It's been suggested before only as a joke, now let me reiterate it as a half-joke. If printing money is the answer to massive debts and global deflation could we ask that central banks print money on toilet paper so that it's rendered useful if zimbabwe-style inflation sets in? If the quality of paper is smooth and rectum-friendly we won't need foreign exchange markets either. We can just barter, trade, swap, insure or invest in each country's toilet paper comparative advantage. And unlike forex markets, almost every single person in the world uses toilet paper. We're talking of a potential 7-billion-people-essentially-single-currency economy here. Keep it in mind please!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Showing posts with label market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label market. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
madoff hitman fund for companies
the name for a hitman fund after bernard madoff. basically investors and shareholders in a company set aside money to pay hitmen to take out swindlers, crooks and fraudsters. make it a requirement for banks, hedge funds, insurance and investment companies of any kind. benefits? delivers swift justice and guarantees efficient functioning of the markets as fraudsters must think about their life before they decide to swindle.
usually the real culprits behind big-time frauds tend to write books, give seminars, stay famous and continue to live in luxury a few years after the scandal. so instead of innocent investors who have been defrauded committing suicide, how about the real culprits get punished for a change? the current state of affairs is pitiful. hitmen contracts must be written in the bylaws of companies and kick-in automatically. if they don't prevent people from committing fraud, they will apply rightful justice after!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
usually the real culprits behind big-time frauds tend to write books, give seminars, stay famous and continue to live in luxury a few years after the scandal. so instead of innocent investors who have been defrauded committing suicide, how about the real culprits get punished for a change? the current state of affairs is pitiful. hitmen contracts must be written in the bylaws of companies and kick-in automatically. if they don't prevent people from committing fraud, they will apply rightful justice after!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Message to Obama: Don't markets amply reward value anyway?
The message from the Obama team is that we have to reward people who add value to the economy by producing real products and services instead of rewarding bankers with sky-high bonuses and salaries which they haven't really earned nor they deserve. While I agree with the principle that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded and people who don't should not, I'm very confused by that message being repeated by Obama over and over.
Entrepreneurs who add value by innovating and creating successful new products do get rewarded very handsomely. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin etc. These people Are rich unlike bankers who get paid well but receive nowhere near the rewards successful entrepreneurs receive.
When there is no money around to give, bankers get fired. When there is, bankers get it. When a banker gets a high bonus, it's because he has earned it. When he hasn't earned it but still gets it, it is because the government gives it to him. My point is that bankers don't create money out of nothing, they get it from somewhere.
So long as they can be creating ways to get it, it sounds awkward to say that we need to reward other professionals more, unless Obama means we disperse taxpayers money directly into other professionals' bank accounts as bonuses for services or products they have not yet created or might never will. Just like he did with recent AIG and Citigroup bonuses for example. At least I can understand how that works. Hey you failed but here is your paycheck. I, the government, give it to you.
Saying however, that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded more than bankers who don't add any value, that I don't understand. Doesn't the market already reward successful people in every field anyway? What's wrong with that to want to make it work otherwise or differently? I don't understand why and how, in a merit-based market economy the reward system should change.
For the government to say we got to change the reward system in our market-based economy when the government rewards failed bankers with taxpayers' money it's confusing and convoluted. If the government gave the money to the failed bankers already, that means that they somehow deserved it, so be clear with your message Obama, what exactly do you mean when you say other workers should be rewarded more than bankers in a market-based economy that already rewards success in the market? Do you plan to play market or do you plan to subsidize the market? Or are you just saying?
You know, just stop paying high bonuses to Failed bankers and we are back to square one. Let them fail. Regulate. Simple. Stop preaching if your actions don't measure up to the message. Stop preaching about not wanting to reward failure in the system when you have already rewarded failure by keeping failed banks alive. Not cool.
Market failure and regulation is change we can understand and already believe in. That's why we elected you anyway. Be cool.
http://thinkaloo.com
Entrepreneurs who add value by innovating and creating successful new products do get rewarded very handsomely. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin etc. These people Are rich unlike bankers who get paid well but receive nowhere near the rewards successful entrepreneurs receive.
When there is no money around to give, bankers get fired. When there is, bankers get it. When a banker gets a high bonus, it's because he has earned it. When he hasn't earned it but still gets it, it is because the government gives it to him. My point is that bankers don't create money out of nothing, they get it from somewhere.
So long as they can be creating ways to get it, it sounds awkward to say that we need to reward other professionals more, unless Obama means we disperse taxpayers money directly into other professionals' bank accounts as bonuses for services or products they have not yet created or might never will. Just like he did with recent AIG and Citigroup bonuses for example. At least I can understand how that works. Hey you failed but here is your paycheck. I, the government, give it to you.
Saying however, that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded more than bankers who don't add any value, that I don't understand. Doesn't the market already reward successful people in every field anyway? What's wrong with that to want to make it work otherwise or differently? I don't understand why and how, in a merit-based market economy the reward system should change.
For the government to say we got to change the reward system in our market-based economy when the government rewards failed bankers with taxpayers' money it's confusing and convoluted. If the government gave the money to the failed bankers already, that means that they somehow deserved it, so be clear with your message Obama, what exactly do you mean when you say other workers should be rewarded more than bankers in a market-based economy that already rewards success in the market? Do you plan to play market or do you plan to subsidize the market? Or are you just saying?
You know, just stop paying high bonuses to Failed bankers and we are back to square one. Let them fail. Regulate. Simple. Stop preaching if your actions don't measure up to the message. Stop preaching about not wanting to reward failure in the system when you have already rewarded failure by keeping failed banks alive. Not cool.
Market failure and regulation is change we can understand and already believe in. That's why we elected you anyway. Be cool.
http://thinkaloo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
