Xavier Renou: Hero to some – hypocrite to the rest of us….

So, there I was reading the WSJ and I came across an article in the April 8, 2009 edition called “French Lessons: A Parisian Coaches Radicals in the Art of Protest”.  Well, i thought this could be interesting.
But, much to my disappointment it was rather anger inducing than enjoyable.  Here we have in this quick article a man named Xavier who is a ‘protest consultant’ to ‘anti-capitalists’.  Ok, so the fact that he sells board games, runs consulting groups, writes books, and is planning a TV documentary is of course all signs that he is not profiting from capitalism? Basically, he started his own company (Entrepeneuer anyone?) and now  is the ‘spokesperson’ (CEO anyone?) of his organization.

(In response to “Xavier’s”comment: Just becuase you’re not collecting money doesn’t mean your not getting paid or being rewarded.  The fact that you live off your old savings and OTHER peoples work still qualifies you to be categorized as above …. actually no, unless your emulating the rat CEO’s that everyone dislikes vs an honest CEO that people rarely hear about…then i’d say…good work! It seems we have a solipsism here peoples! I wonder what will happen when France becomes such a poor nation that people will no longer have the funds to be taxed into egalitarianism.  Wait, those doing the taxing – are they equals? Or are they the power structure? Crap, ah let’s just jump a band wagon – bad capitalists! *laughs*)

How grand! He teaches people how to lay down in streets, dress up like clowns and run into nuclear sub pens, dress up like a zombie, wave signs around, and be a general nuisance.  Fantastic and he is profiting off this too? He is a professional toddler? Wonderful.  Basically he mooches of a rich nations resources and workers and calls it ‘Revolution’. Yet, people embrace his mentality – the mentality that often looks just like an excuse for laziness.

Who am I to judge? Let me tell you.

I was a member of the Order of Capuchin Franciscans.  I worked with the poor and i worked with the dying and you know what? They would much rather not be poor and not be dying.  Poverty is not a goal it’s not a way of life – it is a problem. It is a state of being that causes a lot of stress to people (in any political/economic system).  It has horrific health consequences, social consequences, and psychological strain that is often supplanted with the reaching out for help (like religions) in one hand and crime (the desire to free oneself) in the other hand.  It leads often to resentment, frustration, and all forms of coping mechanisms.  When governments control the masses it uses poverty as a weapon (disarming of citizens, control over their finances, the leaving citizens no alternative to which they can turn for help).   All religions have an element in them that asks you to take care of the down trodden and the poor.  Why? Becuase poverity is so awesome? No, becuase poverty is a problem.  A problem that ‘the church’ attempts to address in it’s hackeneyed ways.

So why do these people assault capitalism? They don’t – they assault wealth.  They believe that there is a class struggle going on that the weathly are attempting to keep down the poor in order to live off the sweat of these people and profit, unduly, from their labor.  They are looked at as slave owners and slave creators.  It is quite romanitc especially when one comes from a middle class background or a bankers family.  Romantic to look at yourself as the poor mans hero.  But, often enough what comes out is not heorism but stupidty.

There is one point that these protesters have – that there are people who ARE taking advantage of others unduly.  That is not capitalism and capitalism does not condone that.  That is called MONOPOLY that is called TYRANNY that is called COMMUNISM.  The system they think will save them is the one that scans the horizon and pounds down anyone who rises above the masses – it assaults the entrepreneur, the artist, the philosopher, the poet, the general, the leader.  But who does the pounding? THE LEADERS! THE GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS.  This communism that people so badly want or this socialism they view as heroic is anti-capitalist not because it’s better but because it is the very EVIL the capitalism hates: MONOPOLY OF POWER.  Yes, business people can desire to be a monopoly and some HAVE succeeded but that is the roll of government to break up monopolies and encourage competition.  Competition and freedom of markets is at the heart of Capitalism.  The argument that I hear so often is that Communism and Socialism haven’t had a fair chance.  Yeah? EITHER HAS CAPITALISM? You think we, in the US, live in a freely Capitalist society? Then explain the taxation a million times over, explain the absurd regulation, explain cap and trade, explain progressive taxation, explain death tax, explain Sarbanes-Oxley, explain the regulation that actually help companies monopolize industry rather than create competition? Explain Governments influencing the private sector to do that which, in the long run, is destructive.  Explain the enormous push for larger and ever pervasive government.  You want true capitalism? Then I’m not sure where to look.  You want to see Capitalism being strained and boxed in – look right here.  But, there is the amazing part – even with all the weight being put on capitalism – the US is an economic powerhouse (despite the medias objections and the objections of George Soros).  The US built its power in a short time on the back of those who put their wealth and health on the line to find what is called ‘The American Dream”.  The ability to free oneself of debt, slavery, poverty, and oppressive dictators.  The ability to own a piece of land work hard AND be rewarded for the work.  Give it time, and this will vanish into what much of the world is: Overly taxed and overly subsidized and overly reliant on ‘governmental’ power.

If people own the money then people own the charity. If governments own the money then THEY own the charity and if they own the charity you know who they give it to – not those in need – but those who support them.  Welcome to hell people.

You want to destroy capitalism in favor of some other absurdity? Then go on your way and help governments create monopolies, levy huge taxes against the population and encourage your governments to print money freely.  Like it has been said, “The Printing Press is the machine gun in the back of Capitalism”.  The printing press referred to is that which prints money. Who holds that machine gun? Governments.

Bravo Xavier – keep on keeping on. When you’re done being mad at daddy for being successful then please join the rest of humanity and live your life – not your cause.

Populist Anger?

Heeeere we go again!

So, the Group of 20 summit is nearing and the media is feverishly covering the ‘anti-capitalist’ and ‘anti-globalization’ crowd raising an uproar.  In these recent weeks a popular slogan has been the noting of ‘Populist Anger’.  Hmmm, populist anger.

Let’s see what the definition of Populist is: (M-W.com)

2. a believer in the rights, virtues, and wisdom of the common people.  (note: I use the second definition in order to avoid the specific concept of populism pertaining to the 1800s rights movement)

Ok, so we are left with one ambiguous word ‘common’ or one ambiguous phrase ‘common people’.  Let’s use the same dictionary and see what the generally accepted definition is:

In the 4b definition of Common we have this: “characterized by a lack of privilege or special status <common people>.”  I think this will suffice.

If we are to use these terms and the general implication of ‘populist anger’ we come up with the concept that those who are characterized by a lack of privilege or special status are angry then we come to the question of what is this special status? Well, in the current economic situation the status would be that of the rich and more specific the ‘banker’.

What I find frustrating about this whole debacle is the grandiose ambiguity in the application of terms.  Populist Anger is applied to anger over AIG bonuses or to anger over banker’s salaries or applied ‘the general population’ of people who might be frustrated and an encompassing term like ‘Economy’.   It seems that the media is conveniently applying ‘Populist Anger’ to any opposition party.  This isn’t the only phrase they use – they use ‘anti-capitalist’ quite a bit to.  AS I was reading the Financial Times I asked myself who are these ‘anti-capitalists’ and luckily enough came across and article that briefly listed who it believed comprises this group:

In the World News section of the FT dating Mar, 28 2009 “London and Strasbourg brace for protests” {kindle version} we have a group of protestors:

“Meanwhile about 40,000 members of left-wing political parties, trade unions, and campaign groups are expected to take to the streets of Berlin and Frankfurt this weekend in one of the biggest shows of organized discontent in Germany since the recession began.” (Please note that this is not a definition of Anti-capitalist this is a cross section of a group of people who are protesting in an article that speaks of ‘anti-capitalists’ ‘anti-globalization’ ‘environmentalists’ and ‘anarchists’ and note that none of this titles necessarily apply toward the protesting group)

If we are to assume these people are considered anti-capitalist we have to ask ourselves – why?

Hmmm, let’s take a quick look-see.  Left-wing political parties – now that is a shock. Are you telling me those who are generally associated with socialists, communists, and other giant government organizations would be opposed to a group of people who are pro-free market and pro-private wealth? This is no big surprise.  Trade unions: of course trade unions would be there they are the epitome of anti-capitalist in the sense they that attempt to regulate the working environment on behalf of the worker (theoretically speaking) rather than the owner.  Campaign groups – I am not sure who this is as a result anything I say about it is simply speculation. Anarchists: Whoa they are opposed to EVERYTHING except their own jurisdiction and rule – so they should be considered why? Environmentalists: ok ok enough.  I think you all get the picture.

The point slowly being created here is: these groups and the angry peoples considered the ‘common person’? How many people would ascribe to being an anarchist other than the run of the mill angst filled teen? Trade Unions are such a large political group – here in America at least – that they are considered the common person? I guess one could say that ‘common people’ work in unions but I would find that rather offensive.

So, who are these Populists? I haven’t a clue – but I sure do find it funny that the media has latched on to this notion.
For example – it seems to be selective in its use: You have people having Tea-Parties and are these considered the ‘common person’ and do they fall under the slogan ‘Populist Anger’? I’d like to see that. But, if one does a quick search it seems that these Tea Parties protesting taxation are not Populist – they are angry – but they are generally considered to be conservative/libertarian.

In my opinion it seems populist anger is a very specific concept pointing to a very specific group – Wall Street.  It’s another camouflage for the ‘main street vs. wall street’ battle that is being arranged by the media.  Problem is it seems that main street is sick of the government to (look at the tea party protests and where these people come from).  The very real presence of another administration that is ready to spend out the kazoo (albeit through the levy of taxes) is not going to do the ‘common people’ any good.  IF we are to say the Obama inherited a huge deficit through the zealous spending of a military budget then who is going to inherit the even larger deficit through overzealous taxation and government control? No one is going to win this.  There is no talk of fiscal responsibility only of spending spending and bailing out.  Spend money to start this program and that program or for this military equipment or that or the raising of taxes for this purpose or on these people and for giving credits to those people and not these people.  The government is doing what any good sophist does:

Jump from one lily pad to the other and back again.

When we focus on a complaint they jump to another issue and when we focus on that issue they jump back.  All the while passing legislation in OUR AMERICAN name even if we AMERICAN people don’t benefit from it or support it.  Now, we ARE NOT a direct democracy and in fact we are a Republic who elects representatives.  As a result if we don’t start pressuring the right people (OUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES) we are not going to have any support in the House or the Senate.  We focus too much on the president when the president (for now) needs the support of the Congress – shouldn’t we have people in there the support OUR ideals? Until executive decisions become the Kingly Law of the land and until the Judicial branch completely fails at safeguarding our constitutionals RIGHTS we must elect the right local officials in order to get the pressure sent down the right channels and finally UP to the president.  We need to be much more involved in politics as a citizenry and not allow our only concepts of politics to be voiced at a TV or on the day of elections.  We need to be vigilant and we need to write, phone, and complain to our local politicians.  Or not elect them ever again.

Good Luck America.

Blame, Blame, Blame – it’s all a damn game.

Shocking that the world is trying to lay the blame on everybody for this current economic slump.  I’m sure if you go to Despair, Inc’s website you can buy the ‘Demotivator’ that says something to the effect of ‘No single drop believes it is to blame for the flood.’

Well the biggest drop that seems unable to place blame is what we in the US call our ‘gubmint’.  Ironically the demotivator about Government is quite apt these days.

Why on earth would I be blaming the Government for these current economic troubles that are CLEARLY to be blamed on Capitalism (that’s sarcasm for the un-initiated).

First, let’s ask ourselves the essential questions that seems to elude people: How on earth did we get here? We could give the common answer and babble ‘Capitalism!! Capitalism – it’s inheriently flawed” As we wear nike, abercrombie, chow down on doritos, and slurp a coke.  Yes, walking contradictions we are – I know.  Well, that’s a great answer when you are trying to actually avoid any culpability, as most organizations are; as we of the world try to place blame rather than focusing on what is important – salvaging of the financial institutions and correcting policy run amok.

Let’s start with Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

“

According to a 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998, $467 billion in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to low- and medium-income borrowers and areas. In that period, the total number of loans to poorer Americans by CRA-eligible institutions rose by 39% while loans to wealthier individuals by CRA-covered institutions rose by 17%. The share of total US lending to low and medium income borrowers rose from 25% in 1993 to 28% in 1998 as a consequence. ^[28]

In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied “AAA” rating.^[29][22] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.^{[30] (I added bold for emphasis).}

AND

Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Often times felt to be the beginnings of the mortgage lending crisis ^{[9] (once again bold is my emphasis)}

“

Often when mentioned I receive one of two responses – 1) Oh, Blame it on Clinton! 2) So what.

Answer 1): The implication is that I am a conservative.  Wrong – I don’t care who it is but it started in 1977 with changes instituted under Clinton and Bush Jr.

Answer 2): It’s for your own edification and to help you avoid looking like an idiotic mouthpiece.

Moving on:

The intent of this act is quite noble and in fact quite understandable.  It was a government designed effort to help lower income citizens to participate in the free flow of lending capital in order to invest in housing and other assets which help people move from lower income to higher income.  A cause that is in fact – noble.  The nobility of this act is not in question, it’s the application.  When we LEND money to people they are incurring debt.  Debt that grows if nothing is paid toward the principle or interest.  Now, people who are not major wage earners are given loans not only do they have to deal with say – the day to day – they now have to deal with bank originated debt (goodbye credit score).  Does money make people move from lower income classes to middle income to higher income? Of COURES!!! However, debt forces everyone down a notch and not up.  So, what is the problem here? The problem is that money is not growing off tree’s its being taken out of someone’s pockets and put in another person’s pockets with a string attached this string is called “THIS ISNT YOURS YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS PLUS THE PREMIUM ON IT (interest) FOR ME LEDNING IT TO YOU” in other words debt.  It was not earned money but debt that was given.  So now people have easy access to debt, they take their debt and the go buy a house.  Sounds reasonable right?  So, many times, people move up a notch on the socio-economic scale NOT by an increase in income but by….you said it…..an increase in debt.  Sure, this is a wonderful recipe for disaster, but since the thoughts were noble all will work out.  Ever heard “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”? I guess not.

Anyway, lower income people move to middle income places or into middle income size houses usually without the added benefit if middle income size paychecks and what happens? Well, if the spending habits increase so does the debt.  Are costs of a large house smaller than a small house? Definitely not on average.

Well, here we go, mortgages started to default and the rest is history.  Except there is more to the story than that.

So, let’s get some basics down.

Bank – an establishment for the custody, loan, exchange, or issue of money, for the extension of credit, and for facilitating the transfer of funds. (Thank you M-W.com)

Ok, so the bank is 1)  given or acquires money or other assets.  Yaaay here we are a little bank with assets.  2) We give people money contractually and they promise to give it back plus interest lest we are forced to take their property and sell it as collateral.  3) Exchange! DUH! 4) Extension of credit – basically – we have determined you are good for X amount of money and will pay it back on time – if not we monetarily penalize you. 5) Transfers! DUH!

Simply thinking here, what advantage does a bank have to lend all sorts of loans (including micro loans or subprime loans) to people – including people who were considered financially unreliable.  On face value, banks make a profit when the loan transaction is successfully completed.  Does it profit a bank to have huge sums of money loaned out to all sorts of people for all sorts of reason? Not really.  But in the mean time if that’s the way it is going to be let’s start including fees everywhere.  But, that’s a different story.  Ok – here is what I am driving at.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack (FMFM) are GRE (GOVERNMENT RUN ENTERPRISES) that specialized in the purchasing of mortgages!! Why? So that banking institutions could have consistently available funds! Yaay! Not only can they LOAN it out – they don’t have to worry about it ever leaving!  Great idea! Sure, the intent was probably increase liquidity and credit but this couldn’t have been an idea that was just slipped right under peoples financial radars could it?  SO what did FMFM do? Well they took those nifty mortgages which they bought up and bundled them all sweetly into derivative investments and said these wonderful things are backed up by Mortgages!!! They are backed up by…..debt.  No no, I’m sorry Mortgages are not considered debt THEMSELVES but they sure as hell are evidence a debt has been made.  Yeah – the going idea was that, if trouble hit, we could rip those properties out of the earth and sell em like some commodity to cover the defaults that could happen that could cover the drop in share price of FMFM that could happen IF the real estate market faltered.  It can falter? No no no it’s only a local phenomenon.  HA!

Anyway, the brilliant gubmint basically paved the way for banks to, i unno, loan loan loan, without their reserves taking a major hit.  Then there was pressure from the government to increase loans to more higher-risk families and – wait the government does something stupidly? Well the whole history is easily available on the internet.  The point here is this:

To blame this on capitalism is like blaming an air crash on the mountain.  Hmmm, sure if the mountain wasn’t there the plane wouldn’t have crashed.  Well, what happens with crony capitalism is that the gov’t pressures (i.e steers) industries (due to whatever demand is on the political plate) to adopt ideas or strategies that they normally wouldn’t adopt – usually with the implicit guarantee that the gov’t won’t let them fail. Much like what is happening today.  As a result – what is allowed is either a monopoly or a company who has no concept or need for risk aversion because no matter what happens – the tax payers will bail them out – cuz the gubmint said so.

We DONT have capitalism freely here people!!!!! IF it were it would probably look like a government who intervenes and regulates only to maintain competition, levy taxes (debatable), raise militaries, and enforce, create, and revise the law. In a perfect world what would the government do? Well it wouldn’t get involved in the first place unless competition was being destroyed, discrimination was evident, and the playing field was being over weighted by monstrous corporations.  Basically it ensures businesses can grow and die with dignity.  Thus, these businesses that are TOO LARGE TO FAIL – become a fabrication.  But, that is only my opinion.  What do i know.

Don’t worry I know it generally takes two to tango or one with the other tied to them – thus my critique of those people who are often the faces of capitalism are on its way – on one of my next two blogs.

Don’t be the escape goat for our elected officials screw ups. Be angry at the right people America!