|
How did you like the show?
Report a problem
Reviews:
| Review this podcast |
| Review this podcast |
Episodes
- Nov 2008 #4 - Not Winning. Losing
(4mb)
25 Nov 2008 12:20:00 +1000
It?s amazing how time flies when you?re having fun. And haven?t we been having some fun lately. Work, mortgage, work, car repayments, work, groceries, work and on and on it goes. Meanwhile, out in the ?real? world, elections have been had, grand finals lost, economies collapsing and all that stuff. If it wasn?t for the distractions of work, mortgage, work, car repayments, work, groceries, work and so on, one could get very depressed. Take the oldies. A bunch of them recently got together in Melbourne to vent their spleens over the cost of living and the pittances they get as pensioners. My, what a sight it was. However, they failed to realise that their greatest advocate (according to his memoirs) is no longer in office. Instead of a bloke about their own age, they now have a PM who is young(ish) and more concerned about his frequent flier points than doling out more cash for those he sees as being ?great contributors to the nation?. The pensioners and retirees who gathered in Melbourne need to ?get with the program? a little and realise that the greatest contribution to the nation they can now make is to unselfishly get back to work and do so until they kark it! Then, at the other end of the life spectrum, we have the kiddies. They?re the ones who don?t mind taking a dump in their pants when you?re in the middle of coffee and buns at the café and who cause you great embarrassment when they spew their lunch all over the back seat of your best friend?s Audi. It seems that despite successive government?s endorsement of private child care, the great saviour of mankind (sorry sisters) that is capitalism, doesn?t really do much to solve our biggest problems after all. Now, before we get all starry eyed and blame the Howard government for the ABC fiasco, lets recall that it was the Hawke and Keating governments (which according to my memory were Labor) who deregulated the child care ?market? and opened it up to ?for-profit? companies. Seems like the whole shebang is coming down around our ears. Now I could talk at length at the disappointment we Geelong supporters have over not winning the flag this year ? but I wont. It pales into insignificance when compared to what is going on as governments around the world bailout whatever multinational comes knocking and enter into the ?socialist phase? of capitalism. The wonderful thing about capitalism seems to be that it is blind to age, infirmity, middle wealth, poverty and the environment. These impediments to the upward redistribution of the common-wealth do not stand its way. Well, not really ?its? because capitalism isn?t really a ?thing? as such. Neither are the ?ailing? or ?weakening? markets. If you?ve ever been to a market the first thing you will notice is the people. There are people behind the stalls. They want to sell you something and you want to buy. The market without people is just an empty space with stalls in it. There is no activity, no trading, no fracas and no exchange. In other words, the market place is only created when rational people, who have an aim to maximise their utility, come together and trade whatever commodity they have. So, if the market is made up of rational people who trade according to rules they agree on, then we have to agree that if the so called ?global financial crisis? is having material outcomes (no more retirement funds, collapsing businesses and so on) then it must have been people who caused it. On the surface this sounds fairly simple. Yet, the reality is much more complicated and far less understandable. However, in order to make sense of it all, it is important to remember that the biggest benefits of capitalism do not accrue to those who must adhere to its ?rules? but to those who manipulate or ignore the rules and bribe the umpires. Elections, as we have seen, do not bring regime change (and neither does invading a sovereign nation under false pretences). As we see Obama putting together his new government we must really ask, is this not a rearrangement of the deck chairs? Similarly, and despite his ?apology?, the Rudd government is failing to live up to its promised ?saviour? status. Even the mysterious Mr. Garrett must be getting worried about his latest album. Tuneless melodies and obscure lyrics mean his latest work is not being received by the masses as well as his managers had hoped. Meanwhile, back at the coal face, we are encouraged to work harder, volunteer more, drink less and enjoy the ride. We are reassured that noting beats working when it comes to living a fulfilled life. Who was it that said ?Arbeit macht frei?? Now, I can accept that my beloved Geelong didn?t have the mettle to go all the way this year. What I can?t accept is that we are still expected to swallow the whole ?work will set your free? mantra. The worst thing we can do is sit back and accept that there is no alternative. There is. But it won?t come free. While I am the first to admit that, as a theory, capitalism has some upsides, I am not stupid enough to miss the fact that, like any theory, it can used to justify dogma, ideology and the severest human rights abuses. The fact that the ?market? has been corrupted cannot be missed by even the strictest adherent to its tenets. Even though it scares the bejesus out of me, I can?t help but have a chuckle when I see one of the ?leading economists? turn themselves in knots trying to explain why the public purse needs to be used to bail out those who caused the problems in the first place. The bottom line is, with thousands more about to lose their jobs over the next few months as factories close and the ?economy contracts?, the question for us, will be, are we really content to just work, pay the mortgage, work, make the car repayments, work, buy the groceries and work more in order to see our inheritance used to enrich those who see us as nothing more than stepping stones to their own enrichment? - September 2008 #3 - Goldman's Chickens (4mb)
30 Sep 2008 19:30:00 +1000
Its funny, isn?t it, that as the capitalist system tries to reinvent itself, the so called ?market leaders?, who caused the problem in the first place, have now been put in charge of designing the ?fix?. Although not unlike putting the foxes in charge of the chicken coop, the main difference is, this time, the farmers are shooting, cleaning and serving up the chooks for the foxes. One of the main characters in this story is a rather large and influential firm called Goldman Sachs. They aren?t the only one but serve as a model for what the others aspire to. Here?s a few starters. Dozens of former Goldman Sachs? senior staff have gone on to influential positions in government. Current head of the US treasury, Hank Paulson, is a former CEO as was previous treasury secretary, Bob Rubin. Former Goldman executive, Steve Friedman, was head of the National Economic Council. Josh Bolton, White House Chief of Staff, is a former Goldman executive and World Bank chief, Robert Zoellick, likewise. Former Goldman CEO, John Whitehead, heads up the US Treasury Department and former US Export Bank head, Ken Brody, knew them all from his time at the company. In Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making, David Rothkopf writes of Goldman Sachs, ?Goldman?s influence extends beyond the ability of its analysts and traders to drive stock or bond prices up and down ? The firm shapes new views of the world. ?it creates new financial instruments that shape the global marketplace, it can make or break the CEOs and government ministers who regularly pass through its doors ? and it serves as the hub of an international network of deal makers.? One has to wonder just how much of our interests Goldman Sachs? former executives have in mind when doing their billion dollar deals? While the focus of the last couple of weeks has been on ?the markets? very little attention has been paid to the so called ?dark pools? that companies like Goldman and others have established. These ?dark pools? are named as such because of their ?nebulous and murky nature?. Writing over 18 months ago, Market Watch columnist, David Weidner, notes that these off book share trading mechanisms account for ten percent of all share trades. He writes that rules put in place over a decade ago and which were meant to control these types of trading schemes, are now outdated and unable to effectively police or regulate them. At the same time that Weidner was writing his article, Goldman Sachs were announcing to the world that their own ?dark pool?, SIGMA X, was able to ?allow customers to take liquidity from non-displayed sources? because, ?accessing liquidity in an anonymous and systematic way is essential to reducing impact costs.? In other words, the so called ?leaders? of the investment and banking world believe that the system they have created for the rest of us (the ?real market? and its exchanges) is not up to the task of getting more and more cash to them efficiently. So while the main act in the centre ring of the Washington circus is at present the threats to our retirement funds, superannuation and property values, I would argue that treasury secretary Paulson and the media?s main aim is to keep our attention away from the real action taking place in these ?dark pools?. When you think about it, the first rule of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed. When you think of money, even the non-existent type that forms the basis of most trading these days, and apply this rule, you realise that something other than ?huge losses? is taking place. In other words, the money is not being ?lost?, that is destroyed, it is being transformed into something else or transported elsewhere. The question is, ?into what or off to where?? The online newsletter AutomatedTrader included a very bold claim in its September 22nd update. The newsletter quotes C. Thomas Richardson. He carries the lofty title of ?Global Head of Transaction Services? of NYFIX. He told the AutomatedTrader that their ?dark pool? system, ?Millennium? had set an ?all time, single day record? in off the book trades. He effused, ?What we?ve seen over the past couple of days marks a compelling shift, dispelling the previous notion that traders shy away from executing in dark pools during times of high volatility.? He goes on to say that ?regardless of market conditions? traders using his company?s system can save money on their share transactions. Remember, this is just one company running a scheme that subverts the ?real? market the rest of us have to put up with. The money in the ?real? market hasn?t been lost, misplaced, destroyed or devalued. It has been sucked into these ?dark pools? simply because they are so efficient in transferring real wealth to ever smaller concentrations of owners. In other words, the circus that is going on in Washington is a smoke screen to keep our attention off these unregulated and unaccountable trading schemes. Under the current, ineffective rules, companies, like Goldman Sachs, argue that so long as the seller and buyer don?t ?know? each other, then there is no problem. Of course, companies like Goldman Sachs are usually the ones who advise sellers and buyers and often ?lend? them the funds to trade with. This means the executives of these companies get to play both farmer and fox. In short, they can?t lose, particularly when their former CEOs and other executives are fiddling with the ?policy levers? and telling us its all for the best. Don?t believe them. The only ones that lose out every time are the chooks. And we were never any good at laying golden eggs anyway. Even if we were they would be sucked down the vortex of the ?dark pools? and deposited in someone else?s nest ensuring the next generation of chickens don?t need to come home to roost. - September 2008 #2 - Finance for Dummies (4mb)
24 Sep 2008 12:00:00 +1000
Here?s how economic life works. You want to buy something and I own or make what you want to buy. You don?t have enough cash at hand to pay for it. In order to obtain enough ready cash to purchase my product or good, you go to a bank and get a loan. This is called ?being practical?. The bank gets you to sign a contract. Now, in the real world a contract is a document that sets out agreed terms that both parties negotiate. When you go to the bank, the real world stops at the door and you enter a parallel universe in which negotiated contracts with mutually agreeable terms do not exist. This is called ?the invisible hand of the market?. But, seeing as how you really want what I have to sell you, you sign the contract and the bank raises a debt. This is called ?debt financing?. The place it raises the debt from exists in the same parallel universe as the one that the contract came from. When you look at the contract you realise the loan will cost you over three times the amount you actually need to pay for the product or good you want to purchase. When you realise this you are meant to get a warm a fuzzy feeling inside, safe in the knowledge that the bank is as ?safe as houses?. While you make your way back to my store, the bank is entering this new debt into its system. Having found that, at the present moment in time, you are fully capable of meeting the repayments, it classifies your debt as ?Triple A? rated. The banker knows that the product you are purchasing could not be insured or sold for the value of the debt so have written into the contract early termination or payout fees. They send the contract off and make an offer for your debt to be taken over by ?the market?. This is called ?business sense?. Across the highway or byway, a worker in an office reads the bank?s electronic communication notifying him that you have agreed to pay back a sum equivalent to three times the cost of the current purchase price. They realise that, over the life of the loan, they will potentially have two thirds of the cost of the loan to play with ? I mean invest. This is called ?an opportunity?. Back in the real world, you come to my business and purchase the goods or service I offer. I see that you?re all cashed up with a pre-approved loan. You try to beat the price down by saying that, with cash, you should get a discount. Of course, like the bank, you have now entered another parallel universe. In this one, I can?t offer you a discount because to do so would create a ?distortion in the market? by exposing the true cost and profit margins of the goods or services you want. So no, I won?t give you a discount but I will throw in a free meal and movie ticket. This is called a ?purchase bonus?. While you?re sitting down enjoying the meal I place an order with my supplier. He checks my recent purchase history and notes that I am ahead in my monthly repayments and that I qualify for a free, all expenses paid trip to Hawaii. He tells me the good news and says the goods or services will arrive within the week. My supplier then rings the manufacturer to tell them I need another good or service. This is called ?the wheels of commerce turning?. While you are watching the movie, the manufacturer is finding that he needs new machinery to make the goods or service that you ordered. He goes to the bank and asks for an extension on his current overdraft. The bank says that will be fine but the extension will increase his repayments. ?Sure.? He says. ?Things are looking up. No worries?. He then goes back to his factory and starts making your order. He gets his wife to book that trip to France and buy that new car she was eyeing off. This is called ?an optimistic business outlook?. By the end of the movie, the guy in the office of the company across the highway or byway has sold your debt ? the extra two thirds of the amount you will pay back over and above the cost of the goods or service you purchase ? to an investment broker. Over at the investment house, the bloke who receives the debt makes an informed decision on the best way to take this debt and turn it into a Ferrari. This is called ?market speculation?. By now you?re on your way home from the free meal and movie. By the time you get home you are feeling rather queasy. By the time the sun rises the next day, you feel like death warmed up but struggle off to work. By the end of the week you are dead. That?s called ?bad luck?. I try calling you to let you know your goods or services are ready to be collected. I can?t get through. After a week I give up and sell the goods or services I had ordered for you for less than half the cost we had agreed on. That?s called ?a discount sale?. I don?t lose anything, nor does my supplier or the manufacturer. That?s called ?market forces?. When the bank finds out you died, it seeks access to your estate to recoup the debt you left behind. Eventually it is able to get some of the debt. This is also called ?bad luck?. However, the two thirds of the money you would have paid back is still being churned around the financial markets. This is called ?market strength?. In about 10 years time, it will become apparent that you and hundreds of thousands of others just like you aren?t actually paying back any money. Some have died. Some have won the lottery and paid off their loan early. Others have given up and gone broke. While the banks have sold off your and their assets the amount raised doesn?t even cover the first third of the debt. This is called ?market equalisation?. By the time the investment advisors and speculators realise they have no cash to pay out their debts, it will be too late to do anything about it. However, because there is still some real cash floating around, the investment advisors and the speculators decide they should retire and claim their pensions and superannuation in cash. They get out of the market just as it begins to fail. This is called ?a market adjustment?. By the time all the people who are affected by this situation realise that their dollars are worth nothing and that they no longer have anything of any value, the investment advisors and speculators will have long gone. You will be little more than a vague memory to just a few people. This is called ?a shame?. Just as people begin to realise that, in market terms, ?they have been screwed?, the government will step in and say it has devised a ?rescue plan?. It will pump millions of dollars into the banks so they can pay off the two thirds they owe to the investment advisors and speculators. This is called a ?wise fiscal rescue plan?. This creates what is known as a ?bounce? in the markets. This is because the investment advisors and speculators are bouncing up and down for joy as they realise they don?t have retire and live off the cash they have squirreled away. Now they can go back to work. Meanwhile, your children see one of my advertisements and decide they want to buy what I?m selling ... - Sept 2008 #1 - In a Split Second (4mb)
08 Sep 2008 15:00:00 +1000
Making split second decisions is something we do all day. Do we choose the ham and cheese sandwich or the salad and lamb? Do wear the blue shirt or the green one? Do we have our coffee in a mug or a cup? Obviously not all decisions carry the same weight or consequences. I had to make a split second decision last Sunday morning. It was, on reflection, perhaps not my best. I got knocked off my bike by a forby. You know, a Toorak tractor. I certainly didn?t expect that outcome from my decision but I put my trust in someone I had never met to make another split second decision and give way to me. Now, I live in a tourist town that is frequented by, well, tourists. I?m not going to slag off at all tourists who choose to drive but I guess I expected that in a town that people visit to relax, it is inevitable that they let their guard down. In fact I used to be one of the tourists who came to visit this town before moving here. Nonetheless, there is a theoretical bond of trust between road users. I had almost made it through the round-a-bout and fortunately I had already unclipped my left foot, just in case. The impact was a bit more brutal than I would have liked but there wasn?t any slow-mo or ?life flashing before my eyes? moments. Just the sound, the air, the road and the treddly. I?ll tell you what though, I got up quick! The poor bloke who hit me was as white as sheet when he got out of the car. I think he thought I was going to biff him one because I unleashed a rather long tirade of expletives on him as I gathered up the bit and pieces ? of the bike, not me. My ankle was rather sore and I couldn?t stand. Sinking to the grass I took off my helmet, shoe and sock and inspected the damage. Seeing and feeling there was nothing broken I turned my attention to the driver. He was a youngish bloke who, as I said, seemed like he was in shock. He admitted fault, and kept repeating that all he saw was a flash of red (my jacket). As we swapped details the driver of the car who was giving way to the bloke who hit me, came up and gave me his phone number. ?Let me know if I can help.? He said, before driving off. As I sat there rubbing the sore bits I made another split second decision. I would not call the police. Nothing was broken other than the metal and rubber of the bike. Other than my ankle and hip (which took the brunt of his bull bar) I was OK. So why get the legal system involved? I wasn?t after retribution. Over the last few days, in the lead up to the seventh anniversary of the so-called 911 events, I?ve had the chance to reflect on my decisions and their outcomes. The first decision (to stop or not) was taken in good faith. I saw the driver look my way as he slowed down coming into the intersection. The fact that he says he didn?t see me cant be changed. The fact that he hit me can?t be changed. But what was in my control in the aftermath was how I chose to react. My first reaction, the tirade of abuse and threatening language, is perhaps explainable by the rush of adrenaline after the collision. I never had any intention of hitting him, a small, still rational, part of my mind told me that would do no good. The second decision, to not get the legal system involved, was a far more rational one. Although, I must admit, I did take some pleasure in watching him squirm, obviously thinking I would. The question I have been reflecting on is why I chose to not invite the local constabulary to this little party? In the aftermath of 911 there was shock, anger, pain, fear and rage and ultimately a totally unbalanced response. A response that was not even once directed at those who were ultimately supporters of the suspects. The shock, anger, pain, fear and rage were used by those who hold the strings of power to feed their own egos and agendas. The tens of thousands killed as a result of the decisions we allowed them to make far outweigh the original numbers killed. The decisions we, collectively, have allowed to be taken in our names have resulted in terror, shock, anger, pain, fear and rage that threatens to blow back at us and increase the cycle of killing and revenge killing. While my little accident pales in comparison to what happened in September, 2001, it?s often in the minutiae of one to one social interactions that our connection to larger social tides is revealed. Sure, I was really pissed that this bloke had hit me. But what would dragging him through the courts achieve? Sure, I was shocked that he had broken my trust. But what good would it do him or me to get involved in something that would affect his family and potentially his other relationships. I realised that my response to this situation gave me the power to decide on both our futures. The pain on his face was enough to convince me that the reoccurring image of that red flash would punish him far more severely than loosing his license and a few dollars in a fine. I had an opportunity to not perpetuate the cycle of retribution that fuels so much rage which then feeds back in the same cycle until it bursts out in more anger, pain and fear. As Colonel Rudd preaches the gospel of war and enjoins us to support his push to buy more weapons and killing machines, perhaps the time has come for those who should and indeed do, know better to step back and put themselves in the shoes of those who have done nothing to deliberately hurt them, real or perceived. I?d like to think that as my bruises emerge and the pain in my bum cheek recedes that the small and insignificant gesture of trust and kindness I showed the bloke who knocked me off my bike will circle around him and his family and friends in such a way that it breaks the cycle of rage and ushers in some calm to a situation he or they will face. Perhaps the next split second decision he has to make will have a little less traumatic outcome than the one we both made last Sunday morning. - August 2008 #3 - Its all Relative I Suppose (5mb)
21 Aug 2008 11:00:00 +1000
The six thousand dollar a week man lives in a house like ours. Well, it has walls, floors and ceilings. He earns his six thousand dollars a week by occupying a chair in an office in a central city high-rise building. The six thousand dollar a week man has to make important decisions. He is paid, not by the number of decisions he makes, but by remaining committed to the ?team? and by ensuring that all his decisions are positive towards the ?team? outcomes. We have an office. Well it?s really an enclosed veranda but it does have walls, a floor and a ceiling. Like the six thousand dollar a week man, we also make decisions. Important ones at that! Like him, we make decisions that, hopefully, have a positive impact on the ?team? outcome. After that, well, its all relative I suppose. The six thousand dollar a week man is able to organise his week as he pleases. As long as all is going well, he can plan his week to suit his moods and work related expectations. The six thousand dollar a week man has all the trinkets one expects of a person who makes important decisions. He has the department subsidised superannuation ? which at current rates should see him retire rather comfortably. He has a department supplied car ? updated every two years. He has the department supplied laptop ? updated every year. He has the department supplied mobile ? with blue tooth, internet and video capability. He has the network of mates and ex ?team? members. He never has to worry about future employment should he choose to ?consult? rather than make the actual decisions any more. Like the six thousand dollar a week man, we are able to plan our week, providing there are no unexpected interruptions. We also have the trinkets that are expected of people who make important decisions. We have the superannuation ? that we paid into before Helen* was born. We have the incontinence nappies ? updated every four hours and paid for by us. We have the laptop ? pillow so Helen?s bony bottom doesn?t hurt our knees while we nurse her through the long, painful nights. We have the mobile ? in case we need to ring the ambulance when we?re out. We have the network of mates and ex ?team? members ? who don?t call much any more and who we consult only if we really need help. After that, its all relative I suppose. The six thousand dollar a week man makes decisions that affect our family. He also writes letters. Most of these letters travel up the management chain to the floors above. His job is to ensure that the shit from below doesn?t pass his level and hit the fan in the office one floor up. The six thousand dollar a week man doesn?t know who Helen is. He says he does have concerns that the carer?s pension is, perhaps, not enough to support us. He wrote that he "understands our frustration" that we can?t access enough respite care and, yes, he wrote us, he is aware that its "family carers, like yourselves, who save the Australian economy upwards of $20 billion a year". He refers us, once more, to the regional office and gives us a new contact name. We, like the six thousand dollar a week man, make decisions that affect our family. We write letters. Our job is to ensure that the shit Helen often passes doesn?t soil the furniture or carpet in the doctor?s or the specialist?s office. We know who Helen is. We see, each week, our dwindling savings and now that the part-time work is not as frequent as it was, we really wonder how we will cope. We haven?t had a weekend respite for six months and the $48 a week carer?s allowance and the once a year bonus doesn?t even cover the cost of disposable nappies, dry cleaning and tissues. We don?t know what we save the community each year but caring for Helen is costing us our lives. The name at the regional office had left before we got the letter from the six thousand dollar a week man. After that, its all relative I suppose. The six thousand dollar a week man went to Turtle Island for his annual departmental senior management conference. His wife went as well and then they spent a week relaxing in the Whitsundays. His office staff took care of inquiries and fielded the calls. He was so tanned when he got back he won the weekly ?best dressed manager? award. We had last Friday night off when Helen?s nan came over. We bought Subway for dinner and went to the movies. We stopped in at Safeway on the way home and bought Magnum Egos for us and mum. While we were out she took care of inquiries and fielded vomit and faeces. We were so tired when we went to bed we didn?t even make love. After that, its all relative I suppose. The six thousand dollar a week man spoke at a conference in Canberra last week. He was on the news. He made an announcement that his department had been allocated extra funds for respite and out of home care programs. He said the extra millions would benefit families directly. The six thousand dollar a week man was interviewed on the radio the next day. He said he was all too aware of how much families who cared for their disabled loved ones needed support. He said the latest increase in funding would go towards building a national telecentre with a 1800 number. He said carers could call to find out information about what respite services they might be eligible for. He said that ads would be in the paper on the weekend asking for applicants for the new telecentre jobs. We read the weekend paper and found that ad. It was for a "chief executive officer", a "human resource manager", a "unit co-ordinator" and a "senior financial officer". All were to be paid in accordance with Federal Public Service Awards and their salary packages started at $110,000pa plus, car, private health insurance and a "relocation allowance for successful applicants". When we read the fine print, it said the telecentre was to be based in Mumbai and the successful applicants would be based there for up to six months while it was established. A valid passport was essential. After that, its all relative I suppose. We used to travel, before Helen was born. She?s almost 10 now and I guess the first two years were the easiest. Her prognosis is not good. I mean, she will probably live for a long time if she doesn?t succumb to an infection, lung collapse, bowel or heart failure or a stroke. The local Rotary club raised $7,000 it cost to fly us interstate so she could have experimental surgery. The doctors and the hospital donated their time. We only found out later that the department could have funded the trip. The six thousand dollar a week man is thinking of buying his daughter a horse for Christmas. The property near Druin would comfortably accommodate it. Given his recent incremental salary increase, the monthly food, vet and other bills would easily be covered. The renovations on the city flat will be finished by December so at least this New Years Eve they won?t have to bunk down with paint tins, plaster dust and bare concrete floors. We think that a day at the park will be a great Christmas break this year. At least Helen?s brothers can play on their new (second hand) bikes ? thanks to my union friends. The local church will probably offer us another Christmas hamper. They?ve been good to us. We hope to not spend this New Years Eve in hospital with Helen. Her brothers need a night out at the Lion?s fireworks display and we need to laugh and cheer as a family for at least one night each year. After that, its all relative I suppose. *All names are fictitious and any resemblance to living human beings and their family circumstances is not unexpected. - August 2008 #2 - Georgia On My Mind (4mb)
15 Aug 2008 13:30:00 +1000
You may have heard about the little stoush being fought out in the Republic of Georgia at present. Georgia is a little country that grew out of the former Soviet Union. Bordered by the Black Sea to the west, Turkey and Armenia to the South, Azerbaijan to the east and Russia to the north, this little country could well be the flash point for a new cold war. The bloody rule of the communist leaders of the former Soviet Union, during most of last century, saw thousands killed and many more displaced. We would now describe it as ethnic cleansing. However, for the most part we weren?t interested in another patch of soil well removed from our good friend and partner, the US. Yet all the while, US and European interests were very interested in this part of the world. Not content with ?winning? the cold war, the masters of the universe - the financiers and their cronies - recognised the strategic value of this little place and were prepared to finance any war that would deliver to them the spoils. One can only appreciate the strategic value of this country in the current political climate when you consider oil. The pictures of the dead and dying, the focus on the high tech war machines and the grief of those who have lost everything obscure the real conflict. Forget ethnic separatists. Forget breakaway states. Focus on the money, or in this case, the oil that makes the money. The conflict is another example of the increasingly common use of revisionist history to support those for whom war is just another way of doing business. With the US and Israeli military backing Georgian militias, in an attempt to ensure the Georgian government remains prepared to do deals with their interests, it is little wonder the Russians are concerned. Whether the current conflict was sparked by Russian or Georgian aggression doesn?t really matter. The fact is they while oil flows through the pipes running over and under that dirt, there will be conflict. The pretext of ?separatist? attacks or ?rebel? forces has the media focus at present. The increasingly shallow and disjointed ?reporting? on the region does little to alert us to the involvement of the futures traders and investment houses that stand to win, or loose, billions depending on whose might prevails. With the British BP and US companies Chevron and ConocoPhillips being heavy investors in the oil pipeline running through Georgia, one has to ask, is it the right time to invest in the oil giants? Certainly they and their end customers (other oil companies) have quite a bit to loose should this regional war go pear shaped. Governed by greed and geopolitical deals, the strategic value of building the pipeline through Georgia was the easy option. It?s not Turkey, Russia or Iran. By dint of its location, this country lends itself to the whims of others not at all interested in its peoples, cultures or languages. Of course, this diversity can be used to stir up conflict when needed and that is, perhaps, the greatest strength and weakness of the whole region. Indeed, it has been the objective of all colonial powers to find the divisions, amplify them and attempt to shape them to fit their own agendas. Sometimes these agendas are revealed in the tiniest news snippets. George W. Bush said to the world that Russia should back off, that it was not kosher to invade a sovereign nation. He said that the Russians should withdraw and allow the democratically elected government find a solution, with the ?worlds? help, to its internal problems. What words! What a crock of male bovine excreta. To quote a segment of a famous Monty Python skit, ?the inherent contradictions of the system? are showing. So long as US and European oil interests are threatened and along with them the stability of the structures that hold them up - the futures markets, investment advisors and more importantly our tax dollars - then it is inevitable under the capitalist system that wars will be fought over access to wealth producing resources. Justice and fairness do not enter these equations. The conflict is not over ideologies, cultures or religions but over who will take home the spoils. Meanwhile the people of Ossetia and Georgia will continue be played as the pawns in a much larger game of chess. A game of geopolitical chess, in which people are but bit players on a board laid according to the rules of capitalist accumulation. While diplomats and foreign advisors continue to earn their money by spruiking the interests of those who pay them, other human beings, who want very similar things to us, will continue to die. While the muscle men in the big houses squabble over the spoils, the hopes and dreams of tens of thousands will remain well outside their discussions. Our current government sees itself as being able to hold its own in the global debating club. However, as far as I can see from history, the influence of our politicians to shape the global agenda has been very small, particularly when it comes to the resource wars. As a resource rich landscape the strategic value of what lies under our soil remains high so long as we, that is we the people, don?t argue to much over who benefits from its exploitation. The conflict in Georgia is just another reminder that the real rulers of the world care little for the expectations of those they rule. Like the feudal rulers of old, so long as were tend our crops, pay them homage and taxes and bow and scrape when they pass by, the new rulers of the universe are content to let us be content with our lot. Should we, however, decide to attempt to claim back what is rightfully ours and share the spoils more equitably, then god help us all. So while in far off lands innocent people die because of the greed of others, we can remain content with our lot. Should we, as suggested, attempt to interfere then, like other ?democracies? that have been overrun by foreign powers, we might just find that an ?insurgent? or ?breakaway? group is suddenly identified as a global terrorism threat right here on our soil. I guess the question for us then would be, ?whose side are we on?? Perhaps somewhere around that point the people of Georgia, who still have homes and TV?s, might hear about a little nation at the bottom end of the earth that suddenly becomes the focus of the geopolitics of oil. For our sake, let?s hope not. - August 2008 #1 - The Royal Gosper (5mb)
06 Aug 2008 19:40:00 +1000
Everyone loves freebies. You know, a free hat or t-shirt to remember an event by. Even Royalty like to be in on them. The Olympic Family are royalty. Well at least that?s what they like to think of themselves as, not mere mortals who must adhere to the strictures of even mundane things like ?the truth? or ?moral obligation?. No, this group, who control the multibillion-dollar circus we lovingly call ?The Olympics?, are not like us. They inhabit a universe to which many aspire but must remain satisfied just observing. Take for instance the 2000 Sydney games. You remember them. ?Our? Cathy running in and the Big Barby groaning its way up the ramp while she stood there all wet and dripping. Boy, did we show them how it was done. Well, at least until Athens. But back to Sydney. You may recall the little ?hiccup? Kevan Gosper caused when he pulled rank and got the Greek-Australian girl, Yianna Souleles, kicked off the Olympic relay. He had obviously promised his little girl, Sophie, that she would be the first Australian to hold the torch when it touched down here and as a dad needed to fulfil the promise. At the time another member of the ?Olympic Family? jumped to Gosper?s defence and said the whole thing was a storm in a tea cup and that the ?Olympic Family? were all happy. Of course, as an International Olympic Committee Vice President and the then Vice President of the Sydney games, none of us should jump to any conclusions here. ?Our? Kevan is a highly distinguished man. Fifty years ago he was part of a team that won a race. He has also been an oil man and a Director of a number of high profile companies including Richard Pratt?s Visy, Packer?s Crown and brewer Lion Nathan. He is currently in his 20th year as Chairperson of the Olympic Press Commission and is the Deputy Chair of the Beijing Organizing Committee. While Kevan is probably a really nice man who loves his family and would rather see his daughter hold up a flaming stick than allow mere agreements and protocols to get in the way, I don?t think he is man I could trust. I mean, he has come out all warm and gooey over the Beijing internet scam and taken the blame for it all. I think he?s just a good PR front man who was feeling a little ignored by the media and wanted the opportunity to get his mug on camera. Nonetheless, here?s the facts as we know them. China is a totalitarian state. The ruling class there don?t like anything causing them inconvenience. They forced poor old Rupert to drop the BBC from his satellite service and bent the arm of Google and Yahoo till they gave in and set up internet filters to keep out anything the rulers took umbrage at. However, the rulers of the Olympic Family said they had made sure international journalists would have uncensored internet access for the Games period. Guaranteed! The Chinese organizers said they would cooperate with the IOC and ensure just that. Well, as we know, someone lied. ?Our? Kevan then admits he is embarrassed at the backroom deal done by someone higher up in the Family agreeing that internet censorship did not need to be lifted. Someone higher? He?s a VP. Surely the only one higher would be the President, Jacques Rogge? Well, good old Jacques came out and said no deals had been done and it would all be OK. But is it? Not really. Here?s what ?our? Kevan had to say on the 7:30 Report. Early in an interview with ?our? Kerry O?Brian, ?our? Kevan said that there had been no deal on ?increased censorship?. Do we imply from this that, according to him, a little bit of censorship is OK? Using pornography and subversive websites as examples, ?our? Kevan told ?our? Kerry that all countries have some degree of censorship and that this ?grey? area was where things tipped over. According to Kevan ?what we have now is very reasonable in terms of what the broadcasters and the press need to report on the Games.? He then slipped up big time. In the next sentence he let it slip that all along the IOC and its rulers allowed China to impose as much restriction on internet access as it could. Note his words. ?Overall I believe you will find the reporting for an audience of 4.1 or 4.2 billion people will be absolutely consistently, almost consistent, I've changed my word, but certainly satisfactory to the viewers as it had been in past Games?. Notice the qualifications. From ?absolutely? consistent to ?almost consistent?, all the way down to ?satisfactory?. By employing the best propaganda techniques he is saying, in effect, ?we wont allow anything that might upset the Chinese get through and we are happy to collaborate with them in reaching that goal?. ?Our? Kevan went on to say that the Chinese government wanted to show off the Chinese ?way of life?. A rather strange comment given that they won?t brook any protests, bussed the vagrants out of the city, won?t allow any view that diverges from the Party?s and are doing all they can to stamp out ?differences? over the Tibet ?problem?. I guess the only thing we can draw from Kevan?s comment is that the Chinese government only wants us to see what they want us to see. A bit like the Howard government in 2000 not wanting the international media to report on his regime?s appalling treatment of our Indigenous people. The only ?authorised? Aboriginality allowed in the lead up to and during the Sydney Olympics was that which conformed to the patronising and colonialist perspective of the first Australians as ?noble savages?. But Kevan was not satisfied with the inherent contradictions in his defence of the Olympic Family and the way it does its business. When asked what his thoughts were regarding athlete?s right to protest, he said they should not worry about that and focus on their events. Kevan said ?There are any number of NGOs, non-government organizations, out there, through to Amnesty International, pro-Tibetan groups; you name it, that's their role to work with Governments.? I had to think about that for a nanosecond. Then I remembered. They were the ones the Great Chinese Firewall blocked. Now, I?m not the brightest spark in the fire, but surely Kevan doesn?t want us to take him seriously, does he? The Olympic Family is just another multinational corporation that has, in modern times, been used as a vehicle for nationalism, geopolitics, the promotion of the most unhealthy foods and beverages you can think of, feeds off a ?winner takes all? mentality, plays up the culture of celebrity and privilege and allows government repression of those who it believes might stand in the way of, as Kevan says, the ?harmony? of the games. The Olympic Family are, nonetheless, royalty. They are no different from the other despotic and fascist ruling clans that precede them. They are a law unto themselves, given to whims and fancies that turn the dreams of mere mortals to dust. They lie, cheat, and stab each other in the back if things don?t go their way. They believe that they are more important than the heads of the states their games are played in. They make demands which weak and grovelling governments give into. They demand absolute league and their pound of flesh. They are corrupt and like all Royalty and they don?t give a toss about the poverty that exists on their door step. Nor do they care about the mess they leave behind. The only harmony they want is that which allows them to get a free ride, the best hotels and seats in the house and a free souvenir t-shirt. - July 2008 #3 - Obama-Danger to the Middle East (6mb)
30 Jul 2008 16:00:00 +1000
Any of us who have attempted to speak ?off the cuff? in a public setting know just how dangerous it can be. We can muddle our words, prattle on incoherently and ?mis-speak? important facts. So when it comes to politicians delivering speeches we can rest assured that the words we hear were carefully planned and scripted. Not only do the words have to make some kind of sense, they have to fit the established narrative they are creating based on the historic record that precedes them. Of course some people are better in delivering their words (think Rudd or Howard) than others (think Bush II). In the last couple of weeks US Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, toured the European and Middle Eastern region spruiking himself as the candidate who would deliver a new United States to them. Outside his public appearances he met with many ?movers and shakers? in order to deliver to them his personal guarantees on what he would deliver should he win office. While we, the ordinary people, may never find out what he said in these closed meetings we do have records of many of his public utterances. It is these and those utterances on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict that I want to examine. I want to begin with a speech he made prior to leaving for his jaunt through the East. On July 4th he gave an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This organisation is the loudest, most cashed up and most connected pro-Israel lobby group in the US. They are the eyes and ears to the words and deeds in high places. Obama began his address by saying that the Zionist lobby in the US ?shared values and shared stories? that bound them together and that as ?President [he] will work with [them] to ensure that this bond [is] strengthened?. He waxed lyrical on how the bible stories of Israel had created within him a desire to find his ?homeland?. He told of his horror at the Holocaust stories and that he subscribed to the ?never again? philosophy. He then turned the history of the little town now known as Sderot (Stay-Rote) on its head. This little town is one of the ones we read about as being under attack from Palestinian rockets. What we don?t hear is how this town came to be in Israel?s possession. Like many of the occupied towns, Sderot was stolen from its inhabitants who were forced, at gun point, to vacate their houses and land for the Zionist dream. When you read the Zionist history it says that Sderot was ?first inhabited in 1951?. The farmers and their families who lived there prior to then were forced out and their farms destroyed. The Zionist history that Obama?s speech writers obviously used fails to acknowledge the ethnic cleansing of this town. Indeed the Zionist history shows that there is ?no significant Arab population? in the town. How could there be? The Israeli army keeps them away. Obama went on to say how bad it was for the settlers and soldiers who now live on that stolen land. Further into his speech Obama said he would strengthen the US / Israel alliance and that, as President, he would provide up to $US30 billion dollars in military aid so that Israel could maintain its ?military advantage? in the region. He also said that, as President, he would ensure the steady flow of weapons to Israel would continue and he would campaign for Israel?s right to ?defend itself?. Just after uttering this he proclaimed that the ?Palestinian people must understand? that ?Israel?s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable?. In other words, Arabs can go jump if they challenge Israel?s crushing power. While he says pressure must be put on the Arab nations to back off, he went on to say that, ?we must never force Israel to the negotiating table.? Towards the end of his address he said, ?I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.? Obama is a great orator and commands respect when he speaks. He doesn?t mince his words and on the campaign trail he has rarely stumbled in his rhetoric or the narrative he is creating. However, like so many who crave power he is a fully paid up member of the ?memory hole? club. A club whose members refuse to acknowledge anything that might undermine their thin veneer of respectability, credibility and sincerity. Any inconvenient truth that stands in the way must be flushed down the ?memory hole? immediately. After his Zionist sponsored free dinner he flew off to tour the Middle East and Europe. While he briefly met with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank his rhetoric and promise to defend Israel never waivered. He did not once get ?off script?. When he held his most spectacular media event at the ethnically cleansed village of Sderot he made no reference to its pre-occupation history which, I suppose, would have revealed an inconvenient truth to the rapturous media pack. While he took time to dress up as a Jew and ?worship? at the Wailing Wall, he did make sure his Christian commitment did not surface and decry the injustice meted out by the Israeli government and his own on the Palestinians. Like a true statesman he did not have to negotiate the so called ?security fence? that renders his hope for a ?contiguous Palestinian territory? impossible. In fact by the time he made it to Germany he had totally forgotten the 10 metre high cement fortress that encases many Palestinians and separates them from their livelihoods. When he got up to speak in Berlin a few days later Barak Obama had conveniently ignored the facts on the ground pertaining to the real plight of Palestinians and launched into a speech that contained so much irony I can only deduce it was written by someone like comedian John Stewart of ?The Daily Show? rather than a seasoned, steeped in history speech writer. His call to solidarity and shared suffering must have warmed the hearts of some of the crowd there. Of course he didn?t mention the bombing of Dresden by the US ally, Britain. Nor did he mention the US role in supplying engineering expertise and machinery that assisted in Hitler?s rise. Nor did he mention the way the US prevaricated in the final days of the push into Berlin and how it allowed the Russian forces to occupy West Berlin. But I suppose that would have been inconvenient given his audience. A few days prior to this speech he had again declared that when it comes to Israel / Palestinian relations a two state solution is the only way out. However when it came to the ?brave? Berliners he said, ?People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.? He went on to say, ?the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened?. The greatest irony in his speech was uttered when he declared, with a straight face and no sense of shame, ?That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. ? The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.? Barak Obama is no friend of the Palestinian people. Zionists here and in the US do have reservations about him and his commitment to their cause. Yet, as far as his public utterances go and I have only quoted a few, it seems that he will carry their banner high when developing US foreign policy. Like Blair after Thatcher and Major, like Rudd after Howard, Obama after Bush will pretty much be ?more of the same?. Nothing will change. There will be tinkering around the edges and some cosmetic changes. There will be new forms of rhetoric but in essence, nothing will change. Palestinians, during this occupation, will continue to die at a rate of 3 or 5 to 1 compared to Israelis. Should he become President, during Obama?s reign, the wall will not be pulled down and Israel will not be forced to adhere to the numerous UN Resolutions calling for it to desist and return to the 1948 borders. So long as US foreign policy is not geared towards undoing the terrible wrongs of Israel and its bloody occupation, the underlying causes of the mess in the Middle East will not be resolved. Perhaps even more disturbing, Obama might just be the President who increases the power of the military industrial complex rather than rein it in as many hope. Obama doesn?t have the luxury of being able to speak ?off the cuff?. As the potential next President of the USA, he has to ensure that all his words are carefully crafted and delivered. He has to surround himself with people who will not challenge the narrative he is creating nor raise the history he is ignoring. If Barak Obama is not able to speak ?off the cuff? then we can only presume his public utterances are the considered and approved versions of how he views the world. We can also presume that he repeats the words of his speech writers verbatim because they are the words and thoughts he agrees with. If this is the case then Barak Obama might just be an even more dangerous President that George Bush ever was.
