Bill Gates, one of the worlds top philanthropists social reformers, was born today October 28 (1955).
He is the worlds third richest person (Feb. 2008), and the second richest American (Oct. 2008).
Mr. Gates had his last full day at his company (Microsoft) June 27, 2008 and has announced that he plans to transition to full time work at his transparently operated (open meetings, financial disclosure statements, etc.), "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation."
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was created when public opinion decided that he could do more with his money. The charitable organization began as the William H. Gates Foundation (in 1994) and was inspired by the work of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. In 2000, Gates and his wife combined three family foundations to create the current, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
For more info on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation click below
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation focuses on problems that are ignored by governments and other organizations. As of 2007 Bill and Melinda Gates have given over $28 billion to charity, making them second most generous philanthropists in America.
The primary aims of the foundation are to enhance health care and reduce extreme poverty on a global level. In the United States they plan to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.
The Foundation is controlled by three trustees:
1. Bill Gates
2. Melinda Gates
3. Warren Buffett
They are leaders in "Venture Philanthropy."
Venture Philanthropy, also known as "philanthrocapitalism", takes concepts and techniques from venture capital finance and high technology business management and applies them to achieving philanthropic goals.
Venture Philanthropy is characterized by
- Having the readiness to experiment and take chances on new ideas.
- Staying focused on results that can be measured. Donors and grantees check progress based on benchmarks that are determined collectively.
- Being prepared to shift funds between organizations and goals based on tracking those results.
- Giving, financial, intellectual, and human capital
- Funding on a multi-year basis - typically a minimum of 3 years, on average 5-7 years.
- Focus on capacity building, instead of programs or general operating expenses.
- High involvement by donors with their grantees.
The foundation was initially funded with $126 Million in 2000. The fund grew to $2 Billion in two years. On June 25, 2006, Warren Buffet pledged to give 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares ($30 Billion) spread over multiple years through annual contributions. "Buffett's gift came with three conditions for the Gates foundation: Bill or Melinda Gates must be alive and active in its administration; it must continue to qualify as a charity; and each year it must give away an amount equal to the previous year's Berkshire gift, plus another 5 percent of net assets. Buffett gave the foundation two years to abide by the third requirement." The Gates Foundation received 5% (500,000) of the shares in July 2006 and will receive 5% of the remaining earmarked shares in the July of each following year.
To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year.
In October 2006 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was split into two entities: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the endowment assets and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (conducts all operations and grantmaking work, and is the entity from which all grants are made). It was also announced that there was a decision to spend all of the Trust's resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths. Reason being, that they wanted to ensure that the Foundation Trust not fall into a situation where the vast majority of its expenditures are on administrative costs, including salaries, with only token amounts contributed to charitable causes.
It is refreshing to see uncorrupted influence, a thing to which we can all aspire. Happy Birthday Bill Gates.
Read more...
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Billionaire Philanthropist: 1 Year Older
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A Closer Look At Religion
For so long, the existence of, the gifts from, and the belief in a God have been topics so harshly disputed that they have created diabolical feuds between schools of thought and even wars between countries. To decide absolutely would be an obvious demonstration of ignorance, yet to take sides would be an expected manifestation of human nature. The question as to which side you are going to be on is really not even the main question—nine times out of ten your parents already decided that for you. Yet it is far too often that after choosing sides, we neglect to maintain a mind open enough to analyze not just the possibility of the other side being true (which many have done) but also what would one’s personal life actually be like if the other side was found to be assuredly correct. We see with eyes closed, and with mouths speaking. We deem automatic the truth of our beliefs, because they are our beliefs. We need to look closer.
With God out of the picture I stand in front of the metaphorical mirror. Could it be that, by myself, I am this weak? Is it possible that all of my training, good upbringing, and self-discipline falter away at the slightest possibility, at a mere inkling? Could it be that my roots go only so deep, my creed have only so weak a hold, my beliefs only so thin a basis, and my sense of self worth only so fragile an existence that they will be, like the seeds of a dandelion, full of fluff, whimsicalness, and naivety, scattered in the first slight gust of a soft summer’s breeze? Holding fast for no longer than the lion on his prey, as my ideals are attacked with a sudden viciousness and ferocity from my humanness which I so gullibly, and yet rightfully, blame for all of my lack of control. It is true: as the ocean is deep, as the sky is light, and the hills endless, so unchanging are my failures.
In so following, humanity without a moral authority (God), at its best, is an endless, selfish search in which the sole purpose is to better one’s self, in any and all aspects, at the expense of others. Accordingly, we believe that true wisdom lies in self-preservation. The selfishness of humanity is unparalleled in any other species, due to our uncanny ability of reason. Every other species instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment. Humans are the most intellectual beings this planet has ever seen, and yet we consume every natural resource, striving to better our own lives, complaining at our every minute discomfort. Generating only feelings of distrust, our intellectual minds set us apart from these supposedly inept species. The fallacies of man rendered by the cursed power of reason uniformly trace back to our natural selfish nature. Ergo, our greatest gift, the very one that sets humans above and apart from all other species, becomes our greatest curse. The irony of reason lies in the natural verity of mankind’s nature: self-preservation. Our intellect generates our stupidity. As a result we find that our greatest ally lies only within ourselves: the sole being that is truly trustworthy. Ultimately, aided by the continuing diminish in trust of others, our power to reason, and the key to our selfish nature, will destroy us in the end. This only deepens the problem in which we are. It is our very nature to rely on our self solely and fully. This is why it is so difficult to place trust in an intangible faith-enshrouded higher power. Ultimately, the gift of reason, given to us by God, is the very reason by which we choose to not trust or believe in God...the irony. Our greatest gift has become our greatest curse.
Yet, even when God is involved in a life, many people’s faith in a religion is just their misunderstanding of their faith in an idea: the idea of God. We believe in separate religions; we have faith in distinct beliefs, distinct, human interpretations of divine direction, of God: Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, and all manner of separate religions. We fight, argue, and even kill over the belief, while the whole time we forget that belief (and faith for that matter) is an action verb: it is an action to a noun. The very word belief means there is something believed in—the idea behind the belief, be it evolutionism, atheism, or in this specific case, God. We have misunderstood the meaning of faith—of belief. How can we fight over separate beliefs when they are all beliefs in God? Oh the idiocy of man. Organized religion has been the greatest enemy of God, has been the greatest tool of “the Devil,” and is literally the reason, the very source of atheism in the world today. The world is confused.
The more fighting that is done in the name of God, the less people believe in Him. Yet—according to a religious man, a man who believes in God and is an active Christian—even worse, the greatest deception in our world is not atheism, agnosticism, nor is it science. The worst and most deceived are neither those who are on the outside of religion nor those who simply do not believe in God. It is the religious, the believers, the churchgoers who are most deceived. In times gone and past—the persecution in Rome, the Crusades in Jerusalem, the Inquisition in Spain—believers were forced to show their faith, to manifest in their faith, daily picking up their cross and daily being persecuted for it. The Devil’s tactics did not work to stifle the gospel as he had wanted, for it seemed that with every murder done, with every drop of Christian, Muslim, Jewish blood spilt, with every martyr made, the ranks of the believers augmented ten-fold. The power of God in the hands of men forced to rely on it every hour of their lives did nothing less than spread the message of good news on its own.
Seeing his failures in the past, the Devil was forced to change—to adapt. His tactics today are just the opposite: to let the religious live, let them prosper, let them blend in and mix with non-believers until the very line is meddled. The religious in many parts of the world are not forced with a choice, they are not forced to pick up their cross, not forced to rely on the power of God as they once needed to. In fact they are given the illusion of being in power or in control of their own lives. With the ever growing apathy in God—based in the lack of communication therein—the lives of the religious become ones of indifference and no dedication to their beliefs, nor to the idea: God. The lives led are ones of comfort, ones of unreality. The Devil has made religion an easy decision—nearly not even a decision at all. It is the same as deciding which shirt you will wear today, or which food you feel like eating at a restaurant: choices that seem meaningless, fickle, and whimsical.
The indifference we hold to the seriousness of faith in God is the Devil’s newest and most effective tactic. For when the time comes in the end to actually choose God or life, when we must die for our faith, it seems there will be no one ready. Our comfortable lives have numbed our responses like some drug to which we are hopelessly addicted, slowing our reactions and clouding our visions and judgments. We have had no need to choose anything. In order to reduce, rewire, and revamp our commitment of and to our faith, we must make a choice every day; we must not fall into dilapidation—we must restore our resolve; we must rework our dependence on God’s power and not our own. We must forget what organized religion has taught us to be important: the politics that lie within the church’s walls instead of the God who resides in the Sanctuary’s doors. “If anyone thinks he has faith and yet is indifferent towards his possession, is neither hot nor cold, he can be certain that he does not have faith. If anyone thinks that he is a Christian and yet is indifferent towards his being a Christian, than he is really not one at all. What would we think of a man who affirms that he was in love and also that it was a matter of indifference to him” (Kierk. 42)?
We deem automatic the truth of our beliefs, because they are our beliefs. We need to look closer and realize that there is no such thing as human perfection. History shows us that every time we as humans create something perfect, someone else comes along and creates something better. Even in ideas we have never had anything perfect. The teleology of science, philosophy, religion, philanthropy, etc., show us that we have evolved mentally—that we have built our ideas upon the ideas of others and that human knowledge is not only a continuation of learning in a lifetime, but a continuation of learning from generation to generation. We need to be open to the idea that we can still learn, that we can still change, and most importantly that our being perfect is neither needed nor wanted. We need to learn to accept our imperfections in order to embrace our potential. Learn to accept your neighbors, your enemies, and your mirror—regardless.
Kierkegaard, Soren. Works of Love. Harper & Row Publishers: New York, NY. 1962.
Read more...
An Idea Worth $10^100
Google's "Project 10 to the 100th (10^100)", launched September 24 (2008), is offering as much as $10 million to up to five winning idea(s) that change the world make a contribution to social reformation.
Categories for the ideas being considered include: Community, Opportunity, Energy, Environment, Health, Education, Shelter, and Everything Else.
Why the name Project 10^100?
Google believes 10^100 is another way of expressing the number "googol," (a ten duotrigintillion), or a one followed by one hundred zeroes. Project 10^100 is an effort to produce these kinds of results by tapping into users (you) insights and creativity.
The deadline (October 20, 2008) to submit ideas passed recently, and submissions were received at Project 10^100.
100 semifinalists will be chosen by January 27, 2009. The public (you) will vote (Jan.27) online for your favorite ideas. A panel of judges will then review the "top 20" ideas and announce up to five winners in mid-February.
$10 million in funds will be awarded in May 2009. If 5 winners are chosen, each idea will be backed by $2 million. If 2 winners are chosen, they each will be awarded $5 million, etc.
click below for Google's video on "Project 10^100"
Read more...
Friday, October 24, 2008
Discourse On Tax Cuts & Economic Theory
Why is there so much emphasis always placed on tax cuts when it comes to candidates and their platforms? Is it just the fact that people do not want to pay as much money? Why is it that Republicans seem to generally give tax cuts to the wealthy and Democrats to the lower class? Is it not political suicide to offer tax cuts to one and not to the other based solely on partisan principles? Why not just offer tax cuts to everyone equally or tax increases to everyone equally? Why is there this polarization of social status incentive?
The answer lies in economics.
There are two major schools of economists: the Classical economists and the Keynesian economists. To simplify their goals for purpose of comparison, the Classical thought is that government has no right to interfere in the economy. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776)—a product of the Age of Enlightenment—introduced what is called the “invisible hand” policy—the backbone to Classical economics: the “invisible hand” of the market uninfluenced by government will naturally push supply and demand (the two factors that define and measure consumption and production: the basics of economy) towards an equilibrium point at which the market economy will be working at maximum efficiency. Simply, according to Say’s law, supply creates its own demand.
Keynesian thought, on the other hand, (based on John Maynard Keynes’s The General Theory of Employment, Income and Money, a major work that was outlawed at publication just after the Great Depression in 1936 because of its implications) challenges the four Classical economic beliefs of (1) Say’s law holds, so insufficient demand in the economy is unlikely. (2) Wages, prices, and interest rates are flexible. (3) The economy is self-regulating. (4) Laissez-faire is the right and sensible economic policy to implement (laissez-faire is the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of economic ordering, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in economic affairs especially with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.) According to Keynesian thought, a decrease in consumption, as in a recession, and subsequent increase in saving may not necessarily be matched by an equal increase in investment, therefore rendering a total decrease in expenditures—added savings does not necessarily stimulate an equal amount of added investment spending. Keynesians believed that there may be a need for government involvement to move supply and demand towards equilibrium.
A true and unadulterated free-market economy has never really existed; government involvement is pretty much always inevitable. But we must, as we continue our discussion on tax cuts, keep both schools of ideological thought in mind as we look at the realities of modern economics—a system which has incorporated certain aspects of both, but with obvious government involvement.
The idea of marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is crucial to understanding tax cuts. MPC is the percentage that will be spent of any amount of money added to disposable income. This percentage varies significantly based on wealth. For example, if a single, working mother with two children, living from paycheck to paycheck just to get by—a part of the lower class by financial standards—were to get a $50 a month tax cut from the federal government, more than likely 100% of that would be spent, probably on groceries or new shoes for her children or any number of necessities. For her, the MPC would be 1.00 or 100%. Now on the other hand, if Bill Gates received a $50 a month tax cut, he would more than likely not change his spending at all—unaffected by such a small percentage of money. For him, the MPC would be 0.00, 0%.
The level of consumption for any class or financial status, can be measured by adding MPC percentage of this additional money to the amount of spending already being done, called Autonomous Spending. This is represented by the formula
Consumption = Autonomous Spending + MPC(Additional Income)
This formula, C= C0 + MPC(Yd) as seen by economists, is the basis for understanding tax cuts. Let us assume that the Congressional Appropriations Committee passed a $10 billion tax cut for the next year. The Democrats would say to give that money directly to those people who are going to spend it (those who have a low MPC, the lower class) so that it will go directly to the market through spending, which would benefit the big businesses and upper classes directly, increasing CPI, creating new jobs, lowering unemployment, and increasing market demand which would raise the Real Gross Domestic Profit (GDP) and in turn push our economy out of recession and back into an equilibrium. The Republicans would disagree, saying to give that money to those who would directly save and invest it (those who have a high MPC, the upper class) so that the increased involvement in the markets would reduce interest rates, incur more borrowing of banks and individuals alike, causing businesses to increase and buy more capital which would then require a marginal increase in available jobs and higher wages for the lower classes. The unemployment would go down, CPI and real GDP would go up, recession would be avoided (or reversed), and demand and supply would once again find equilibrium.
Each policy has similar end results; that is not what is being debated between the Democrats and the Republicans. It is the best way to achieve these goals that is being debated. Republicans say that the Democratic method is reaching too far away from the Classical Economic theory, and the Democrats say that the Republican method is reaching too close to the Classical Economic theory—a danger of idealism vs. reality.
Read more...
Top 8 Things You Need To Know
The U.N. food agency has announced that millions of North Koreans are facing a food crisis, but a South Korean official said that Seoul has not decided whether to respond to a request for food aid. Around 2.7 million people on North Korea's west coast will also run out of food in October. North Korea has relied on aid to help feed its 23 million people since natural disasters and mismanagement devastated its centrally controlled economy in the mid-1990s. Famine is believed to have killed 2 million people.
Gas prices have fallen quickly. Our nation has been blessed with an extra $125 billion to spend. You would think that this extra money would help stimulate the economy, but apparently it hasn't. That's the least of our worries with jobs disappearing, depreciating home prices, and daily financial fiascoes.
Or 10% of its workforce. Cutting this percentage will bring the company's headcount down from a record high of 32,569 employees to 2006-2007 levels. If financial giant, Goldman Sachs is cutting 10% of its workforce, imagine how many jobs other companies are cutting.
Threatening hoax letters containing a powdery substance have been received by nearly four dozen institutions in 11 states and the District of Columbia. All the letters were postmarked in Amarillo, Texas. And not all of the recipients were banks. Postal inspectors are offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the conviction of those behind the hoax letters.
The Dow closed down more than 500 points (Wednesday Oct.22) and the Nasdaq is at a 5-year low as recession fears continue
The U.S. handed over the control of Babylon, Iraq, once known as the "triangle of death". It is now a security responsibility to the Iraqi government. Babil is the 12th of 18 Iraqi provinces to be placed under Iraqi control and indicates improvements in security. U.S. forces will remain in the area to assist the Iraqis when needed.
India launched its first unmanned moon mission (Wednesday, Oct.22), joining the Asian space race against their Chinese rivals, reinforcing its claim to be considered a global power.
To address the global financial crisis. This will be the first in a series of summits to make an attempt to alleviate what economists are predicting to be a "long and deep downturn." This first meeting will focus on the underlying causes of the financial crisis, the global response, and the principles that should guide any reforms. The summit will bring together leaders of Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and the United States, the European Union, China, Brazil, India, Russia, South Korea and other major economies.
Read more...
Green Day: Paper Or Plastic?
Paper or Plastic? This may not be the question you get asked every time you go to your local grocery store, but it is still a good question. So what will it be?... paper or plastic?
Actually the answer is neither.
It takes more than four times as much energy to make a paper bag as it does to make a plastic bag. Paper bags also have a negative effect on the forest. In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce 10 billion paper grocery bags alone. This adds another contribution to global warming, because the trees that are major absorbers of greenhouse gasses have to be cut down. These trees then produce greenhouse gasses during the paper bag manufacturing process.
When a plastic (bag) has been used, it can go to one of two places: The landfill or the recycling center. In a landfill, plastics make up 7% of the waste by weight, and 18% by volume. Of the 44,100 million pounds of plastic products made each year, 26,700 million pounds end up as municipal solid waste.
More than half of the power needed to make plastic bags is generated by nuclear fission. Some argue that nuclear power has no effect on the environment. The only drawback to nuclear power is the radioactive waste, which is, so far, being "safely" disposed of in deep underground caves. And, in deep sea trenches where the nuclear waste is sub ducted into the earths mantle and incinerated.
So what are we to do?
Well the answer is pretty simple...you can just use a reusable bag. They're made from renewable resources, take minimal energy, are light, durable (each holding up to 40 lbs) and they last for years. Some can be even be machine-washed and are great to keep in the trunk of the car. You can also use them for other things other than grocery shopping, such as: a light book bag, a knapsack, or anything else you can come up with.
How much is a reusable bag? Well it can range anywhere from $5 to $12 dollars. Some grocery stores will even give you up to 5 cents per bag credit, making the bag pay for itself in a year and a half if you buy groceries once a week.
Taking all the above information into consideration, feel confident that you are making an informed decision the next time you're at the supermarket. The most important thing to remember is to utilize every possible use for both the plastic and paper bags to lengthen their life and minimize the impact on both the environment and our natural resources.
Read more...
A Picture Is Worth 1000 Words
Read more...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Blog Action Day 08: Container City
Thinking outside of the box, or rather inside the box is what made these real estate developers idea revolutionary. This is Container City.
The Facts:
There are enough shipping containers around the world to build an 8 foot wall around the equator twice.
A shipping container contains the essential elements of a home: The floor, the walls, and the roof.
The shipping containers are built on an international standard, eliminating the hassle of building measurements.
Their building block/lego shape inspires the "artists" (architects) to get creative with their architecture.
Idea Made Manifest:
Urban Space Management began their first project.
It took 5 months to build Container City 1, which opened in May 2001, and provided 12 work studios. In 2003 another floor was added in less than 2 days and provided 3 additional live/work apartments. Each apartment is 300 square feet, and rents for $80-100 per month. They're insulated, have electricity, water, and the architects use 100% recycled materials. A total of 100 units now make up Container City.
A project that started out initially for themselves, has turned into a business.
Now lets analyze what you've read so far:
1. Cheap
2. Built Quickly
3. Artistic
4. Eco-Friendly
Now lets look at this from the perspective of a social reformer. How can we take an intelligent idea that has saved dollars and made a profit, and utilize the same ideas to impact the world and not just one's wallet? There's nothing wrong with turning a profit, just ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet: both of whom have donated more than most philanthropists combined. One just has to simply understand where one is going and which ideas can be the most beneficial to the greatest number of people. A utilitarian position: greatest amount of good, to the greatest number of people.
But enough with words and words alone. Lets take a look at some men that have turned their ideas into actions.
Social Reformers in Action:
On a trip to Mexico (Juarez), Brian McCarthy was motivated by the poverty to develop $8,000 homes made from shipping containers.
An article similar to the story of "Container City", got him thinking about an idea to help remedy the cities housing situation.
He called his cousin Nava, a junior at Notre Dame University at the time, and told him about the idea. His cousin suggested that they enter the university's business plan competition.
Their concept began as a three-quarter page paper and expanded as they moved forward in the contest. Eventually, they ended up winning the contest with a 55-page document, illustrated by renderings and floor plans.
In July 2007, they formed PFNC Global Communities (Por Fin, Nuestra Casa, or "Finally, our home")
The company has received a commitment for equity investment and is in the process of finishing details and closing its first round of funding. The partners anticipate starting production early next year (2008), with the capacity to produce 3,000 homes in the first year and later ramping up.
They have estimated that a half million people could benefit from homes in the city of Juarez alone.
Something as simple as a metal box, trash and scrap metal to most of us, can be made into an idea complex enough to be the salvation of somebody. The notion that an idea can be transformed and can evolve into more than just the original idea, into something that can benefit humanity on a larger scale, and into something that makes profit worthwhile for humanity, is a notion that could and should be shared by us all. These men have demonstrated a prime example of how an idea can be taken from the World of Ideas and translated into physical language, utilizing intellect and reason to reform society in a positive way. However, these men do not have a monopoly on ideas; we all share in the same pool of intelligence. What are you doing with yours?
Read more...
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Financial Bailout Hints Possible Corruption
Hypothetically, what would the US government want if it were corrupted—what would a corrupted democratic-republic have as goals? Undoubtedly, they would want to control the money, retain a strong central government, and have no opposition strong enough to oppose them (or have any opposition stronger than them at all). Again, under the hypothetical assumption of corruption, what is standing in the way of the US government attaining these goals? Well, it cannot control the money because of the free-market economy system implemented in America; it also cannot be the strong central government it wants to be because of Regan’s Devolution Revolution: returning power and sovereignty to the States and giving the federal government less control than before—limiting federal power; neither is it free of opposition in the least—the European Union’s currency, the Euro, has hit new highs in value against the US dollar and is definitely a contending economic force.
Sounds like another washed out conspiracy theory, right? Well, let’s take a look at recent events. In the end of October, 2008, the government bought $700 billion worth of power in banking. With this intense financial bailout, the government bought ownership which allows them to have significant influence and control over many of the major banks left in our economy (the last time this happened was in the Great Depression in the early 1930s). Their public reason was to flush the economy with financial liquidity. To emphasize their reasoning they also lowered the Fed inter-bank interest rate from 2% to 1.5%. When you consider the amounts of money normally borrowed by big businesses to handle day-to-day investments from big banks, this is an extreme discount. Now, although the effect on businesses and the economy is valid and working, this does not erase the fact that the government—the same government which was supposed to have absolutely no influence in the economy and finances when it was begun in the late 18th Century—now has a greater influence and control of our country’s finances (not to mention its control of our currency and the production of bills and reserve notes). The US government is most certainly on its way to being a stronger central government than we have ever seen in our country's history. Its public intentions of economic salvation and rescue do not cover the facts of its increased power and influence.
The effect of this lowered interest rate does not stop at the shores of the Pacific or the Atlantic; the international effect of our economy’s probable recession is jaw-dropping. First of all, we can see the international effect when the dollar value lowers; US-made goods are cheaper for foreign importation. (Our exports this quarter increased 12.3 percent compared with an increase of 5.1 percent in the first quarter, and our imports decreased 7.3 percent in comparison with a decrease of 0.8 percent in the first quarter.) Secondly, the banks of England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, China, France, and others have all collaborated with the US to also drop their financial interest rates for inter-bank loans by a similar percentage. The financial crisis that has wreaked havoc on US soil has had similar international effects all across the world. The recession into which we have more than likely slid has affected more than just our own economy.
These facts imply nothing of corruption, yet could they not also be factors that would uphold the hypothetical corruption? The European Union (EU), held together financially by the all-powerful Euro, is under stress. Germany, arguably the strongest financial power in the EU, has made it quite clear that they are going to worry about their own economy before they worry about the EU. It is not improbable that other countries will follow Germany’s lead. If they assume the same mindset, the EU would be in serious trouble, and by association, so would the Euro. In some circles of economists, the idea that this is the beginning of the end for the Euro is often espoused to a probable world future. Such a strain has never before been placed on the US economy or the EU economies, let alone the financial relationships therein. The US government could most certainly lose its only competing financial entity in the near future.
The free-market economy that is so loved and traditional in our country, seen through the eyes of Adam Smith—the father of modern economics, is also affected by the US government’s recent involvement. Under the pretext of saving and rescuing the economy, the US government has stepped in and temporarily placed on-hold the freedom of our economic market and is taking measures to ensure that the US economy does not go under or collapse. It has also taken certain financial powers, normally delegated to the States, in order to assure our economic future. These may be valid and admirable reasons, but do short-term effects validate long-term intentions? How can we be sure that this was not just a way for the US government to get its hands into the free-market economy? It seems that it could most certainly be on its way to becoming a contending power and influence over the economy itself.
IF the government were corrupted, our current financial situation could very easily be the due process and actions of that same government. The idea that such a government would purposefully cause this recession, in order to acquire the end results, is not as absurd as it may sound. They have a desired situation in mind, so they carefully create an action that will incur a reaction that will in turn render a specific solution that will model the desired solution: problem, reaction, solution; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This economic teleology is a model that has been studied and implemented for centuries. Its existence in our current situation is not absurd…assuming the government is corrupt. But how could that be? No, not our government! Not the United States of America! We are above such talk—above such ideas.
Now how could a corruption of this magnitude go unnoticed? It would have to be a unanimous, far-reaching corruption of such a macro scale that it would be statistically highly probable that somebody would talk. However, corruption on the fundamental level does not necessarily mean that all those who are corrupt understand the deeper fundamentals. The level of corruption may be unanimous, but what’s to say that there is not corruption in the midst of the corrupt? Would it be so hard to believe that those with the unscrupulous morals capable of instilling and implementing such a massive corruption could also be capable and willing to have, within their own levels of corrupted pawns, the same dishonesty and corrupted intentions as those used to mastermind the initial corruption? Is it not probable that between the corrupt and dishonest there exists a level, perhaps an even higher level, of dishonesty than even the level required to be corrupt in the first place? Those who understand the fundamentals of this hypothetical corrupted government do not have to be numerous, just intelligent enough to convince other corrupted individuals to follow them unquestioningly. The only requirement of a massive corruption is the requirement of brainwashing the influential—of convincing the influential to follow. One does not have to brainwash the macro-population, one just has to brainwash those with the influence to brainwash the rest of the population.
Read more...
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
"Allow me to pose a few questions"
"By all means"
"What is news? Why do media companies have the monopoly? Wouldn't it be more accurate to hear the news from those to whom it is actually happening in the direct time that it was actually happening: no delay?"
"Of course, but this is impossible because the person in the place and time is not connected to the rest of the world."
"Exactly, you say it perfectly. They are not (or would have to be) connected to everybody else. But what if we had, using technology, a way to connect ourselves to the rest of the world."
"Explain"
"We need something (a technology) that allows us to instantly update the rest of the world with whats going on around us."
"So, an instant messaging platform?"
"Not exactly. The application must ask a question that when answered reveals what is going on around the user (us)."
"So what question do we ask?"
"You tell me"
"Well, the question would not only have to answer whats going on around us, but also what we are currently doing."
"So can we come to an agreement that the question asked by the application should be: What are you doing?"
"Agreed, What are you doing?"
"So where do we go from here?"
"I think that we should decide on the length of the updates."
"Ok, well the message in the update should be something that can be sent quickly."
"So it should be short rather than long?"
"Yes"
"But why any limitations at all?"
"Because when one is limited, he is forced to find a creative level of efficiency"
"Why would we want to be efficient?"
"Its not necessarily a question of why we would want to be efficient, but why efficiency is necessary."
"Explain"
"Lets look at the teleology of efficiency in media over the past few decades."
"Monthly pamphlets and magazines, the emergence of talk show radio (daily) in 1989, the internet in the 1990's, and constant communication through social networks, blogs, etc. today."
"Ah, so since (we)the people demanded more, the media was forced to increase their levels of efficiency."
"Exactly. The world longed for news as close to real time as possible. Our goal is to merge this real time demand with the necessity of efficiency into one communicative network."
"And with this new technology we can satisfy that need!"
"Right again my friend, and not only will users (us) of this technology be able to update people with news, but they will also be able to voice their opinions to people in their network."
"One of the central elements in blogging!"
"So would it be fair to call these people (the ones giving the updates) opinion leaders/buzz marketers?"
"Yes, depending on their level of influence. But can we also agree that anyone has the potential to be one of these leaders?"
"Agreed. But how do we determine who has influence and who doesn't have influence?"
"You tell me"
"Well, i think it would be based on the number of people following said leaders current status, news, and opinions."
"Exactly. So what do we call these people (in the opinion leaders network)?"
"I think we should call them Followers"
"Fitting"
"An uncorrupted version of the media given to us by the user (us)"
"A powerful tool for social reformation"
follow us @ twitter.com/redstarvip
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
