning himself to doubt and uncertainty even
if he is correct.
So what if a hung parliament costs consumers? Do you mean voters should
therefore strive to avoid a hung parliament in order not to cost consumers?
If this is not the recourse then why tell the public something that
is of no use? If what you say is of no use you are practicing controlled
madness that will end in madness.
OF WHAT USE IS IT TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT A HUNG PARLIAMENT COULD
COST CONSUMERS? DO YOU MEAN WE SHOULD STRIVE TO AVOID A HUNG PARLIAMENT?
THE PERSON THINKS HE IS WISE, HE IS EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ON IMPORTANT
MATTERS. IF NOTHING CAN BE DONE OR SHOULD BE DONE THIS IS FRIVOLOUS
SPECULATION THAT MAY BE WRONG AND SO IF YOU INDULGE IN FRUITLESS VEXATIONS
AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO BY PROPOSING TO THEM, YOU ARE HEADING
FOR WOE. IT IS GREED AND ENTANGLEMENT IN AFFAIRS OF THIS WORLD THAT
CAUSES PEOPLE TO THINK AND COME TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS IN THE PROCESS TRAPPING
THEMSELVES FURTHER IN THINKING THAT IS A PRISON OF TORMENT NOT BLISS.
You can tell a person, “Your death will cost your dependents”.
So what, you mean that therefore you should avoid dying or ban dying?
If nothing can be done, what is the point of pointing this out?
I predicted election result:
Even before the results were announced, from the array of cabinet
bigwigs calmly expectantly
including the deputy PM & PM with his wife (notable absence of Tengku
Razaleigh), I predicted what the outcome could only be. You think all
these people would come together if there was a possibility they would
be humiliated if PKR won?
If they have heard the result announced and all rushed en masse to
the polling centre then that would be credible but it is impossible
they all turn up on their free will but it was orchestrated beforehand.
The vast majority of the people do not deserve good government nor
is it possible anywhere on earth except in your false perception (UK
& US governments are incompetent and complicit in the economic mess).
There are no elections in heaven. The Buddha said for many times he
was ruler of the gods (not Father) and he is not elected but appointed
by merit.
Thus all this fight for justice and against
corruption is fruitless vexations, injustice and corruption are entrenched
and impossible to eradicate in this world, anyone who believes in justice
and fighting for justice will be back here for more (fighting). The wise deny themselves, do
not partake of this world and go to heaven, never to return to this
rotten world for rotten foolish deluded people.
Defining niceness:
There is such a thing as niceness or being nice and it can be clearly
defined. Not only is there niceness in this world, it is the currency
of transaction in this world, in all nations and also animals.
Anyone who speaks and does things with force prolonging, changing
speed and strength (loudness) as if or with their mental forces stirred
attractively with the conscious or unconscious purpose of attractively
stirring the mental forces of others is nice and that is never good
but bad, sugar laced poison.
NICENESS IS FAKED OR IMITATION GOODNESS THAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED
AS GOOD BY DELUDED BEINGS WHEN IT IS MEANINGLESS
IT IS A PERISHABLE STIRRING OF BLIND MENTAL FORCE AND ALSO
color: #FF0000;"> HARMFUL OR EVIL BECAUSE THE STIRRED FORCE CREATES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION
AND CONFLICT IN SELF AND RECIPIENTS. NICENESS IS SUGAR LACED POISON
AND ANYONE WHO IS NICE IS POISONING SELF AND OTHERS, PLYING SELF AND
OTHERS WITH HARMFUL FORCE AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT WOE
EVEN TORMENT.
No anxiety at all:
I watched the antics of all the ministers assembled to await the announcement
of the election results and there was no visible anxiety.
Bearing in mind the narrow margins you would expect some anxiety as
to the outcome but they seemed quietly confident.
Whoever is nice must get
hurt:
It does not matter who you are, whether you can see if you are nice
or not, how mild or moderate your niceness is, as long as a person is
guilty of being nice he must get hurt.
Hurt is an unpleasant emotion that is addictive and gets easier and
easier to arouse to intense levels. No matter how you might use force
to control or hide your hurt, the person who can be hurt is headed for
mad uncontrollable intense hurt that can lead to suicide or homicide
and that is not the path to heaven but even hell.
The reason the person who is nice must get hurt is because he is constantly
training his mental force to stir attractively to please and impress
others and this painful attractive stirring of mental force is usually
shielded by his force of self preservation but on some occasions as
when he is tired or his attraction is spurned his force of self preservation
fails to rise to shield his consciousness and the raw acceleration in
speed and strength of his attractively stirred force of going against
self impacts naked on his consciousness as even searing pain.
HURT IS AN EMOTION AND IS THE SEARING EMOTIONAL OR MENTAL PAIN OF
THE PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST ACCELERATING IN SPEED AND
STRENGTH UNPROTECTED BY THE FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION IMPACTING ON
HIS CONSCIOUSNESS. WHEN THE PERSON IS BEING NICE HIS MENTAL FORCE IS
STIRRED ATTRACTIVELY IN SPEED AND STRENGTH SHIELDED BY HIS FORCE OF
SELF PRESERVATION BUT NO MATTER HOW CAREFUL, THERE WILL BE OCCASIONS
WHEN HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION FAILS TO RISE TO THE OCCASION AND
THE FORCE OF HIS ATTRACTIVE STIRRED FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF SLAMS
PAINFULLY, NAKEDLY INTO HIS CONSCIOUSNESS.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU CANNOT SEE YOU ARE NICE OR YOU SEE NICE
AS GOOD, SO LONG AS YOU ARE NICE YOU MUST GET HURT AND HURT IS CONDITIONING
AND TORMENTING AND LEADS TO FINAL LOSS OF CONTROL AND MAD HURT.
IF YOU ARE NEVER NICE, NEVER STIRRED YOUR MENTAL FORCE ATTRACTIVELY
YOU CANNOT GET HURT.
Goldman Sach incriminates
self:
Quote: The so-called ABX index (created by Tourre)
is “the type of thing which you invent telling yourself: ‘Well,
what if we created a ‘thing,’ which has no purpose, which is absolutely conceptual
and highly theoretical and which nobody knows how to price?’” Tourre
said in a Jan. 29, 2007, e-mail released yesterday by Goldman Sachs.
Watching the index fall is “a little like Frankenstein turning against
his own inventor.”
Comment: No responsible person would create and release a product
he does not understand and has no purpose and potentially destructive
or causes losses to others.
And so if the email is genuine it confirms to those who understand
truly that Goldman Sachs is utterly irresponsible (without conscience)
& self serving.
Truth not spoken:
‘Well, what if we created a ‘thing,’ which has
and which nobody knows how to price?’”
That is not a statement of truth spoken or heard, if you think the
statement is true you have false perception. The thing has purpose and
that is to make money by deception and therefore it is false or a lie
to say it has no purpose.
IF YOU THINK WHAT YOU READ IS THE PLAIN TRUTH YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT FALSE
PERCEPTION.
Did you understand the
statement?
Quote: ‘Well, what if we created a ‘thing,’ which has
and which nobody knows how to price?’”
Most if not all emotional people when confronted with the statement
are stirred to like (wow) or dislike (bullshit) it, they may not be
sure what to make of it, shrug it off and move on without understanding
or keep trying to make sense of it.
The above statement is totally false and the purpose, driven by emotion
or force not understanding is to boast, to falsely impress about how
wonderful he and his creations are.
Whereas your things have purpose my thing is special, it has
color: #FF0000;">no purpose (deluded or a lie because it has a purpose to be marketed
and sold for profit).
To say it is absolutely conceptual and highly
theoretical is not based on truth but falsity. The ‘thing’ is based
on subprime loans and so it is not theoretical or conceptual but based on physical commodities,
‘conceptual’ and ‘theoretical’ is a misnomer, what he meant
is fabricated or concocted or false or bullshit. Instead of truthfully
saying the thing is not based on reality or truth but fantasy or fabrications,
he puts it in a nice perfumed euphemistic way as ‘absolutely conceptual
and highly theoretical’.
The ‘thing’ is based on subprime loans and all the work is not
without purpose but to package them together in a deceptive way to be
marketed to unwary investors so as to divest oneself of shit and make
money from them by further betting that the thing will fail because
it is shit.
Thus he is either deluded or lying to say it has no purpose.
Further it is not absolutely conceptual and theoretical because it
is about a commodity, subprime loans. “Conceptual” and “theoretical”
are conscious or unconscious euphemisms or deceptions, calling shit
food. For conceptual and theoretical read not based on reality and fabricated.
EVERYTHING THAT IS PROPOSED CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IMMEDIATELY AS TRUE
OR FALSE, MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS AND SO IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT
TO MAKE OF IT, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR HAVE NO TRUE UNDERSTANDING.
THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT IS THAT IT IS TOTALLY FALSE,
DRIVEN BY EMOTION TO BOAST. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE ‘THING’ HAS PURPOSE
(TO BE MARKETTED TO CHEAT), IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CONCEPTUAL (BUT BASED
ON PHYSICAL OBJECTS CALLED SUBPRIME LOANS) & HIGHLY THEORETICAL
BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON REALITY AND THEREFORE A FABRICATION THAT WILL
NOT WORK AS TOUTED.
He falsely conceived it:
By theoretical he means it is theory not reality, false not true.
In other words ‘theory’ is a nice way of saying it is not based
on reality or false.
Conceptual means he conceived it or it is a figment of his imagination
not reality.
HE HAS A TWISTED MIND AND IN HIS CONTORTED MENTAL STATE HE IS DEPICTING
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BASED ON REALITY OR IS FALSE AS THEORETICAL, CONCEPTUAL
MEANS HE CONCEIVED OR MANUFACTURED IT, NOT SOMETHING THAT TRULY OBJECTIVELY
EXISTS.
Truth is never conceived
but seen:
Whatever is true does not need conception but to be seen and known,
thus what is conceived is false.
Whatever is conceived is a product of thinking and that is never the
truth.
If you think truth needs conceiving you may be right or you have false
perception here as elsewhere you think is true.
Thus that the use of force to stretch syllables, change speed and
loudness leads to stress, restlessness and distraction is not a product
of conception, but is the truth or reality that needs to be seen.
Again that the use of force to prolong as in stretching of syllables
leads to sadness thence depression is not a conception of mine or anybody
but it is the truth that needs to be seen as it actually is and the
fact that you cannot see even when it is pointed out to you reflects
your false perception not inability to conceive.
WHATEVER IS TRUE HAPPENS AND OCCURS OBJECTIVELY AS IT IS AND JUST
NEEDS TO BE SEEN, IT DOES NOT NEED CONCEPTION. WHATEVER IS CONCEPTION
IS A PRODUCT OF THE MIND, SPECIFICALLY THINKING AND IT IS NEVER THE
TRUTH EXCEPT IN YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION THAT IT CAN BE OR IS THE TRUTH.
YOU NEVER CONCEIVE TRUTH BUT FALSITY. TRUTH IS THEREFORE OBJECTIVELY
AND NEEDS TO BE SEEN AND THUS UNDERSTOOD.
THUS FOR THE TRADER TO SAY THE THING IS ABSOLUTELY CONCEPTUAL MEANS
IT IS ABSOLUTELY A FABRICATION OF HIS MIND OR THIKING AND THEREFORE
RUBBISH OR FALSE.
AS THE BUDDHA SAID, TRUTH IS THE HIGHEST OF SAVORS, IT IS THE HIGHEST
OF EXPERIENCES, NOT MEANT TO BE CONCEIVED, NOT THE HIGHEST OF CONCEPTIONS
OR CONCEIVING.
Truth is whatever happens:
Truth is simple; everything that happens is the truth, everything
that did not happen but touted as happened is false.
Thus because truth is everything that happened, it (truth) needs only
seeing, it is silly or mad to conceive or fabricate to arrive at the
truth. If you did not see what happened, no matter how you conceive
or think you still cannot be certain what you conceived is what actually
happened.
TRUTH IS WHATEVER HAPPENS AND WHATEVER HAPPENS JUST NEEDS SEEING NOT
CONCEPTION OR CONCEIVING OR PRODUCING AND SO WHAT IS CONCEPTION OR CONCEIVED
IS NOT THE TRUTH. IF YOU NEED TO CONCEIVE IT MEANS YOU CANNOT SEE THE
TRUTH AND IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE TRUTH NO MATTER HOW YOU CONCEIVE YOU
WILL NEVER SEE THE TRUTH.
A person devoted to truth
does not conceive:
The Buddha said the truth should be guarded or protected.
A person devoted to, faithful to truth does not conceives, refrains
from conceiving because that is lapsing into falsity from which he may
never extricate himself. The reward for not conceiving is peace and
clarity of mind freed of the taint of falsity.
A person unfaithful to truth, who does not guard the truth eagerly
conceives and thus plunges into falsity from which he may never extricate
himself. The fruit of conceiving is endless vexations of the mind tainted
by falsity.
You need to think to conceive and you are conditioning or addicting
yourself to think by conceiving and that is an agonizing prison not
a palace of pleasure and because you are a slave of thinking that means
two eternities in heaven is out of the question for you the conceiver.
You conceive possibilities
or theories never the truth:
You conceive possibilities or theories about what happened or how
something happens but never the truth of what happens.
In order to know the truth of what happens or how it happened there
is no substitute for plain simple seeing.
SEEING YOU KNOW WHAT AND HOW IT HAPPENED. WITHOUT SEEING YOU CANNOT
KNOW. YOU CAN CONCEIVE BUT THE PRODUCTS OF CONCEIVING ARE POSSIBILITIES
AND THEORIES THAT MAY BE REASONABLY ACCURATE OR TOTALLY OFF.
Conceiving is a mixture of thinking (asking yourself questions and answering those questions that may
be related to a matter) and imagining or visualizing
your mental catalogue of what and how things can happen that you have
seen before that may be applicable or be the case in this case).
If you are scrupulous, you may come up with a conception that quite
accurately reflects reality but if you are deluded your conceptions
are likely to be seriously flawed.
THE WISE PERSON RESTRICTS HIMSELF TO WHAT HE SEES AND THEREFORE KNOWS.
WHAT HE DOES NOT SEE, HE CANNOT KNOW AND HE REFRAINS FROM CONCEIVING
TO TRY TO KNOW BECAUSE IT IS IN VAIN AND DABBLING WITH FALSITY. THUS
IF YOU SAW HEAVEN OR GOD THEN YOU KNOW HEAVEN OR GOD. IF YOU DID NOT
SEE HEAVEN OR GOD THEN ALL THE CONCEIVING, THINKING AND IMAGINING CANNOT
ENABLE YOU TO KNOW HEAVEN OR GOD BUT PLUNGES YOU INTO COMPLICATIONS
AND EVEN DEADLY DELUSIONS.
NO ONE CAN CONCEIVE THE TRUTH, THE PRODUCTS OF CONCEIVING ARE POSSIBILITIES
AND THEORIES NOT THE TRUTH WHICH IS THE PRODUCT OF SEEING. IF YOU SEE
FALSELY, SEE WITH FORCE OR LIKE AND DISLIKE THEN YOU CAN NEVER SEE THE
TRUTH, WHAT MORE YOU CAN CONCEIVE THE TRUTH.
THUS BECAUSE STYLISH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE ALWAYS SEE WITH ADDED FORCE,
WITH LIKE AND DISLIKE THEY CAN NEVER SEE THE TRUTH LET ALONE CONCIEVE
THE TRUTH EXCEPT IN THEIR DELUSION THEY CAN AND DO.
Cannot see the truth,
what more conceive the truth?
As the Buddha said, the truth is not easily seen, to those shrouded
by the veil, it is obscured, for those who cannot see it is utter darkness.
Again Jesus said, seeing they do not see, so how can they truly know
by conceiving?
Because people see with a program that tells them what to see and
not see, how to see, they see with like and dislike, they see with added
force, they see but cannot see and therefore cannot know.
THUS IF YOU CANNOT KNOW EVEN BY SEEING (BECAUSE YOU SEE FALSELY WITH
STYLE, LIKE AND DISLIKE) HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW BY CONCEIVING?
British or brutish expert?
For one who sees truly this is the appearance of a brutish British
person not a person of truth.
If he said Teoh Beng Hock was alive then he was speaking falsely because
it is impossible he knew that because he did not see that and if he
will speak falsely there he will speak falsely elsewhere.
Top matador gored by assumption:
A top Spanish matador was seriously, deservedly gored in the groin
by a bull in Mexico.
What happened is that the bull went against the rule by ignoring the
cloth and going for the man and he was caught unprepared.
BULL FIGHTING IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT BULLS ARE THAT STUPID
TO ALWAYS GO FOR THE PROVOKING RED CLOTH THAN THE BLACK MATADOR BUT
SOMETIMES RULES CAN BE BROKEN AND WHAT I SAW WAS THAT THE BULL IGNORED
THE RED CLOTH AND WENT FOR THE MAN AND IT WAS PAYBACK TIME (FIRST INSTALMENT
WITH MORE TO COME).
Squirrel attached to dead
mate:
This squirrel would not leave its road kill dead mate and keep fending
off a pack of crows looking for food on this youtube video.
Here again is evidence animals have attachments to each other. According
to the Buddha, animals are beings as valid as you and me.
Worth fighting for?
'If it's worth having, it's worth fighting for,' Ashley's
estranged wife Cheryl might have added, with a line from her chart-topper
That is wrong view that is the way to hell or the animal womb.
This is right view: Nothing is worth fighting for, whatever is fighting
is evil, is using force that harms self and others. If you have to fight
for it then it is not worth having.
Was what Goldman Sachs
did really that wrong?
Quote: Goldman flatly denies this, although the firm does concede
that the main purpose of the
CDO was to help Paulson speculate on the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage
market - something the investors in Abacus were apparently unaware of.
The question is a BBC headline and it is expressing doubting of the
rightness of what Goldman Sachs did when it was clearly wrong and
color: #FF0000;">betraying your own clients. Abacus should not have been marketed and if it
was, it should not be sold to your own clients but clients of your enemies
like Lehmann Bros.
If it is true as reported that Goldman Sachs admitted the main purpose
of the CDO Abacus (which was sold to investors or clients on Goldman
Sachs’ recommendation) was to help Paulson speculate on the collapse
of the sub-prime mortgage market, then this is obviously evil or wrong,
you know someone knowledgeable about the mortgage industry (Paulson)
thinks these securities will go bad and yet you not only recommend it
to your clients who trust you but you do so without warning them
will possibly go bad.
THE ROLE OF AN INVESTMENT BANK LIKE GOLDMAN SACHS IS TO HELP ITS CLIENTS
color: #FF0000;">MAKE NOT LOSE MONEY (AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PLAYERS WHO ARE NOT CLIENTS) WHILST
GOLDMAN SACHS REAPS COMMISSIONS IN THE PROCESS.
IF YOU THINK THE ROLE OF GOLDMAN SACHS IS TO HELP CLIENTS
color: #FF0000;">LOSE MONEY THEN WHAT IT DID WAS OK.
THUS KNOWING THAT PAULSON, AN EXPERIENCED HEDGE FUND MANAGER WAS CHERRY
PICKING SUBPRIME LOANS HE THINKS WILL COLLAPSE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
CDO ‘ABACUS’, WHICH IS NOT OLD GOOD PRODUCT GOING BAD BUT A NEW
CREATION, GOLDMAN SACHS AT LEAST HAS THE MORAL DUTY TO INFORM CLIENTS
OF ITS POTENTIAL RISKS OF CATASTROPHIC LOSSES BEFORE RECOMMENDING IT.
BY RIGHT, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE CREATED THE PRODUCT MUCH LESS RECOMMENDED
IT TO FAITHFUL CLIENTS. IF ANYTHING IT SHOULD MARKET IT TO ENEMIES,
CLIENTS OF OTHER INVESTMENT BANKS LIKE LEHMANN, ITS ARCH ENEMIES.
(If I understand correctly, the CDO Abacus is synthetic; not the actual
mortgages in existence which were in the hands of others. It is designed
to mirror or replicate existing subprime mortgages that Paulson, a hedge
fund manager assessed will go bad. Thus without owning these bad mortgages
to be sold at high prices to others in the hope its prices will collapse
later and you reap handsome profits, you are artificially creating a
facsimile of those mortgages so that you can bet against it in the process
doubling the market or economy’s losses should that original mortgage
fail.
If Abacus was an old derivative Goldman made which was good at the
time it was created, then Goldman Sachs may have some excuse to still
recommend it to its clients but Abacus is a new derivative not based
on the actual mortgages which are in the hands of others but based on
hypothetical ownership created on recommendation of hedge fund manager
Paulson because he thinks they will fail and if there are suckers out
there, never mind they are Goldman Sach’s own clients, who are willing
to pay high prices for it then Paulson will reap big profits should
his hunch prove correct.)
THE CDO ‘ABACUS’ WAS FRESHLY CREATED NOT BASED ON ACTUAL SUBPRIME
MORTGAGES WHICH WERE OWNED BY OTHERS BUT MIRRORED THESE SUBPRIME MORTGAGES.
THE PURPOSE OF CREATING ABACUS IS FOR PAULSON TO MAKE MONEY SHOULD THE
SUBPRIME LOANS COLLAPSE AND KNOWING THIS, GOLDMAN SACHS WAS SELLING
ABACUS TO ITS OWN CLIENTS WITHOUT TELLING THEM THE PURPOSE OF ABACUS,
WHICH TO BET THAT THE PACKAGED MORTGAGES WILL FAIL.
GOLDMAN SACHS SHOULD NOT MARKET ABACUS TO ITS CLIENTS LET ALONE MARKET
WITHOUT WARNING THEM AND THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ACT OF BETRAYAL
Does Goldman Sachs think
Abacus is a good investment?
Only if Goldman Sachs thinks Abacus (picked by a fund manager because
he thinks it will go bad) is a good investment, will make money for
its clients is it right to recommend it to its clients. In this case
it must think Paulson is an idiot or silly and those picked mortgages
will not only not fail but make money.
If the mortgages will not make money or will make little money even
if it did not fail, then Goldman Sachs is shirking its duties to clients
recommending it.
IF THE POTENTIAL OF ABACUS TO MAKE MONEY FOR ITS CLIENTS EVEN IF THE
MORTGAGES DID NOT COLLAPSE IS FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE LOSSES IF THEY DID
COLLAPSE THEN GOLDMAN SACHS IS SHIRKING ITS DUTIES RECOMMENDING A POOR
YIELDING DERIVATIVE WITH PLENTY OF RISKY DOWNSIDE.
Can or should you market
shit?
Can you or would you market shit, especially to your regular clients?
If you tried to market shit do you think there will be many if any
takers?
Yet this is what Goldman Sachs was not only doing but doing it not
on the open market but to its own faithful clients.
By marketing CDOS like Abacus that Goldman Sachs thinks will fail
to its own clients, Goldman Sachs is literally marketing shit (disguised
as food) to its own clients and if this not an act of betrayal and ruthlessness
what is it?
THE CDOS LIKE ABACUS WERE DESIGNED TO FAIL (THUS THEY ARE SHIT) AND
THEIR SUCCESS WILL BE MEASURED BY THEIR FAILURE AND YET GOLDMAN SACHS
WAS DESIGNING AND MARKETTING THEM NOT ONLY TO BE SOLD TO THE UNSUSPECTING
MARKET BUT TO ITS CLIENTS.
Is it now safer to lend money to Iraq than to Greece?
This question reflects false perception. What has Iraq got to do with
the situation in Greece? Because Iraq has nothing to do and she perceives
it has in asking the question she is fostering false perception in herself
and others. The implication is that Iraq is terrible and yet it is rated
a better credit risk than Greece and so she is questioning. It is a
needless distraction comparing Greece with Iraq. Of what use is comparing
Iraq and Greece? Maybe Iraq has plenty of oil that can be used to repay
debts and Greece does not.
There are many factors and differences to be taken into account when
comparing Greece and Iraq’s credit ratings, it is difficult if not
impossible to compare risks and it is totally irrelevant to compare
them. Better you devote your attention to the Greek situation. There
may be or is subconscious prejudice against Iraq compared to Greece.
Iraq may be bad but it may not totally the ‘basket case’ you imply.
There is only one viable
business model:
There is only one viable business model and that is the win-win model,
I designed and sell you a product that is truly useful for you or will
make you money and I make a profit or commission selling it.
Goldman Sachs seems to think it has discovered a new model, I design
and sell you a product I think is likely to lose you money that has
little if any upside and I profit by gaining a commission and if you
did lose then I profit from your loss. This model is not viable or sustainable
and it is based on deception, that you pretend to your clients that
the product you are selling them is good not risky. This is called cheating.
WHAT GOLDMAN SACHS IS DOING IS HARDLY NEW, RETAILERS HAVE BEEN TRYING
TO CHEAT CUSTOMERS ALL THE TIME, EG GROCER SLIP A ROTTEN APPLE WITH
THE GOOD ONES IN YOUR BAG, TO GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT, THEIR HOPE IS
NOT TO BE FOUND OUT. IF YOU KEEP CHEATING CUSTOMERS, YOU ARE NOT GOING
TO HAVE MANY CUSTOMERS LEFT.
-- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive
Officer Lloyd Blankfein told a Senate panel that
market-makers have no obligation to tell clients about their own position
in a security.
It reflects immorality or lack of conscience to adopt this view. In other
words you know the product you want customers to buy is shit or most
likely shit that can lose buyers a lot of money but you feel you have
no obligations to tell ‘valued’ clients?
WHAT THIS STATEMENT REVEALS IS THAT GOLDMAN SACHS WILFULLY MARKETTED
SECURITIES IT KNEW WAS LIKELY IF NOT CERTAINLY GOING TO GO BAD AND FELT
IT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO TELL CLIENTS SO , IT FELT NO COMPUNCTION ABOUT
HEAPING POTENTIAL LOSSES ON ITS 'VALUED' CLIENTS.
According to the story below, it is desperation, Goldman Sachs was
trying to save its own skin in a deteriorating market that it was pushing
its staff to offload risky assets to unsuspecting customers.
assets tied to the declining U.S. housing market, urged its sales force
in 2006 and 2007 to sell those products to clients, newly disclosed
internal e-mails show.
The
e-mails, including communications from Chief Executive Officer
salespeople to shed bonds the firm found too risky to hold. The e-mails
were released yesterday by Senator Carl Levin in connection with a hearing
where current and former managers testified about the firm’s role
in the financial crisis.
DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES
AND IT IS A REFLECTION OF DESPERATION AND THE BANK TRYING TO SAVE ITSELF
AT THE EXPENSE OF CUSTOMERS THAT IT RESORTED TO SUCH IMMORAL TACTICS.
What is the right thing
to do?
You should never sell to ‘valued’ customers products that have
known risks of loss or harm let alone sell without informing them about
the dangers they are exposing themselves to.
If these products you sell have little upside, little scope for profit
but big even certain risks of big losses then you are morally bankrupt,
unscrupulous and committing a wrong with deadly karma awaiting.
IT IS A ‘NO NO’ SELLING PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE LITTLE
UPSIDE BUT LIKELY EVEN CERTAIN BIG DOWNSIDES, LET ALONE SELLING WITHOUT
INFORMING THEM OF THE RISKS THEY ARE UNDERTAKING AND IT REFLECTS CALLOUSNESS
OF GOLDMAN SACHS TO NOT ONLY SELL SUCH PRODUCTS BUT INSIST THEY HAVE
NO OBLIGATIONS TO FOREWARN BUYERS.
AS IT STANDS GOLDMAN SACHS IS GUILTY AND ADMITTED GUILT AND IT IS
A CIRCUS TO CARRY ON THE ENQUIRY AS IF TO ESTABLISH GUILT.
Is this how Hulu Selangor
was won?
Quote RPK: 13,000 voters have been move around. Some have even been moved out
and can no longer vote in Hulu Selangor. And we know that these 13,000
voters are from polling stations where the opposition is strong.
Come Sunday, many voters will be
out to vote and will discover that they can no longer vote where they
had been voting for the last many elections.
THERE ARE MANY TACTICS UNSCRUPULOUS POLITICIANS CAN EMPLOY TO WIN
BY HOOK (FORCE) OR CROOK (CHEAT) AND THE ABOVE IS ONE OF MANY PLOYS
AVAILABLE TO THE DISHONORABLE.
Goldman Sachs is guilty
by own admission:
By their own admission, Goldman Sachs is guilty, anyone including
Goldman Sachs who thinks their actions are defendable has perverted
view or false understanding that is the way to hell or the animal womb
according to the Buddha.
Goldman has admitted it packaged the mortgages selected by Paulson
of a hedge fund as likely to collapse into Abacus that was then sold
to unsuspecting clients (probably if not certainly with a good rating
certification by supposedly conscientious accredited raters) so that
if the mortgages in Abacus failed, clients are liable for even massive
losses whilst Paulson would reap handsome profits.
THUS GOLDMAN SACHS KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY SOLD A PRODUCT ABACUS
THAT IT CONSIDERED LIKELY TO BLOW UP IN THE FACES OF CLIENTS SO THAT
PAULSON COULD GAIN AND GOLDMAN SACHS WOULD GET COMMISSIONS APART FROM
WHATEVER HIDDEN PROFITS.
IF YOU ARE ASKING CLIENTS TO MAKE SUCH A HANDICAPPED OR LOPSIDED BET,
DO YOU THINK IT IS NOT FAIR THAT YOU DID NOT INFORM THEM THAT PAULSON
SELECTED THE STOCKS FOR YOU TO BET AGAINST HIM AND IF YOU TOLD CLIENTS
THE TRUTH, HOW MANY SUCKERS WOULD TAKE UP THE BET? UNLESS HE IS A FOOL,
ANYONE SO INFORMED WOULD SIT UP AND SCRUTINIZE THE DEAL CLOSELY BEFORE
TAKING UP THE BET AGAINST PAULSON AND SO ABACUS IS LIKELY TO FAIL. THUS
THIS ABACUS THING IS DRIVEN BY ILL WILL TO MAKE CLIENTS SUSTAIN LOSSES
AND IT IS CHEATING OR DECEPTION AND SO GOLDMAN SACHS IS GUILTY AS ADMITTED
AND IT REFLECTS MANKIND’S LACK OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE
STILL DEBATING THE LEGALITY OR RIGHTFULNESS OF WHAT GOLDMAN SACHS THEMSELVES
ADMITTED.
It is bonds that will
blow the financial world apart:
Warren Buffet described derivatives (based on bonds) as weapons of
mass destruction and so it may be or is that bonds which are poorly
regulated compared to stocks, which has been subject to gross deliberate
abuse that will blow the world financial system and economy out of the
water, and there are early signs as in the gathering Greek crisis that
this is so.
Many bonds or derivatives are worth little more than the paper they
were written or they did not have the money backing them, they were
used to transfer or steal money from others or the system into the pockets
of the creators. The same money may be lent at the same time to many
people either knowingly or unwittingly. Banks borrowed short term to
lend long term boosting the amount of credit available but inviting
disaster should there be a drought of available short term money to
replenish what you borrowed short term and lent long term (like Lehmann
Bros & Northern Rock).
Not only were there bad loans but virtual copies
of those loans were created many times over so that insiders could bet
they will fail and gain as when Goldman Sachs created Abacus without owning the underlying mortgages but piggybacked
clients and Paulson’s bets on existing mortgages.
APPARENTLY BONDS ARE POORLY REGULATED AND THERE MAY BE MANY BONDS
OUT THERE WHICH ARE WORTH LITTLE MORE THAN THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON.
IT SEEMS AMERICAN BANKERS WERE WRITING BONDS THAT HAD SHIT MIXED IN
THEM THEY SOLD OFF TO ‘DIMWITTED’ OR SLOW GERMAN INVESTORS AND SO
ALL THOSE GERMAN SAVINGS MAY NOT BE STILL THERE BUT EXISTS ONLY ON PAPER
JUST AS A LOT OF CHINA’S SAVINGS MAY BE IRRECOVERABLE, WORTHLESS US
TREASURIES OR OTHER BOND CERTIFICATES.
AND SO RATHER THAN THE WORLD ECONOMY RECOVERING, THE NEXT PHASE OF
THE COLLAPSE MAY BE COMING, BOND DEFAULTS.
