Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Investment Banging and Gambling

If you want more bang for your buck gamble it up. The practice is legit, made off first in the US banging and gambling industry which is going down the pipes of disrepute faster than you can say myth or spin. Or faster than even Madoff's wife can get a divorce from him. What else is left to make off? If someone works for the government that person is considered to be a civil servant. Why not call all remaining bankers whose banks were bailed out by the government civil servants too? The irony with civil servant bankers and traders is that their new job status wasn't made up but made off from sitting on a ticking bomb!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Does a smile worth paying for?

Imagine companies decided one day to charge for servicing us with a smile. Press 1 if you would like this service with a smile (small charge applies). Press 2 if you don't like to be served with a smile (get a discount). Press 1 and a beautiful Colgate-smile will soon be with you. Press 2 to save money. Why do we take it for granted that people will serve us with a smile on their face?

A smile doesn't pay for services so why do we expect it from others? They say we should all pay our tax with a smile. I tried...but they wanted cash!! Now that they made me lose my naivete, I am wondering. A smile is worth nothing to the government when you give it freely. But it might be worth something to the economy.

When people are sad and depressed from losing their jobs and dreams, going around with a smile is economic viagra. The government should make my smile tax-deductible and lower my taxes. Fine, you want cash?

Press 1 to pay with a smile (discount applies). Press 2 to pay the full amount...

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Can we make deals with criminals?

Each year governments spend X amount of money to catch criminals and bring them to justice. If criminals agreed to reduce their activities by 50% that would bring down the cost of crime for the government. If governments agree to reimburse criminals by that amount when they come out of jail and on that basis criminals agreed to reduce crime, would that be an acceptable deal to make?

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Friday, May 1, 2009

Make money creating the crisis. Make money solving it!

Here's the skinny. The guy gives tons of loans to people who can't afford them and sets the stage for the sub-prime crisis. The crisis erupts. He buys the loans back from the government ridiculously cheaper than the government bought them from the banks using taxpayers money. As a result he can afford to lower the interest homeowners pay on those loans and still make a 20% profit from them. Desperate to keep their houses, homeowners will gladly say thank you to him for helping them keep their houses.

And I want to ask a very simple question. Why is the government selling the loans to him? Why can't the government hire Him or other people like him to do the job of lowering the interest rate on those loans itself? Why let Him do the job via PennyMac and let Him keep the 20% profit? Why not have the government do the job and return the 20% profit to taxpayers whose money it used to buy the loans in the first place?

Is our government stupid, incapable or what? Or is the former No2 of Countrywide Financial that brilliant?

I have to say, just by looking at the name of his company PennyMac, he is a brilliant shyster. Penny for thriftiness and Mac for creative! Son-of-a...spiv :((

Check the full story here

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

The wisdom of relying on one president

This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 3 April 2008 by member stormy

Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people

---

Have you ever thought to challenge the wisdom of relying on one president as the final authority on all matters of government? Why not vote for as many different presidents responsible for different policy areas as there are cabinet members? It is more democratic, more engaging and can be more efficient if authority and decision-making is clearly delineated! What is your opinion?