Wednesday February 20, 5:25 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP) — Hands cramping up from too many video games?
How about controlling games with your thoughts instead? Later this year, Emotiv Systems Inc. plans to start selling the $299 EPOC neuroheadset to let you do just that.
The headset's sensors are designed to detect conscious thoughts and expressions as well as "non-conscious emotions" by reading electrical signals around the brain, says the company, which demonstrated the wireless gadget at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco.
The company, which unveiled a prototype last year, says the headset can detect emotions such as anger, excitement and tension, as well as facial expressions and cognitive actions like pushing and pulling objects.
The headset will be sold with a game developed by Emotiv, but it can also be made to work with existing PC games, the company said. Users will also be able to access an online portal to play more games, chat or upload their own content such as music or photos.
Emotiv plans to work with IBM Corp. to explore applications beyond video gaming. The "brain computer interface" technology could transform not only gaming, but how humans and computers interact, said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence business.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Brain-Reading Headset to Sell for $299
Wednesday February 20, 5:25 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP) — Hands cramping up from too many video games?
How about controlling games with your thoughts instead? Later this year, Emotiv Systems Inc. plans to start selling the $299 EPOC neuroheadset to let you do just that.
The headset's sensors are designed to detect conscious thoughts and expressions as well as "non-conscious emotions" by reading electrical signals around the brain, says the company, which demonstrated the wireless gadget at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco.
The company, which unveiled a prototype last year, says the headset can detect emotions such as anger, excitement and tension, as well as facial expressions and cognitive actions like pushing and pulling objects.
The headset will be sold with a game developed by Emotiv, but it can also be made to work with existing PC games, the company said. Users will also be able to access an online portal to play more games, chat or upload their own content such as music or photos.
Emotiv plans to work with IBM Corp. to explore applications beyond video gaming. The "brain computer interface" technology could transform not only gaming, but how humans and computers interact, said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence business.
NEW YORK (AP) — Hands cramping up from too many video games?
How about controlling games with your thoughts instead? Later this year, Emotiv Systems Inc. plans to start selling the $299 EPOC neuroheadset to let you do just that.
The headset's sensors are designed to detect conscious thoughts and expressions as well as "non-conscious emotions" by reading electrical signals around the brain, says the company, which demonstrated the wireless gadget at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco.
The company, which unveiled a prototype last year, says the headset can detect emotions such as anger, excitement and tension, as well as facial expressions and cognitive actions like pushing and pulling objects.
The headset will be sold with a game developed by Emotiv, but it can also be made to work with existing PC games, the company said. Users will also be able to access an online portal to play more games, chat or upload their own content such as music or photos.
Emotiv plans to work with IBM Corp. to explore applications beyond video gaming. The "brain computer interface" technology could transform not only gaming, but how humans and computers interact, said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence business.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Canadians' Personal Debt at Historic Level (1994)
RUSSELL KENT learned earlier than most about the allure and the pitfalls of credit - he was 14 when his father gave him his first credit card. Each month the bill would appear on the corner of his dad's desk; Kent was expected to attach receipts for purchases he'd made during the month, and the cash to pay for them. "If the receipts or the money weren't there, my dad would freak out," recalls Kent, 32, who requested his name be changed for this story. "If the bill was for $19.78 and I clipped a $20, the next day there would be 22 cents on my dresser." His father's message was stern and unequivocal: don't buy anything you don't have the cash to pay for.
It's a philosophy Canadians lived by for generations, but these days it's not an easy mantra to follow. As interest rates drifted to the lowest levels in decades, consumers responded by buying everything from homes and cottages to cars and appliances. The shopping spree has fed a healthy cycle of economic growth and a robust job market - but we've gone deep into hock to pay for the good times. With every drop in interest rates, the definition of living within one's means changed - with financing like this, you too can afford a luxury condo! The notion of buying only what you could easily pay for became a meaningless principle.
And so this summer Russell Kent and his wife, Mary, joined the legions of other young families in opting to ignore the admonitions they'd heard from their parents and taking the plunge into homeownership. They bought a house in the suburbs north of Toronto - and in the process have run up their debts far above anything they'd ever imagined. The house cost more than the top amount they'd intended to spend. They had to drain much of their savings and load up on personal lines of credit to muster a 25 per cent down payment. In total, they now owe roughly $340,000, spread across a mortgage, three lines of credit and two credit cards. Every month, $920 goes to pay interest on the cards and bank lines, and another $1,460 toward the mortgage. Mary also spends $300 a month to lease her car. Debt payments eat up close to a third of their after-tax income. Russell says making ends meet over the next few years will be "like stretching a gnat's ass over a rain barrel."
If the Kents feel intimidated by the debt challenge ahead of them, they're not alone. Collectively, Canadian consumers now owe $752.1 billion, according to Bank of Canada, up 36 per cent in the past 10 years when adjusted for inflation. Over the same period, personal disposable income, or take-home pay, has risen 15 per cent. In other words, Canadians are piling on debt more than twice as fast as their income is growing.
While the debt surge has been mainly attributed to rock-bottom mortgage rates fuelling runaway house prices, the numbers suggest a stampede into real estate is only part of the story. At the end of 2003, Canadians held $517.7 billion in mortgages. That's the lion's share of all consumer debt, but as a percentage, housing debt represents a smaller portion than it did in 1995. Meanwhile, typically more expensive forms of borrowing, such as credit cards and personal credit lines, have become a much bigger part of Canadians' debt burden.
All of this has been affordable because low interest rates have kept payments on our myriad loans in check. But rates are now on the rise, and there are serious questions about how soon Canadians will start to feel the squeeze of their debt-financed comforts and indulgences.
To some it seems we've lost the discipline of planning for a rainy day. "As a society we have become addicted to low interest rates," says Benjamin Tal, senior economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto. "That means as consumers we're much more vulnerable to an economic shock, like a sudden rise in interest rates, a recession or a job loss. Many of us are now living paycheque to paycheque."
This vulnerability is best illustrated by the steady decline in the savings rate over the past two decades. In 1985, the average Canadian socked away 15.8 per cent of his take-home pay. It was that savings cushion that allowed this country to bounce back from economic disasters like the 1987 stock market crash and the 1990 collapse of the residential real estate market. A decade later, the savings rate had slipped to 9.2 per cent of after-tax income. By 2003, the average Canadian saved just 1.4 per cent of his pay.
There are lots of theories about the sociological impulses driving our love affair with credit and our ambivalence toward saving for tomorrow. Are they the logical extensions of our consumer culture? A timeless desire to keep up with the Joneses? Or is it just that the ideal of middle-class stability - a house, a car, kids - is moving further out of our financial reach? Mary Kent says she grew up wanting a house with a yard and trees - the kind of place she was raised and in which she could raise her own family. As she approached her 30s, she became willing to do whatever it took to achieve that goal. "When I walked into this house, I thought, 'I could be happy here forever,'" she says - and wanted it even if it meant stretching her resources to the limit.
But there are consequences to taking that kind of leap. Early this year, The Vanier Institute of the Family sounded the alarm with a report on the state of Canadian family finances, entitled "Living on the Edge." The study highlighted several worrying trends, such as a 20 per cent drop in average contributions to Registered Retirement Savings Plans between 1997 and 2002, and the fact that household spending continues to outpace income growth. "For far too many, the 'edge' is getting closer and closer," the report's author, Roger Sauvé, concluded. "A growing number will fall over the precipice when, and not if, interest rates begin to rise from their 40-year lows. Households need to rein in some of their spending, pay off some debt and build a bigger cushion against slower times. The time to act is now." The implication: Canada is facing nothing less than a crisis in financial planning.
For now, Sauvé's dire outlook puts him in the minority. Despite the sobering picture presented by the statistics, most economists reject any talk of a ticking debt bomb. Derek Holt, an economist at RBC Financial Group, says that fears over rising debt levels have been blown out of proportion, and that the stats underestimate consumers' ability to adjust to changing circumstances. In a March report, he sought to debunk several myths about household finances, including the notion that North Americans are taking on too much debt and saving too little.
Holt argues that the rising value of household assets - thanks especially to buoyant real estate prices - have largely offset ballooning debt. In both Canada and the United States, the vast majority of borrowing has been plowed into tangible investments rather than simply blown on pricey restaurants and expensive clothing. As for the record-low savings rate, Holt contends that rising house prices, together with the appreciating value of investments in retirement plans, are a form of saving because they serve to grow people's nest eggs. Once you take into account this often overlooked fact, he says, Canadians come out looking in much better shape than his gloomier colleagues suggest.
Adrienne Warren, an economist with Scotiabank, agrees, and adds it's not debt size but debt affordability that is at issue. Back in 1995, interest costs ate up 9.2 per cent of the average person's annual take-home pay. Last year, those costs were down to just 7.7 per cent. As long as interest rates rise gradually, Canadians should be able to easily afford their current debts, Warren says.
But there is one key assumption that underlies the confident case outlined by Holt, Warren and others: they all project that economic growth, job creation and real estate prices will remain roughly as healthy as they've been recently, or that any changes will happen slowly. Not everyone is convinced. CIBC's Tal, for one, fears that because Canadians have piled up debt like never before, even small changes in the economy could hit them hard.
For example, many people have spent the past couple of years feeling wealthy thanks to those rising house prices and low financing rates. And when you feel rich, you tend to spend like you're rich. A good number have gone out and borrowed against their homes to renovate, or buy a cottage, or start a business. The trouble with this so-called "wealth effect" is that it can cut both ways. "Real estate prices can fall and you're still stuck with the debt," Tal says. Although he doesn't expect a sharp drop in the real estate market, a levelling off of prices could slow all that home equity borrowing, and leave people feeling nervous about their levels of debt, he says. That, in turn, could further constrain spending, reversing the cycle of economic growth.
Tal worries about the financial shocks that can strike without warning. Like hurricanes, they're hard to predict, yet they occur with regularity. And when consumers are building their financial plans, they'd do well to prepare for the unexpected.
The economic storm winds haven't even begun to blow - growth remains healthy and interest rates are still relatively low despite recent hikes - and yet there are already signs that more Canadians than ever have pushed their borrowing beyond what's manageable. There were 84,297 personal bankruptcies in 2003, up 52 per cent from a decade earlier, and 2004 is on pace to break that record.
Given all that, it's no wonder people are growing concerned about what will happen when interest rates climb higher. Earlier this year, a Maritz Research poll for Manulife Financial found that almost three-quarters of those polled had made little or no progress paying down their debts in the previous year, and 68 per cent expressed concern over the impact that rising rates might have on their finances. Another poll conducted by CIBC in July suggested that if mortgage rates climb back to the 10-per-cent range seen in the mid-1990s, the majority of homeowners would be hard-pressed to keep up with their mortgage payments.
Most economists don't foresee a return to those interest rate levels in the near future, but it's a prospect that keeps at least some Canadians from sleeping well at night. Mary and Russell Kent can certainly identify with that worry. They have the house they always dreamed of. They both have steady, well-paying jobs. And they have a solid plan to get out from under their debt. But when she looks at the mountain they have to climb, Mary admits she finds it daunting. "It's heavy-duty," she says. "I don't want to say it's unmanageable, because we're managing it and we're going to manage it. But it's heavy-duty." Russell agrees, but tries to sound a reassuring note. "My focus for the next few years is debt reduction. First my credit card, then Mary's. Then my lines of credit, then Mary's. It's going to be tight - and it'll take two or three years to do it. But we will do it."
See also CONSUMER CREDIT.
Maclean's December 6, 2004
Author STEVE MAICH
It's a philosophy Canadians lived by for generations, but these days it's not an easy mantra to follow. As interest rates drifted to the lowest levels in decades, consumers responded by buying everything from homes and cottages to cars and appliances. The shopping spree has fed a healthy cycle of economic growth and a robust job market - but we've gone deep into hock to pay for the good times. With every drop in interest rates, the definition of living within one's means changed - with financing like this, you too can afford a luxury condo! The notion of buying only what you could easily pay for became a meaningless principle.
And so this summer Russell Kent and his wife, Mary, joined the legions of other young families in opting to ignore the admonitions they'd heard from their parents and taking the plunge into homeownership. They bought a house in the suburbs north of Toronto - and in the process have run up their debts far above anything they'd ever imagined. The house cost more than the top amount they'd intended to spend. They had to drain much of their savings and load up on personal lines of credit to muster a 25 per cent down payment. In total, they now owe roughly $340,000, spread across a mortgage, three lines of credit and two credit cards. Every month, $920 goes to pay interest on the cards and bank lines, and another $1,460 toward the mortgage. Mary also spends $300 a month to lease her car. Debt payments eat up close to a third of their after-tax income. Russell says making ends meet over the next few years will be "like stretching a gnat's ass over a rain barrel."
If the Kents feel intimidated by the debt challenge ahead of them, they're not alone. Collectively, Canadian consumers now owe $752.1 billion, according to Bank of Canada, up 36 per cent in the past 10 years when adjusted for inflation. Over the same period, personal disposable income, or take-home pay, has risen 15 per cent. In other words, Canadians are piling on debt more than twice as fast as their income is growing.
While the debt surge has been mainly attributed to rock-bottom mortgage rates fuelling runaway house prices, the numbers suggest a stampede into real estate is only part of the story. At the end of 2003, Canadians held $517.7 billion in mortgages. That's the lion's share of all consumer debt, but as a percentage, housing debt represents a smaller portion than it did in 1995. Meanwhile, typically more expensive forms of borrowing, such as credit cards and personal credit lines, have become a much bigger part of Canadians' debt burden.
All of this has been affordable because low interest rates have kept payments on our myriad loans in check. But rates are now on the rise, and there are serious questions about how soon Canadians will start to feel the squeeze of their debt-financed comforts and indulgences.
To some it seems we've lost the discipline of planning for a rainy day. "As a society we have become addicted to low interest rates," says Benjamin Tal, senior economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto. "That means as consumers we're much more vulnerable to an economic shock, like a sudden rise in interest rates, a recession or a job loss. Many of us are now living paycheque to paycheque."
This vulnerability is best illustrated by the steady decline in the savings rate over the past two decades. In 1985, the average Canadian socked away 15.8 per cent of his take-home pay. It was that savings cushion that allowed this country to bounce back from economic disasters like the 1987 stock market crash and the 1990 collapse of the residential real estate market. A decade later, the savings rate had slipped to 9.2 per cent of after-tax income. By 2003, the average Canadian saved just 1.4 per cent of his pay.
There are lots of theories about the sociological impulses driving our love affair with credit and our ambivalence toward saving for tomorrow. Are they the logical extensions of our consumer culture? A timeless desire to keep up with the Joneses? Or is it just that the ideal of middle-class stability - a house, a car, kids - is moving further out of our financial reach? Mary Kent says she grew up wanting a house with a yard and trees - the kind of place she was raised and in which she could raise her own family. As she approached her 30s, she became willing to do whatever it took to achieve that goal. "When I walked into this house, I thought, 'I could be happy here forever,'" she says - and wanted it even if it meant stretching her resources to the limit.
But there are consequences to taking that kind of leap. Early this year, The Vanier Institute of the Family sounded the alarm with a report on the state of Canadian family finances, entitled "Living on the Edge." The study highlighted several worrying trends, such as a 20 per cent drop in average contributions to Registered Retirement Savings Plans between 1997 and 2002, and the fact that household spending continues to outpace income growth. "For far too many, the 'edge' is getting closer and closer," the report's author, Roger Sauvé, concluded. "A growing number will fall over the precipice when, and not if, interest rates begin to rise from their 40-year lows. Households need to rein in some of their spending, pay off some debt and build a bigger cushion against slower times. The time to act is now." The implication: Canada is facing nothing less than a crisis in financial planning.
For now, Sauvé's dire outlook puts him in the minority. Despite the sobering picture presented by the statistics, most economists reject any talk of a ticking debt bomb. Derek Holt, an economist at RBC Financial Group, says that fears over rising debt levels have been blown out of proportion, and that the stats underestimate consumers' ability to adjust to changing circumstances. In a March report, he sought to debunk several myths about household finances, including the notion that North Americans are taking on too much debt and saving too little.
Holt argues that the rising value of household assets - thanks especially to buoyant real estate prices - have largely offset ballooning debt. In both Canada and the United States, the vast majority of borrowing has been plowed into tangible investments rather than simply blown on pricey restaurants and expensive clothing. As for the record-low savings rate, Holt contends that rising house prices, together with the appreciating value of investments in retirement plans, are a form of saving because they serve to grow people's nest eggs. Once you take into account this often overlooked fact, he says, Canadians come out looking in much better shape than his gloomier colleagues suggest.
Adrienne Warren, an economist with Scotiabank, agrees, and adds it's not debt size but debt affordability that is at issue. Back in 1995, interest costs ate up 9.2 per cent of the average person's annual take-home pay. Last year, those costs were down to just 7.7 per cent. As long as interest rates rise gradually, Canadians should be able to easily afford their current debts, Warren says.
But there is one key assumption that underlies the confident case outlined by Holt, Warren and others: they all project that economic growth, job creation and real estate prices will remain roughly as healthy as they've been recently, or that any changes will happen slowly. Not everyone is convinced. CIBC's Tal, for one, fears that because Canadians have piled up debt like never before, even small changes in the economy could hit them hard.
For example, many people have spent the past couple of years feeling wealthy thanks to those rising house prices and low financing rates. And when you feel rich, you tend to spend like you're rich. A good number have gone out and borrowed against their homes to renovate, or buy a cottage, or start a business. The trouble with this so-called "wealth effect" is that it can cut both ways. "Real estate prices can fall and you're still stuck with the debt," Tal says. Although he doesn't expect a sharp drop in the real estate market, a levelling off of prices could slow all that home equity borrowing, and leave people feeling nervous about their levels of debt, he says. That, in turn, could further constrain spending, reversing the cycle of economic growth.
Tal worries about the financial shocks that can strike without warning. Like hurricanes, they're hard to predict, yet they occur with regularity. And when consumers are building their financial plans, they'd do well to prepare for the unexpected.
The economic storm winds haven't even begun to blow - growth remains healthy and interest rates are still relatively low despite recent hikes - and yet there are already signs that more Canadians than ever have pushed their borrowing beyond what's manageable. There were 84,297 personal bankruptcies in 2003, up 52 per cent from a decade earlier, and 2004 is on pace to break that record.
Given all that, it's no wonder people are growing concerned about what will happen when interest rates climb higher. Earlier this year, a Maritz Research poll for Manulife Financial found that almost three-quarters of those polled had made little or no progress paying down their debts in the previous year, and 68 per cent expressed concern over the impact that rising rates might have on their finances. Another poll conducted by CIBC in July suggested that if mortgage rates climb back to the 10-per-cent range seen in the mid-1990s, the majority of homeowners would be hard-pressed to keep up with their mortgage payments.
Most economists don't foresee a return to those interest rate levels in the near future, but it's a prospect that keeps at least some Canadians from sleeping well at night. Mary and Russell Kent can certainly identify with that worry. They have the house they always dreamed of. They both have steady, well-paying jobs. And they have a solid plan to get out from under their debt. But when she looks at the mountain they have to climb, Mary admits she finds it daunting. "It's heavy-duty," she says. "I don't want to say it's unmanageable, because we're managing it and we're going to manage it. But it's heavy-duty." Russell agrees, but tries to sound a reassuring note. "My focus for the next few years is debt reduction. First my credit card, then Mary's. Then my lines of credit, then Mary's. It's going to be tight - and it'll take two or three years to do it. But we will do it."
See also CONSUMER CREDIT.
Maclean's December 6, 2004
Author STEVE MAICH
Kosovo Declares Independence From Serbia.
Kosovo Declares Independence From Serbia
Feb 17, 10:34 AM (ET)
By NEBI QENA and WILLIAM J. KOLE
(AP) Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci greets the crowd as he walks in Kosovo's capital Pristina,...
PRISTINA, Kosovo (AP) - Kosovo declared itself a nation on Sunday, mounting a historic bid to become an "independent and democratic state" backed by the U.S. and key European allies but bitterly contested by Serbia and Russia.
"Kosovo is a republic - an independent, democratic and sovereign state," parliament speaker Jakup Krasniqi said as the chamber burst into applause. Krasniqi, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and President Fatmir Sejdiu signed the declaration, which was scripted on parchment.
Across the capital, Pristina, revelers danced in the streets, fired guns into the air and waved red and black Albanian flags in jubilation at the birth of the world's newest country.
Serbian President Boris Tadic immediately rejected the independence bid, saying his country will never accept Kosovo's "unilateral and illegal" declaration.
(AP) Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci speaks during the parliament convention in Pristina, Kosovo, ...
Sunday's declaration was carefully orchestrated with the U.S. and key European powers, and Kosovo was counting on swift international recognition that could come as early as Monday, when EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels, Belgium.
"From today onwards, Kosovo is proud, independent and free," said Thaci, a former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which battled Serbian troops in a 1998-99 separatist war that claimed 10,000 lives. "We never lost faith in the dream that one day we would stand among the free nations of the world, and today we do."
"Our hopes have never been higher," he told the assembly. "Dreams are infinite, our challenges loom large, but nothing can deter us from moving forward to the greatness that history has reserved for us."
Thaci pledged that the new nation would be "a democratic, multiethnic state" - an attempt to reach out to Serbs who consider Kosovo the cradle of their medieval culture and religion.
But he also had stern words for the Serbian government, which last week declared secession illegal and invalid, saying in the Serbian language: "Kosovo will never be ruled by Belgrade again."
Reacting to the declaration, Serbian President Tadic urged international organizations "to immediately annul this act, which violates the basic principles of international law."
Feb 17, 10:34 AM (ET)
By NEBI QENA and WILLIAM J. KOLE
(AP) Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci greets the crowd as he walks in Kosovo's capital Pristina,...
PRISTINA, Kosovo (AP) - Kosovo declared itself a nation on Sunday, mounting a historic bid to become an "independent and democratic state" backed by the U.S. and key European allies but bitterly contested by Serbia and Russia.
"Kosovo is a republic - an independent, democratic and sovereign state," parliament speaker Jakup Krasniqi said as the chamber burst into applause. Krasniqi, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and President Fatmir Sejdiu signed the declaration, which was scripted on parchment.
Across the capital, Pristina, revelers danced in the streets, fired guns into the air and waved red and black Albanian flags in jubilation at the birth of the world's newest country.
Serbian President Boris Tadic immediately rejected the independence bid, saying his country will never accept Kosovo's "unilateral and illegal" declaration.
(AP) Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci speaks during the parliament convention in Pristina, Kosovo, ...
Sunday's declaration was carefully orchestrated with the U.S. and key European powers, and Kosovo was counting on swift international recognition that could come as early as Monday, when EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels, Belgium.
"From today onwards, Kosovo is proud, independent and free," said Thaci, a former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which battled Serbian troops in a 1998-99 separatist war that claimed 10,000 lives. "We never lost faith in the dream that one day we would stand among the free nations of the world, and today we do."
"Our hopes have never been higher," he told the assembly. "Dreams are infinite, our challenges loom large, but nothing can deter us from moving forward to the greatness that history has reserved for us."
Thaci pledged that the new nation would be "a democratic, multiethnic state" - an attempt to reach out to Serbs who consider Kosovo the cradle of their medieval culture and religion.
But he also had stern words for the Serbian government, which last week declared secession illegal and invalid, saying in the Serbian language: "Kosovo will never be ruled by Belgrade again."
Reacting to the declaration, Serbian President Tadic urged international organizations "to immediately annul this act, which violates the basic principles of international law."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
THE USA POLICE HAVE "NO AFFIRMTIVE DUTY" TO PROTECT US.
This makes it very clear - the burden to defend and or use deadly force, is a RIGHT that lies with you personally to ACT accordingly and appropriately should you fear for your life and/or limb.
Affirmative duty to protect. Cf. Reciprocal obligations;
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist's wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965) (In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer's alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the ‘Watts' Riots' of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) (A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department.
The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. "The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled ‘discretionary' or ‘ministerial.'"); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Affirmative duty to protect. Cf. Reciprocal obligations;
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist's wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965) (In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer's alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the ‘Watts' Riots' of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) (A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department.
The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. "The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled ‘discretionary' or ‘ministerial.'"); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Make Big Profits Illegally (and Maybe Keep Them, Too)
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: February 15, 2008
There is not much doubt that Oleksandr Dorozhko used inside information when he made a killing trading stock options last fall. Nor is there a dispute that he gained the information illegally. His lawyer, arguing before an appeals court this week, spoke of “a high-tech lock pick.”
But that does not mean that Mr. Dorozhko, a Ukrainian resident, will have to forfeit the $296,456 he earned in one day of trading, beginning just hours before the company in question announced disappointing earnings. The Securities and Exchange Commission blocked him from collecting the profits from his brokerage account, but a federal judge has ordered the S.E.C. to let him have the cash.
The hearing this week, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, was on the S.E.C.’s request for an emergency order to keep the money frozen. If the commission loses, the case against Mr. Dorozhko will effectively be over. Even if the S.E.C. later won the case, the chances of collecting a judgment in Ukraine would be slim at best.
This situation exists because of a strange anomaly in American securities laws. A person who legally obtains insider information — as a corporate official or an investment banker, for example — will almost certainly break the securities law if he or she trades on the basis of that information before it is made public.
But it is far less clear that someone who illegally gets their hands on such information will have violated the securities laws by trading on it. The securities law used to bring insider trading charges — Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act — talks of “a deceptive device or contrivance,” and it is not clear that there is any deception involved in simple theft.
“Dorozhko’s alleged ‘stealing and trading’ or ‘hacking and trading’ does not amount to a violation” of securities laws, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of United States District Court ruled last month. Although he may have broken laws by stealing the information, the judge concluded, “Dorozhko did not breach any fiduciary or similar duty ‘in connection with’ the purchase or sale of a security.” She ordered the S.E.C. to let him have his profits.
She refused to dismiss the case, saying the S.E.C. could try to prove he got a tip from an insider, but there does not appear to be any evidence of that. Instead, the evidence indicates that on Oct. 17, 2007, someone hacked into a computer system that had information on an earnings announcement to be made by IMS Health a few hours later.
Minutes after the breach of computer security, Mr. Dorozhko invested $41,671 in put options that would expire worthless three days later unless IMS shares plunged before that. The next morning the share price did plunge, and Mr. Dorozhko made his money by selling the puts.
The S.E.C. argues there was deception involved in hacking into the computer system, which was designed to allow access only to authorized people.
That view drew scorn from Charles A. Ross, Mr. Dorozhko’s lawyer, at the appellate hearing Wednesday. “They want you to believe there is a deception of a computer,” he said. “All there is is a high-tech lock pick.”
That argument seemed to draw some sympathy from one of the three judges hearing the appeal. “You deceived a machine,” said Judge Sonia Sotomayor, invoking the image of Big Brother from George Orwell’s novel, “1984.” “We are treating a machine as a person.”
Judge Buchwald’s ruling was the first one to address the S.E.C.’s theory of deception by hacking from overseas. Two previous cases were filed, but one was settled and in the other the defendants chose to forfeit $1.6 million rather than fight the charges. If her opinion stands, it will be very hard for the commission to go after hackers in the future.
The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking. The government has offered no explanation for that, but it is possible the department saw no likelihood of ever being able to arrest Mr. Dorozhko, and did not think the case worth the trouble.
The judge also noted that case law could have developed differently, harking back to Justice Harry Blackmun’s dissent to the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision that reversed the insider trading conviction of Vincent Chiarella, a financial printer who learned of takeover targets from his work and traded on the information. The court, Justice Blackmun wrote then, was moving in a direction “that catches relatively little of the misbehavior that all too often makes investment in securities a needlessly risky business for the uninitiated investor.”
Donald Langevoort, a law professor at Georgetown University and the author of a treatise on insider trading law, said in an interview that he thought the S.E.C. should prevail in the case. “Did he commit fraud? Yes,” Mr. Langevoort said. “Was it for the purpose of obtaining a trading advantage? Yes. Why should that not reach the level of the statute?”
The appeals court will decide soon if the asset freeze stands, but a ruling on whether Judge Buchwald correctly interpreted the law, if it comes at all, is many months away. She would first have to dismiss the case.
In the meantime, Congress could clear all this up with a simple amendment to clarify the law. “The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws,” Mr. Langevoort said.
As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his dissent in the Chiarella case, “A person who has misappropriated nonpublic information has an absolute duty to disclose that information or to refrain from trading.” If it is illegal to trade on information acquired legally, why should it be legal to trade on information that was acquired illegally?
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: February 15, 2008
There is not much doubt that Oleksandr Dorozhko used inside information when he made a killing trading stock options last fall. Nor is there a dispute that he gained the information illegally. His lawyer, arguing before an appeals court this week, spoke of “a high-tech lock pick.”
But that does not mean that Mr. Dorozhko, a Ukrainian resident, will have to forfeit the $296,456 he earned in one day of trading, beginning just hours before the company in question announced disappointing earnings. The Securities and Exchange Commission blocked him from collecting the profits from his brokerage account, but a federal judge has ordered the S.E.C. to let him have the cash.
The hearing this week, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, was on the S.E.C.’s request for an emergency order to keep the money frozen. If the commission loses, the case against Mr. Dorozhko will effectively be over. Even if the S.E.C. later won the case, the chances of collecting a judgment in Ukraine would be slim at best.
This situation exists because of a strange anomaly in American securities laws. A person who legally obtains insider information — as a corporate official or an investment banker, for example — will almost certainly break the securities law if he or she trades on the basis of that information before it is made public.
But it is far less clear that someone who illegally gets their hands on such information will have violated the securities laws by trading on it. The securities law used to bring insider trading charges — Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act — talks of “a deceptive device or contrivance,” and it is not clear that there is any deception involved in simple theft.
“Dorozhko’s alleged ‘stealing and trading’ or ‘hacking and trading’ does not amount to a violation” of securities laws, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of United States District Court ruled last month. Although he may have broken laws by stealing the information, the judge concluded, “Dorozhko did not breach any fiduciary or similar duty ‘in connection with’ the purchase or sale of a security.” She ordered the S.E.C. to let him have his profits.
She refused to dismiss the case, saying the S.E.C. could try to prove he got a tip from an insider, but there does not appear to be any evidence of that. Instead, the evidence indicates that on Oct. 17, 2007, someone hacked into a computer system that had information on an earnings announcement to be made by IMS Health a few hours later.
Minutes after the breach of computer security, Mr. Dorozhko invested $41,671 in put options that would expire worthless three days later unless IMS shares plunged before that. The next morning the share price did plunge, and Mr. Dorozhko made his money by selling the puts.
The S.E.C. argues there was deception involved in hacking into the computer system, which was designed to allow access only to authorized people.
That view drew scorn from Charles A. Ross, Mr. Dorozhko’s lawyer, at the appellate hearing Wednesday. “They want you to believe there is a deception of a computer,” he said. “All there is is a high-tech lock pick.”
That argument seemed to draw some sympathy from one of the three judges hearing the appeal. “You deceived a machine,” said Judge Sonia Sotomayor, invoking the image of Big Brother from George Orwell’s novel, “1984.” “We are treating a machine as a person.”
Judge Buchwald’s ruling was the first one to address the S.E.C.’s theory of deception by hacking from overseas. Two previous cases were filed, but one was settled and in the other the defendants chose to forfeit $1.6 million rather than fight the charges. If her opinion stands, it will be very hard for the commission to go after hackers in the future.
The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking. The government has offered no explanation for that, but it is possible the department saw no likelihood of ever being able to arrest Mr. Dorozhko, and did not think the case worth the trouble.
The judge also noted that case law could have developed differently, harking back to Justice Harry Blackmun’s dissent to the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision that reversed the insider trading conviction of Vincent Chiarella, a financial printer who learned of takeover targets from his work and traded on the information. The court, Justice Blackmun wrote then, was moving in a direction “that catches relatively little of the misbehavior that all too often makes investment in securities a needlessly risky business for the uninitiated investor.”
Donald Langevoort, a law professor at Georgetown University and the author of a treatise on insider trading law, said in an interview that he thought the S.E.C. should prevail in the case. “Did he commit fraud? Yes,” Mr. Langevoort said. “Was it for the purpose of obtaining a trading advantage? Yes. Why should that not reach the level of the statute?”
The appeals court will decide soon if the asset freeze stands, but a ruling on whether Judge Buchwald correctly interpreted the law, if it comes at all, is many months away. She would first have to dismiss the case.
In the meantime, Congress could clear all this up with a simple amendment to clarify the law. “The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws,” Mr. Langevoort said.
As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his dissent in the Chiarella case, “A person who has misappropriated nonpublic information has an absolute duty to disclose that information or to refrain from trading.” If it is illegal to trade on information acquired legally, why should it be legal to trade on information that was acquired illegally?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Mogambo guru - Prehistoric Problems With Fiat Currency.
Prehistoric Problems With Fiat Currency
"And it is made absolutely terrifying when you learn that all of the money that has been lost is, amazingly, borrowed and is still owed! Hahaha! This is the downside of having an economic system where debt creates money! Hahaha!"
As I was reading the first paragraph of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin at PrudentBear.com, I was struck by how many year-to-date stock market sector losses there are, which are also (since this is just the early part of February) the losses of one freaking month! One month! Yikes!
As my boss so recently said to me in reviewing my job performance, "Let's take a look at the damage shall we?" He had this strange, twisted smile on his face as he said it, which was (it turned out) a Very Bad Sign (VBS) of what was to come, which seems so obvious in retrospect.
But I was already attuned to the fact that something was amiss, as we were in his office, the doors were closed, his secretary was taking everything all down in her little pad, and Carl from Rabid Dog Security Service was standing by the door, looking more menacing than usual.
So, similarly, I say, "Let's take a look, shall we?", as a way of being ominous. The losses are; down 8.2%, down 9.3%, down 7.1%, down 7.6%, 8.3%, 7.5%, 14.9%, 14.6%, 14.3%, 11.4%, 12.1%, 7.6%, 6.1%, and 0.7%, down, down, down! Whew! These are staggering, staggering losses!
The only two things that were up year-to-date were the Dow Transport index (up 3.1%) and HUI gold index (up 8.4%).
And from news.bbc.co.uk we get January's results from representative of the largest stock markets around the world as being down 22.7%, down 21.4%, down 16.1%, down 16%, 12.3%, 8.9%, and 6% down, down, down! 50 out of 52 stock markets in the world were down, so that $5.2 trillion was lost in January alone!
I think I know why, and the evidence is contained in many places. The first place is in my clinical record, which chronicles my incessant fixation and fear about inflation in prices that always follows inflation in the money supply, usually thanks to a fiat currency, or banking excesses, or (as we disastrously have now) both at once.
Even though most Earthlings do not like to be told how stupid they are, it is a good thing that they are stupid, because if "homo dumbo" truly, truly comprehended the sheer horrifying enormity of what is going to happen because of all of this incomprehensible debt and leverage financed by the Federal Reserve, they would crap in their pants in sheer terror and it would stink like hell.
Another place to look for evidence is anywhere you look in the whole history of the freaking world, even little dip-squat little prehistoric places out in the middle of nowhere, where the primitive people used mastodon crap for money, which was stupid because there was mastodon crap everywhere, and so the money supply was unlimited, so inflation destroyed them all, too, but who can almost be excused for adopting such a stupid money and economic system because they had tiny little brains, and whose entire language system apparently consisted of about 30 words, 5 of them being various nuances of "mastodon crap".
In short, Every Freaking Time (EFT) in that selfsame history of the world that a moron country tried to make an economy out of a fiat currency or mastodon crap (which differ only in the kind of wallet you have to carry around), they failed catastrophically as the inflation in prices from such a huge inflation in the money supply destroyed them all, and there were lots and lots of angry, angry people all along the way.
And the other EFT thing is that every freaking time that the banks were allowed to vastly multiply the money supply to abet the scams of lying financial sharpies and/or the government (as eerily redundant as the terms are), the country also failed catastrophically from inflation in prices, and there were lots and lots of angry, angry people all along the way.
In case you were wondering, the only economies that did NOT fail for monetary/inflationary reasons were those that used gold and silver as money, which meant that the money supply was always a relative constant. And that is why the Founding Fathers put it into the damned Constitution of the United States of America that only gold and silver can be money. And while we are talking about it, the Constitution didn't say anything about allowing a central bank to be given total control over the money and economy!
To prove it, I present Jim Cook of InvestmentRarities.com, who, in his essay, "Sweeping Towards Destruction", quotes George Washington warning in a letter, "Paper money will…ruin commerce, oppress the honest and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
And history shows that sound money worked like a charm, too, as we learn from the essay, "Dishonest Scales" by Larry Beane writing at LewRockwell.com. He writes that, "From 1790-1913, the United States dollar was constant. It was tied to gold and/or silver. A dollar bought pretty much the same thing for Thomas Jefferson as it did for Teddy Roosevelt. A careful look at inflation rates from 1790-1913 shows some minor fluctuation, but for the most part, a 1913 dollar was the same as an 1850 dollar, and was the same as a 1790 dollar." Now that's money!
I can see you nodding off, as my predictable "gold is money" tirade is old stuff to some of you, but this is not about gold, but about how people are losing money, lots of money.
And it is made absolutely terrifying when you learn that all of the money that has been lost is, amazingly, borrowed and is still owed! Hahaha! This is the downside of having an economic system where debt creates money! Hahaha!
In other words, the asset you bought with the borrowed money may be gone, but the debt remains until defaulted upon, which kind of rhymes, so you know it must be true, especially if it was sung by somebody famous and it had a really killer guitar solo, too, in the middle, going waaahhh aaaa wahhhhh! Waaahhh aaaa wahhhhh!
And not only that, but the humongous clot of money and debt was originally used, not to expand production of goods and services demanded by the free market and thus raising the general standard of living, but to expand the size of governments, their programs and the sheer number of people whose incomes depend on it, until total government spending is now, even nominally, half of GDP! Hahaha! We're so freaking doomed!
At this point I will pause in my lecture, as I seem to be gagging up blood at the sheer horror of such a thing, and I feel a cold, clammy chill sweep over me, sort of like when I ate those ten-cent tacos and got sick as a dog. I knew I shouldn't eat them, as they smelled kind of bad and tasted weird… But damn! They were only ten cents apiece! A dime! Think of the money I saved!
It was, in retrospect, the best dollar I ever spent on food, as I was not hungry again for a week, and I lost a lot of weight from throwing up and squirting into the toilet all the time.
So I ended up with a better mass/height ratio and saved even more money by not eating, since nothing would stay down for the first few days!
But this is not about me and how I no longer buy food from guys I happened to meet in the parking lot of an adult bookstore, regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, but about all the losses in all the stock markets, and how I say it is because of inflation that is killing us all.
Finally back on track, Mr. Noland posts the chart of the CRB Commodity Index, which looks like the index has risen to about 370 from about 230 in mid-2003! Prices are 61% higher than they were five years ago! That's 10% a year inflation! I was right! Inflation is killing us!
And if that ain't a "case closed" on the failure of the Federal Reserve's stated mission to maintain stability of prices/value of the dollar, then, as they say, grits ain't groceries!
"And it is made absolutely terrifying when you learn that all of the money that has been lost is, amazingly, borrowed and is still owed! Hahaha! This is the downside of having an economic system where debt creates money! Hahaha!"
As I was reading the first paragraph of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin at PrudentBear.com, I was struck by how many year-to-date stock market sector losses there are, which are also (since this is just the early part of February) the losses of one freaking month! One month! Yikes!
As my boss so recently said to me in reviewing my job performance, "Let's take a look at the damage shall we?" He had this strange, twisted smile on his face as he said it, which was (it turned out) a Very Bad Sign (VBS) of what was to come, which seems so obvious in retrospect.
But I was already attuned to the fact that something was amiss, as we were in his office, the doors were closed, his secretary was taking everything all down in her little pad, and Carl from Rabid Dog Security Service was standing by the door, looking more menacing than usual.
So, similarly, I say, "Let's take a look, shall we?", as a way of being ominous. The losses are; down 8.2%, down 9.3%, down 7.1%, down 7.6%, 8.3%, 7.5%, 14.9%, 14.6%, 14.3%, 11.4%, 12.1%, 7.6%, 6.1%, and 0.7%, down, down, down! Whew! These are staggering, staggering losses!
The only two things that were up year-to-date were the Dow Transport index (up 3.1%) and HUI gold index (up 8.4%).
And from news.bbc.co.uk we get January's results from representative of the largest stock markets around the world as being down 22.7%, down 21.4%, down 16.1%, down 16%, 12.3%, 8.9%, and 6% down, down, down! 50 out of 52 stock markets in the world were down, so that $5.2 trillion was lost in January alone!
I think I know why, and the evidence is contained in many places. The first place is in my clinical record, which chronicles my incessant fixation and fear about inflation in prices that always follows inflation in the money supply, usually thanks to a fiat currency, or banking excesses, or (as we disastrously have now) both at once.
Even though most Earthlings do not like to be told how stupid they are, it is a good thing that they are stupid, because if "homo dumbo" truly, truly comprehended the sheer horrifying enormity of what is going to happen because of all of this incomprehensible debt and leverage financed by the Federal Reserve, they would crap in their pants in sheer terror and it would stink like hell.
Another place to look for evidence is anywhere you look in the whole history of the freaking world, even little dip-squat little prehistoric places out in the middle of nowhere, where the primitive people used mastodon crap for money, which was stupid because there was mastodon crap everywhere, and so the money supply was unlimited, so inflation destroyed them all, too, but who can almost be excused for adopting such a stupid money and economic system because they had tiny little brains, and whose entire language system apparently consisted of about 30 words, 5 of them being various nuances of "mastodon crap".
In short, Every Freaking Time (EFT) in that selfsame history of the world that a moron country tried to make an economy out of a fiat currency or mastodon crap (which differ only in the kind of wallet you have to carry around), they failed catastrophically as the inflation in prices from such a huge inflation in the money supply destroyed them all, and there were lots and lots of angry, angry people all along the way.
And the other EFT thing is that every freaking time that the banks were allowed to vastly multiply the money supply to abet the scams of lying financial sharpies and/or the government (as eerily redundant as the terms are), the country also failed catastrophically from inflation in prices, and there were lots and lots of angry, angry people all along the way.
In case you were wondering, the only economies that did NOT fail for monetary/inflationary reasons were those that used gold and silver as money, which meant that the money supply was always a relative constant. And that is why the Founding Fathers put it into the damned Constitution of the United States of America that only gold and silver can be money. And while we are talking about it, the Constitution didn't say anything about allowing a central bank to be given total control over the money and economy!
To prove it, I present Jim Cook of InvestmentRarities.com, who, in his essay, "Sweeping Towards Destruction", quotes George Washington warning in a letter, "Paper money will…ruin commerce, oppress the honest and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
And history shows that sound money worked like a charm, too, as we learn from the essay, "Dishonest Scales" by Larry Beane writing at LewRockwell.com. He writes that, "From 1790-1913, the United States dollar was constant. It was tied to gold and/or silver. A dollar bought pretty much the same thing for Thomas Jefferson as it did for Teddy Roosevelt. A careful look at inflation rates from 1790-1913 shows some minor fluctuation, but for the most part, a 1913 dollar was the same as an 1850 dollar, and was the same as a 1790 dollar." Now that's money!
I can see you nodding off, as my predictable "gold is money" tirade is old stuff to some of you, but this is not about gold, but about how people are losing money, lots of money.
And it is made absolutely terrifying when you learn that all of the money that has been lost is, amazingly, borrowed and is still owed! Hahaha! This is the downside of having an economic system where debt creates money! Hahaha!
In other words, the asset you bought with the borrowed money may be gone, but the debt remains until defaulted upon, which kind of rhymes, so you know it must be true, especially if it was sung by somebody famous and it had a really killer guitar solo, too, in the middle, going waaahhh aaaa wahhhhh! Waaahhh aaaa wahhhhh!
And not only that, but the humongous clot of money and debt was originally used, not to expand production of goods and services demanded by the free market and thus raising the general standard of living, but to expand the size of governments, their programs and the sheer number of people whose incomes depend on it, until total government spending is now, even nominally, half of GDP! Hahaha! We're so freaking doomed!
At this point I will pause in my lecture, as I seem to be gagging up blood at the sheer horror of such a thing, and I feel a cold, clammy chill sweep over me, sort of like when I ate those ten-cent tacos and got sick as a dog. I knew I shouldn't eat them, as they smelled kind of bad and tasted weird… But damn! They were only ten cents apiece! A dime! Think of the money I saved!
It was, in retrospect, the best dollar I ever spent on food, as I was not hungry again for a week, and I lost a lot of weight from throwing up and squirting into the toilet all the time.
So I ended up with a better mass/height ratio and saved even more money by not eating, since nothing would stay down for the first few days!
But this is not about me and how I no longer buy food from guys I happened to meet in the parking lot of an adult bookstore, regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, but about all the losses in all the stock markets, and how I say it is because of inflation that is killing us all.
Finally back on track, Mr. Noland posts the chart of the CRB Commodity Index, which looks like the index has risen to about 370 from about 230 in mid-2003! Prices are 61% higher than they were five years ago! That's 10% a year inflation! I was right! Inflation is killing us!
And if that ain't a "case closed" on the failure of the Federal Reserve's stated mission to maintain stability of prices/value of the dollar, then, as they say, grits ain't groceries!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)