Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

The people in "office" that constantly worry me are those that say nothing in public, never step forward to argue their case; but are quick as a flash to vote as a group.... to do whatever the executive want of them.

[chr5648]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Here's another exception:

I am from New Jersey. Before and during the onset of the crisis, we had Jon Corzine, Goldman Alum that spent tens of millions of his own money to run for governor of NJ. A lot of good that did NJ... He was like Dick Cheney - deficits don't matter.

Now we have a cost-cutting Republican, that is well liked. His background? A Lawyer, Lobbyist, and former US Attorney.

If you think about it, Corzine's credentials seem Republican, and Governor Christie's credentials seem more Democrat. And the two are very different. But to be honest, Christie stepped in at a time when he had no choice but to take on the Unions and cut the budget.

Keep an eye on Christie - I think he's got a future.

But what America needs right now is a "traitor to his class," a Roosevelt, Teddy, I'd prefer. But he was an accident of history. With today's media budget requirement, the game is pre-rigged by the biggest campaign contributors and soft money. And so, our choices for President are already well vetted by the elites. We really don't have a choice. The guy that becomes President answers to the moneyed interests first and foremost. If there's time and money left over, "pet projects" may follow.

As a fellow new jerseyan, christie's spending cuts and brute realization of the reality of nj's fiscal state is a welcomed change. The problem is that even with his spending cuts, the state will still be bankrupt, the reforms that need to be done are too radical even for a so called revolutionary like christie.

[yernamehear]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

[QUOTE=FRED;190053]

EJ writes in:

The way I put it is that the difference between a 1st and a 3rd world country is that in a 1st world country you have to be accomplished in business before you have sufficient money and skills to run for office and win whereas in a 3rd world country you run for office in order to get rich. My observation is that in the US over the past 30 years, the latter case is becoming more frequently true than the former.

In a world run by me, to qualify to run for office you have to have run a company and made payroll for at least three years. The reason is that until you have, you don't understand how to abstract yourself as you must as a corporate leader, to be responsible for others before yourself, and to put the well-being of the company before your own interests, to put the investors, employees, and customers first, and that this is how you personally succeed.

What's bothering me is that the lack of ethics and competence is so deep that you can have the spectacle of an oil company having its CEO knighted for achievement, only to have the chief of the company's operations in a certain area take the 5th (due to lack of job performance in a regulated duty), the CEO resigns soon afterward in disgrace because of other issues, and have the next CEO preside over an environmental catastrophe. The latter CEO was not immediately fired and/or resigned.

Another anecdote is the CEO who lost >90% of his stock's value due to botched M&A activity, also sits on the board of a money center bank that had to be bailed. This individual still has both positions (note: CEO, President and chairman of a mega-cap company).

An executive who was in on the founding of a company might understand the issues you talk about, e.g. accountability to shareholders, employees, other stakeholders. A "corporate hack" CEO who rose up through a huge old company? Yet another technocrat who may not even know fundamentally how or why his corporation makes money (seriously).

I don't think there is much competent leadership in any particular area in the 1st world at the moment.

[harset]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Thanks chris.....i will read both books....

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

The video won't work in my location, Chris, so I took the link and read the entire transcript of the speech given by the Prince of Wales.

Raz, try this one, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...re_15_02_2011/ but there are only three days left to see it.

Taking your point about another matter entirely, population growth; surely that also means the planet is going to see a severe collapse in numbers after we "oldies" all die out?

[raja]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

But what America needs right now is a "traitor to his class," a Roosevelt, Teddy, I'd prefer. But he was an accident of history. With today's media budget requirement, the game is pre-rigged by the biggest campaign contributors and soft money. And so, our choices for President are already well vetted by the elites. We really don't have a choice. The guy that becomes President answers to the moneyed interests first and foremost. If there's time and money left over, "pet projects" may follow.

How about Eliot Spitzer?
He's brave, got an amazing track record of challenging authority, and is a "traitor to his class".
I think the lessons he learned from the whore scandal chastened some of his impetuosity, which needed chastening.

I recommend the documentary Client 9.
You'll get to know him better . . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

But what America needs right now is a "traitor to his class," a Roosevelt, Teddy, I'd prefer. But he was an accident of history. With today's media budget requirement, the game is pre-rigged by the biggest campaign contributors and soft money. And so, our choices for President are already well vetted by the elites. We really don't have a choice. The guy that becomes President answers to the moneyed interests first and foremost. If there's time and money left over, "pet projects" may follow.

Actually, Teddy was simply a very oppositional kind of guy with strong opinions.

You should note that Teddy rose to the Presidency via a gigantic raft of insurance company money, but he believed this to be wrong. Thus after attaining office, he changed the laws to prevent this from recurring.

Obama, on the other hand, has zero history of being opinionated and/or oppositional. He also rose to office on a gigantic raft of money.

Unfortunately there has been zero indication of any TR type behavior.

And I'm not holding my breath.

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Originally Posted by jk
i think you might want to refine your criteria. imo running a company is neither necessary nor sufficient for such learning. ready to support a presidential bid by angelo mozilo?

I didn't say that everyone who has run a business is qualified for elected office, or even that anyone who hasn't run a business isn't qualified. It's the experience of having run an organization that is critical. That's what happened to Lula. He learned the lesson of accountability, and that reshaped his thinking. If you have had the experience of being accountable for the well being of an organization, without necessarily having direct control over it, as in a military chain of command, you are have already received a major part of the training that you need to succeed in elected office.

I understand the basis behind your view, but I have to point out:

Besides the Mozilo factor, Obama actually has been thoroughly accountable to the massive donations he's received.

The 'it' factor cannot be pure 'accountability' - it has to be the idea of fiduciary responsibility to the American people.

Fiduciary responsibility:

It is defined as a relationship imposed by law where someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of a "caretaker" of another's rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary owes an obligation to carry out the responsibilities with the utmost degree of "good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of the beneficiaries interest." The good faith has been interpreted to impose an obligation to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the beneficiary's interests as well the duty not to favor ANYONE ELSE'S INTEREST (INCLUDING THE TRUSTEES OWN INTEREST) over that of the beneficiary. Further, if the agent should find him/herself in a position of conflicting interests, the agent must disclose the dual agency (acting for two parties at the same time) or risk being accused of constructive fraud in regards to both or either principals.

[flintlock]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Experience, be it running a business, a military unit, or even a law practice is preferable to someone with non of the above. (That means all you internet blogger/know-it-alls don't bother. )Sorry, but just the ability to think and reason is not, in my opinion, a decent qualification for high office. And I am 100% in agreement with EJ that public office is more and more becoming a means to enrich oneself in the US, much like 3rd world nations. The US government is for sale. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing the problem. Most "rich" people are NOT the kind of sociopaths like we have in office today. Many are office holders are sociopaths who just happen to be rich. Excluding the rich does nothing but dilute the talent pool. Sometimes I wonder if any of the anti-rich people out there actually know any?

And don't confuse leadership skill with brains. The best leaders are usually not the ones with the highest test scores. They are the ones who can organize and assemble a team that is smart, and then be willing to listen to them.

[metalman]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Experience, be it running a business, a military unit, or even a law practice is preferable to someone with non of the above. (That means all you internet blogger/know-it-alls don't bother. )Sorry, but just the ability to think and reason is not, in my opinion, a decent qualification for high office. And I am 100% in agreement with EJ that public office is more and more becoming a means to enrich oneself in the US, much like 3rd world nations. US government is for sale. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing the problem. Most "rich" people are NOT the kind of sociopaths like we have in office today. So excluding them does nothing but dilute the talent pool. Do any of you anti-rich people out there actually know any?

same as he says in his book... waxing ayn randish... a safe, sound & prosperous usa sits on a foundation of entrepreneurs. gov't by ex-entrepreneurs makes sense to me. china's run by engineers... a close second. the usa's run by friggin lawyers. the worst of all...

[we_are_toast]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Hmmm, the last 2 business presidents:






Sorry, I'm going with the empathetic, excellent reasoning plumber!

[metalman]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Hmmm, the last 2 business presidents:






Sorry, I'm going with the empathetic, excellent reasoning plumber!

bush sr. ran an oil corp but his boy couldn't run a lemonade stand. bush sr. was a way better pres than bush jr.

i like my plumber... but he'd last 37 seconds as president like all the other armchair quarterbacks out there.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

If you think most Americans don't need a crash course on critical thinking and how to specifically apply it to media reports, please think again.

Fox News isn't going to be in any hot water from their viewers over this act of deception and propaganda:

[metalman]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

why isn't bernays taught in school... when he must be one of the most important men of the past century...

"Life" magazine satirically expresses this idea in the reply which it represents an American as giving to the Britisher who praises this country for having no upper and lower classes or castes:

"Yeah, all we have is the Four Hundred, the White-Collar Men, Bootleggers, Wall Street Barons, Criminals, the D.A.R., the K.K.K., the Colonial Dames, the Masons, Kiwanis and Rotarians, the K. of C, the Elks, the Censors, the Cognoscenti, the Morons, Heroes like Lindy, the W.C.T.U., Politicians, Menckenites, the Booboisie, Immigrants, Broadcasters, and—the Rich and Poor."

Yet it must be remembered that these thousands of groups interlace. John Jones, besides being a Rotarian, is member of a church, of a fraternal order, of a political party, of a charitable organization, of a professional association, of a local chamber of commerce, of a league for or against prohibition or of a society for or against lowering the tariff, and of a golf club. The opinions which he receives as a Rotarian, he will tend to disseminate in the other groups in which he may have influence.

This invisible, intertwining structure of groupings and associations is the mechanism by which democracy has organized its group mind and simplified its mass thinking. To deplore the existence of such a mechanism is to ask for a society such as never was and never will be. To admit that it exists, but expect that it shall not be used, is unreasonable.

Emil Ludwig represents Napoleon as "ever on the watch for indications of public opinion; always listening to the voice of the people, a voice which defies calculation. 'Do you know,' he said in those days, 'what amazes me more than all else? The impotence of force to organize anything.'"

It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.

eg... this guy...

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

If you think most Americans don't need a crash course on critical thinking and how to specifically apply it to media reports, please think again.

Fox News isn't going to be in any hot water from their viewers over this act of deception and propaganda:

There is no doubt that I am going to upset a lot of Americans here; but my reaction to the Fox News report is that it represents the most serious example of flagrant Treason, I have ever seen, or heard described.

The United States is supposed to be a free nation led by people that recognise the duties imposed by the ideals set into stone by their constitution; but what we see is a desperate group of unworthy criminals prepared to do anything they can to undermine the purpose of that freedom.

Here in the UK, I would expect that the smiling individual that headed up the report AND the fellow followers in the background .... running right to the top of the tree of responsibility; would have been summarily shown the door, never to find such employment anywhere again.

Considering that there are millions of Arabs putting their lives on the line for the same freedoms denied to them under dictatorships liberally propped up by CIA money for many decades; perhaps this is only to be expected.

I call that broadcast Treason.