Economist Pimps

There are three kinds of economists:
The first are those who deserve respect. They are just a few; Adam Smith is one of them.
The second type - the clowns - are grossly incompetent but don't know it.
The third class are the pimps. They are the ones selling their soul.

This article is about the pimps who have helped to create the "Washington consensus", the "new world order", and the neoliberal way of creating corporate supra-national power. The neoliberal world programs have been an economic disaster wherever they have been followed.

To be continued ....

Economists like to say: "Trust me, I am an economist". There are two reactions to this: If he is a clown, laugh. If he is a pimp, run.

----------------------------------
During a stopover in Singapore in early 2006 I decided to stop doing this blog. Here is why:

The Singaporeans were preparing for a week-long “international conference” of the Worldbank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Both those outfits are extensions of the US Treasury. And all three of them are located in Washington D.C. where they deal with each other on a daily basis, because they are essentially one and the same (American) organisation. Why would they have to go to Singapore for an “international conference" rather than talking to each other in Washington ? You guessed it – they wanted to go on a junket.

The “Strait Times” wrote proudly of the millions of Dollars about to be injected into the local economy by “the 10,000 economists and their 6,000 partners” descending on the city state. Hotels were booked out, restaurants stocked up on gourmet food and champaign, brothels hired additional prostitutes to cope with the expected demand. One of the items on the conference agenda was “Coping with Hunger in the Developing World”.


This has happened to me many times before: Reality overtaking my most gruesome and most cynical observations. This one however was the last straw. Why bother writing a blog when life is so much more ...lets say.... graphic.

So I stopped this blog. In hindsight I am wondering why anyone bothers to do a blog anyway. 
Can you tell me ?
-------------------------------------


PS: Even economists can contribute something – like - improving the World , even if only ceteris paribus.

"We Do Not Torture"

Thus Spake The Leader, the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the most powerful nation on earth. What did he say ? "We do not torture."
How can he say that despite the enormity of the evidence to the contrary? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Afghanistan ..... Of course, ‘we’ torture. He threathened to veto an amendment banning torture, his Vice President tried to exclude the CIA from the ban – further evidence that ‘we’ are torturing, otherwise ‘we’ wouldn’t bother.

So, why does he say it ? Is he lying ? Or does he not know ? Here are some possible explanations (maybe I should apply for a job as his ghostwriter):

• "We do not torture" could mean that I, my wife, my friends, our neighbours do not torture. Alright, that’s fair enough. Why get your own hands dirty when there are so many who can do it for you. So, a better way of saying this would have been "We do not torture personally".
• "We do not torture Americans". That sounds reasonably true for the time being (but wait until the Patriot Act unfolds). The trouble is, it implies Americans torture everybody else. Far from it. So far they haven’t tortured Eskimos, for example.
• "We do not torture on American soil." Again, sounds credible. Those American laws and the Constitution are a real nuisance. That’s why we go offshore, outsourcing it. We might go further and auction off the right to torture.
• "We do not really torture, we only apply ‘advanced interrogation protocols’". Well, that’s great. But wait until you hear what the CIA calls ‘real’ torture – treatment that leads to organ failure or death. Everything else is just ‘cruel, degrading and inhuman’, not torture. OK, so apparently that is something you can safely do to your wife, brother, or neighbour ?

In the fog created by spin doctors, government lawyers, and prostitute journalists it is hard to see the simple facts or to verify what is or isn’t being done, by whom, and why. Helpfully, Amnesty International has produced some detailed questions and answers regarding torture which also debunk some of the more insidious justifications for it.

Who tortures ? We know Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and the like did it. And we’d expect ‘evil’ regimes, ‘rogue states’ to do it. But the USA ? The cradle of freedom, justice, and democracy ? The very people that have just ‘liberated’ Iraq from an evil, bloodthirsty, torturing dictator ? Abu Ghraib came as a huge shock , particularly to those of us who were friends of America. But as it turns out, other ‘friends’ like Britain and Israel seem to be doing it as well.

Why do they torture ? Does it produce anything useful, does it lead to less terrorism, prevent the explosion of ‘a ticking bomb ? No. Definitely not. Torture does not work. It does not produce reliable information. Whatever it provides, can not be used as evidence in court. This creates all sorts of legal problems. So, torture does not produce anything useful - except: It produces more terrorists – "an excellent way of converting [the victims'] families and friends to extremism" as The Economist dryly observes (my article on Terrorism due out in March ’06 ). It extends and multiplies the mayhem, makes the world a more dangerous place, and may ultimately require ‘to fight them here’, because ‘fighting them there’ has so abysmally failed.

Who are the culprits ? It comes from the top, aided and abbetted by lawyers, journalists, lobbyists, industrialists. "...abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior U.S. government officials." says Human Rights Watch . It also says: ".. U.S. mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to "a few bad apples," but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership."
Can you believe that lawyers of the American Department of Justice are labouring to construe justifications for the most cruel act of injustice that is torture ? To call this a 'Department of Justice' is a bitter Orwellian joke. Can you believe that they are seeking to protect the torturers from prosecution, where the victims are the ones who desperately need protection ?

What about the torturer ? "Torture not only degrades the victim, it also ultimately degrades the torturer". And does he really expect to ferret out some highly important secret information from some poor soul who can hardly read or write ? Look again at the pictures from Abu Grhaib with the victims and – next to them –grinning American soldiers. These torturers are enjoying themselves, having fun ! "So, can anyone believe that information-gathering is the real purpose of torture? The original inquisitors did not think so. They put their victims ‘to the test’ knowing perfectly well that there was no information to be gained. But they tortured and burnt their victims for the greater glory of God and their own perverse and pathological satisfactions".

What does all this lead to ? The "U.S. policy of abuse undermines [human] rights worldwide". How can we claim the moral high ground accusing, for instance, China of abuses, when we ourselves have blood on our hands. Human Rights Watch continues "..the illegal tactics [are] fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts and creating a pool of unprosecutable detainees." Amnesty International has this to say about torture: "Torture does not stop terror. Torture is terror (this article due out in March ‘06). Torture or other ill treatment not only harms the victim, it brutalizes the perpetrator and the societies that allow it to happen. It is cruel, inhuman and degrades us all." That is a nice way of saying that a society awash with violence, brutality, and gory computer games gets a chance to live out its sick phantasies doing the ‘real thing’.

Al Gore quotes a source saying that the chief executive who assumes the power to commit torture "has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." This inevitably leads to "The Law of The Jungle" as the German magazine DER SPIEGEL put it, to a breakdown of the rule of law – not just abroad but also at home. Those few Americans, British or Israelis who might have approved of torture being used on some ‘selected terrorists’ might soon find it being employed against their own fellow citizens. They should be worried "...because these enormous presidential powers can so easily be turned against U.S. citizens."

Torturers are everywhere. While I am talking about the USA and Western countries, I do acknowledge that torture happens in Asia, Africa, in the former Sowjet Union - quite possibly to a worse degree than anything the West does. What is so shocking is that the Western nations – while perpetrating this crime – pontificate about their ‘values’ – meaning freedom, justice, democracy. Who do they expect will believe them ?

Why do decent people reject torture ? "As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice ....I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice," said one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the UK . And, of course, decent people know it doesn’t work. It’ll achieve the opposite: "Injustice is the most eloquent recruiter for terrorism (this article due out in March ‘06). Injustice breeds desperation." The Court denounced torture and any attempt to use evidence obtained by torture in British courts. It said: ".. English law had regarded torture ... with abhorrence for more than 500 years." and "torture evidence [is] unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency .." and "The use of torture is dishonourable. It corrupts and degrades the state which uses it .... many people in the United States have felt their country dishonoured by its use of torture.." and "torture [is] one of the most evil practices known to man." and "Torture is not acceptable. No civilised society condones its use" and "Torture is an unqualified evil. It can never be justified. Rather, it must always be punished."

This is a slap in the face for the British Prime Minister and the American President. And for their governments. Decent Americans, Brits, Israelis and decent people everywhere will not tolerate torture. They will not let the government destroy their reputation and dishonour their good name.
Decent people do not want to return to the Middle Ages nor to the law of the jungle. They will say so. And they will mean what they say when they say: "We Do Not Torture."

Merry Christmas '05

Season's Greetings and the following Best Wishes for 2006:

• May your job not be outsourced in 2006.
• And may your wife stay with you and be kind and gentle to you all year.
• Protect yourself from obesity – do some walking and hold back on McDonald’s for God’s sake.
• While you can’t expect a pay-rise in 2006, don’t begrudge your boss's $2m bonus.
• May you not be arrested for taking pictures of a house, a bridge, or a railway station.
• If you do get arrested and ‘rendered’, make sure its by Americans. Because "we do not torture" (G.W.Bush).
• May your abuses at the hands of authority be only cruel, degrading and inhuman, nothing that Mr. Cheney would call torture *).
• For non-Americans: May your country never be ‘liberated’ by the United States *).
• May your kids grow long necks.
• If you are retired, please die early so that your pension fund becomes more profitable.
  

*) these items courtesy of William Blum.

PS: You can make for a better world in 2006 by clicking here.

The Pope and His Church

He says his Church is the only one that truly represents God. He also says he is infallible. Therefore, all others must be wrong. Because nobody else can claim to be infallible. We are told that Hindus, Moslems, Protestants, Jews, agnostics are all wrong. In other words most of the world (85 percent) is wrong – except him. And those who disagree are wrong again because they are not infallible.

With this mindset it is easy to see why the Church has embarked on so many programs – sometimes progroms – to convert ‘heathens’, re-educate ‘heretics’, burn witches, stage inquisitions, slaugther ‘barbarians’, and generally subdue everyone who objects. I’d say the Pope is self-righteous, dictatorial, fundamentalist. And in that role he has always supported those in charge - aristocrats, emperors, employers, dictators – as long as they returned the favour. Just think of the crusades, of Martin Luther, the Spanish occupation of Flanders, the conquest of South America, the Concordat, the wars in Europe, the American neo-conservatives. He did it just about always. And still does.

Pope Pius IX - quoting Jesus - said: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." This is how you make people subservient. It means "don’t complain today, you’ll be in heaven tomorrow". Makes for submissive, unquestioning followers. Just fire up their naive religious conviction. For their Church and a place in heaven they’ll do anything - as long as the Church grants absolution. And it does. "Confess, repent, and you’ll be forgiven" is the message. It means you can do it again tomorrow and be forgiven again.

Martin Luther revolted against that: To buy yourself forgivenness, to pay for a place in heaven ? It shouldn’t be that simple. It shouldn’t be at all. But that is how the Church made its money and kept believers under control. And the Church cooperated with whoever promised to further its goals and feed its greed.

Was Pius XII "Hitler's pope" ? Before he became pope he negotiated the Concordat with the Nazis. This secured their support - and had them collect church taxes for the Vatican. In return he ordered his priests in Germany to refrain from any political comments. He created German Army Bishops, too. From early 1939 until the end of the war Pius XII complained many times to the Nazis – about them interfering with his Concordat. He did not once, however, protest directly or complain publicly to them about the persecution and killing of the Jews.

After the war he was exonerated by many, including prominent jews. He was said to have saved between 200,000 and 800,000 jews by hiding them in convents. Not much detail is available. Surprising, given the large number of lives allegedly saved. Even more astonishing are allegations that the Vatican helped launder Nazi gold and financed escape routes for them to South America. Victims filed a class-action suit in 1999 which alleges the Church’s involvement in the famous "Rat-Lines" of the ODESSA (former SS officers') group.
Strange, isn’t it. Of course, you would expect the Nazis to launder stolen money – preferrably in Switzerland, but the Pope ?? Is this why he still employs Swiss guards for his personal protection ? From the Nazis to ‘Opus Dei’ is a small step. This is an ultraconservative, Vatican-approved and secretive organisation with "cult-like methods and a right-wing political agenda" (Wikipedia). Sounds like the Pope’s storm troopers.

Is all this true or is it just another conspiracy theory ?
I don’t know. But if only half of it, a quarter, only one-tenth of it were true, it would be devastating.

‘Conservative’ is a benevolent description of the Catholic Church given its historical track record. It fought tooth and nail against Enlightenment and scientific progress. Just think of Galileo being put on trial. This is consistent with its dislike of higher education. You see, better educated people might voice doubts and ask more questions. There is anecdotal evidence that catholic students to this day achieve significantly below their non-catholic peers. It is fitting that religious fundamentalists are promoting ‘creationism’ as opposed to science. For marketing reasons its now called ‘Intelligent Design’.

Of course, the church excludes women from becoming priests. No equal opportunities here. Thats because – they say – Jesus had only male apostles. And all clergy has to be un-married, celibate. In other words - chaste. Now contrast this with the many sex abuse scandals surrounding Catholic priests. A psychiatrist would say that one is simply the consequence of the other. Well folks, castration is the solution.

With this twisted attitude to sex it is little wonder that the Church forbids the use of contraceptives – not before, not during, nor after. Not even condoms. Not even to prevent AIDS. A poor married couple in the Philippines or South America - having already ten children which they can’t feed – is thus forced to have yet another child, doomed to endless hunger, disease and deprivation. Or worse. Abortion, of course, is also strictly forbidden. Even in cases of gang-rape. "Human life is precious", you see. Never mind that in many wars Catholic priests have been blessing the cannons which killed thousands of ‘enemies’. Apparently, they were not "precious". The Church has a big problem with human life.

If priests don’t speak up against war, do they at least speak up against dictators, ‘disappearances’, torture - I mean torture today, not in the Middle Ages ? "By keeping their tongue-tied heads way down, our religious leaders have forfeited the moral authority with which they otherwise could speak."

How about Poverty (due out Feb ’06). ? Why isn’t that one of the most important issues for the Church ? After all, for hundreds of years the Vatican was the richest organisation and the largest land-owner in Europe. It gave alms to the poor and looked after many orphans, but is that all ? When three quarters of mankind live in abject poverty, what does one of the world’s richest organisations do about it ? Nothing much. Simple folks, even Bill Gates, do more. If I were still a Catholic, I would be ashamed. The Catholic Church and moral authority ?? Sadly, an oxymoron (Americans: Look this up in your dictionary).

As you may have gathered, I’m no longer a Catholic. I left in protest. They have probably excommunicated me - their word for ‘executed’. But I’m in good company, just google Henry VIII, for example. This article is not anti-religious nor anti-God. I would like to know about God. But the Church hasn’t helped me. In fact, it stood in my way. What would Jesus think ? I’m sure he would cringe. Then fire them all.

PS: Could the Church contribute at least a little (say $1 per member) to improving the world ?

PPS: Feel free to email this article to Mr Ratzinger. I’m looking forward to his response.

Economist Clowns

Should economists be taken seriously ?

Medieval kings employed court jesters to cheer them up when things (wars, taxes, serfs) went pear-shaped. Today banks, governments, think-tanks use economists to tell us what we ought to think. When things go wrong (the dreaded depression, for example), they bring in the economist clowns. Not quite spin doctors, but close. Court jesters were famous for their incessant laughter. Economists are notorious for their endless monologues. Is their chatter of any consequence ?

What do you make of this: "Reserve Bank lifts interest rates ... economists say it won’t change outlook ... business opinion gloomy ... uncertainty caused by (fill in any recent disaster) .. economic growth slows to (fill in any number) ... nervous about (fill in ‘inflation’, ‘labour costs’, etc)" ? Then, on the same page, read about ‘bumper profits’, ‘price rises’, ‘increased turnover’. What does it tell you ?

These days everyone has their own economist – the employers’ federation, trade unions, certainly all the banks (they have several like Junior, Senior, Chief Economists), and even the Vatican has them. "Thats why the Pope is so rich" you might think . No. Its not because of the economists, its in spite of them. Anyway, as all these guys spin their yarn, they keep contradicting each other. And they don’t even notice. Or if they do, they fall back on the old trick of "on the one hand, on the other".

You might think that these experts anticipate bad economic developments and warn us. But no. Not one of the many market crashes, depressions, financial crises since 1837 has been predicted by them (to my knowledge). They do make forecasts, but these are so bad that J K Galbraith (an economist himself) ridicules his colleagues: "[they] do not know and they don’t know that they don’t know". As a consequence, they get it half right half the time – an error rate worse than the weather forecast. Try this on the next economist you meet: "Will interest rates go up in the next quarter?" You’ll get an avalanche of words and somehow he’ll end up telling you all about Chinese bicycle factories.

Talking about the one hand or the other, why are economists harping on about the ‘invisible hand’, the ‘magic of the market’, the ideal supply and demand curve, when reality tells us a completely different story ? If they would just look out the window and show me one instance of a perfect market (except the weekend village market). From agricultural products, to oil or any other commodity, to pharmaceuticals, to so-called intellectual property (eg. junk DNA), almost everything is owned, regulated or ‘protected’ by governments, multi-national corporations, cartels, ‘free trade’ bodies (for more click ‘Free Trade’ - one of my favourites - due out in Feb '06) and bi-/multi-lateral agreements. But I am getting carried away.

Back to Adam Smith. He is one of the few economists I respect. The other is Karl Marx. Both started out as philosophers and critical analysts of the society in which they lived. Hence, their discipline was ‘Political Economics’, a distinction that was later lost. And yet, to me it is the only acceptable way of looking at economics. Because economy does not exist in empty space. It is subject to, and a product of, its political environment. After all, up to half the economic product (GNP) in most countries is consumed by government. And by the way, most wars are being fought for economic reasons. To ignore this is to close your eyes and refuse to accept reality. If its not ignorance, then its intellectual dishonesty.

The ‘ruling class’ or, less emotional, the political-economic environment determines what happens to us economically. Wages are a good example. They don’t just go up and down like the temperature. Their behaviour was different during the Industrial Revolution, after trade unions had been formed, and now with outsourcing and ‘Globalisation’ (another favourite of mine – due out March ’06). To talk about wages in a clinical, economic-modelling type environment is ludicrous. But economists keep playing with slick mathematical models that try to emulate the real world. And they get annoyed when the world refuses to behave as their models say it should.

Here is my list of grudges/complaints about the economist clowns:

• They use gross domestic product (GDP) as if it indicated ‘goodness’ for a country. Is it good for you and me, if the country has exported heaps of copper (or soy beans or anything) ? The extra money goes straight to Pennepott Inc. in the USA. Why is that good for me ? They tell me our GDP per head is greater than that of Elbonia. Makes me proud. But then this is an average figure. If I and most others have made say $30,000 this year and our leading entrepreneurs have made $200 billion between them, the average income is a cosy $100,000. So where are my $70,000 please?
  
• I’m hearing twice a week how our ‘Visionary Entrepreneurs’ keep creating wealth for the country and, presumably, for me. Its just that I never seem to get any of that wealth. Apart from those who Live Well Without Working and those Who Dont Actually Work , who and where are these smart guys ? (Click here for the answer - due out Feb ’06).
  
• There are hundreds of different schools of Economics. , all fighting each other and all busy claiming their’s is the only real science. Economists claim economics is a science. Is it ? How come so few of them study Poverty (due out in Jan '06) ? After all the vast majority of mankind is desperately poor. Isn't that a worthy subject ? Or is it not 'sexy' enough ?
  
• Why do they keep calling shares, bonds, or derivates ‘securities’ ? Everyone knows how insecure they all are. Do people not remember the scandals ? Better put your money in the mattress.
  Look at the words they use :- ‘Externality’ is all thats unpleasant, that doesn’t belong to their model. Its outside, its what they’d like to ignore, like pollution, sweatshops, etc. ‘Utilities’ on the other hand is apparently something good, its what consumers should strive to have. Buying one sports car is not enough, you should have two. But, alas, then the law of ‘Diminishing Returns’ will kick in. In case you didn’t know it: The second Porsche isn’t anywhere near as good as the first one.
  
• Then the magic clause that never fails to amuse me: ‘Ceteris paribus’ . It always appears towards the end of their arguments. Its designed to impress us mere mortals, much like the Pope saying ‘Amen’. Thats because they think we are too dumb to understand Latin (it means ‘other things being equal’). And, of course, its another one of their backdoors. Any assertion containing these words will always be invalid because in a living economy ‘ceteris’ are never ‘paribus’.
  A perfect cop-out.

So far this has been about the clowns. But there is another, more sinister type of economists - those who prostitute themselves to organisations with hidden agendas. This is when they become pimps And thats where they do real damage to the rest of us.

Economists like to say: "Trust me, I am an economist". There are two reactions to this: If he is a clown, laugh. If he is a pimp, run.

PS: Even economists can contribute something – like - improving the World , even if only ceteris paribus.

Live Well Without Working

How can this be ? One would expect to work hard in order to live well. Woah, you don’t know the inside story. There is another way. Some people think its unpalatable, but once you get used to it its great. And it is not something brutally criminal. It is just – lets say – imaginative, kind of resourceful. Legal, most of the time.
You can get rich from other peoples’ money or – more generally – at the expense of the rest of the world. Some call it ‘creating wealth’. Sounds nicer. Here are a few examples:

1 - Remember the dotcom bubble ? The entrepreneur invents those grandiose gadgets, with loads of potential, milllions of prospective clients, billlions of dollars in potential revenue. Hey, he says, why don’t I float the company ? Never mind there is no proven track record. The suckers will come running to make sure they are in on the deal. They’ll buy my Initial Public Offering, my shares will suddenly be worth millions. I'l sell quickly, then the company goes bust. Well, I did it. It worked like a dream. I won, they lost. So what.

2- Have you ever tried a fraudulent bankruptcy ? Great. It works almost everywhere, because bankruptcy laws are so user-friendly – well - debtor-friendly. It involves several steps, so you better employ an accountant to get it right. But things don’t have to be complicated. Junk bonds used to be popular. They paid high interest and had "not really any risks". Thats why mom and dad bought them. Then the debtor defaulted and your mom and dad lost their capital – and you lost the inheritance. Mr Milken and his mates won huge commissions. Well, thats how it is. This avenue has now been made more difficult, unfortunately.

3 - Asset stripping sounds unfriendly, where in reality you are doing society a favour. Take a company with a lack-lustre performance and its shares trading cheaply on the stock exchange. Upon closer inspection you find their assets (land, buildings, equipment) are quite valuable. You ask your bank for a loan of say $50 million with which you raid the company’s shares overnight. As the new owner you sell off their assets for a total of $55 million. After paying back the bank loan, you pocket the difference, $5 million. The company, of course, no longer exists. Nor the jobs of its 500 staff. But as economists say, you’ve done a great service to the economy, because society is better off without this non-performing company. Some call this "creative destruction".

4 - ‘Shorting’ is a great game. Say friends in the Secret Service tell you there will be a terrorist attack on airplanes of the UZ airline next week. Their shares are currently $55 each. You offer a contract to sell 100,000 UZ shares for $45 in two weeks time. The contract will be snapped up very quickly, because the buyer is salivating to make $10 per share, ie $1m. Don’t worry that you haven’t got any UZ shares. Just wait until after the terror attack. The share price will drop immediately to something like $25. Now buy your 100,000 shares. Then honour the contract and deliver the shares. The buyer must pay you $45. This leaves you with a gain of $20 per share, ie $2 million. Economists will applaud this, because you have bought shares at a time when everyone else was wanting to sell them. Again, you have done a great service. You think this is a strange and unpleasant thing to do ? Not at all. A respected investment guru like George S. did it with the English Pound, only on a much grander scale. Of course, his move did not involve insider trading. His was intuition.

5 - If you are into energy, buy large-scale electricity futures at today’s price, then cause a few power cuts at peak time. Spot prices will go berserk and you can fetch top dollars for your electricity contracts. Sure, causing a deliberate power cut is illegal, but then it was accidental, wasn’t it. This scheme works with all sorts of commodities. George S. did it – amongst other things – with silver, oil, grain, coal.

These are just a few examples. The sky is the limit. There are even more exotic schemes like the "Dead Peasant" insurance, the "Great Eskimo Loss" recycling, the "Greenmail" threat, etc. All of these schemes ‘create wealth’ for the inventor and cause substantial damage for the rest of us, often out of proportion. The "Great Eskimo Loss", for instance, generated $10m profit for the initiator and caused a $1 billion loss for the country’s tax base - thats $100 damage for each $1 gained. Coming up with these schemes takes creativity and a particular mindset . And an experienced accountant like, for instance, the good people at Kolossal-Profit-Margin-Gurus .

PS: After these legendary gains please spend a few bucks to improve the World.

PPS: Lets stop here for a moment and reflect: The cynicism and the a-morality of such get-rich-quick schemes is one thing. But the serious damage it does to the ‘losers’ is another. Currency speculation, for instance, has done enormous harm to the economies of smaller countries. Why should millions of people suffer because one individual is creaming off beyond comprehension ? Its OK to get angry. But: The scandal is not that some swine is doing it, the scandal is that we (thats you and me) allow it to happen.

Do You actually WORK for a Living ?

'Work' can mean different things for different people. For slaves or workers in a sweatshop it is the difference between starving to death or living a miserable life. They must work for a living – literally.
For the Chief Executive of a multinational corporation it means a corporate jet, plush hotels, and high-level discussions about mega-mergers or the future of some country. Nice.
In between there are the 'commoners' like you and me. The office workers, waitresses, teachers, nurses, foremen. The cleaners, programmers, assembly workers, repair people. Work for them often means drudgery from 8 to 5, putting up with a moody boss, shuffling paper, dealing with disgruntled clients, doing repetitive maintenance work. All rather unpleasant. Then there are the private equity capitalists, hedge-fund gamblers, and share market speculants. They, too, call their dealings 'work'.

On the other hand there are many who don’t work at all: The very old and the very young, the sick, the unemployed. Also the prisoners. One could argue whether priests, politicians, economists, lawyers, salesmen, advertising agents, and the like actually work – or just talk. For often one cannot see any results of their 'work'.
Those who don’t work are actually the majority. How do they live ? Well, they live off the taxes from those that do work (some of the old people live off their own savings, but that is a dying habit – no pun intended). Then there are those living in extreme poverty (see Poverty, due out in Dec 05). Nobody knows what they are living off.

So the working people support not only themselves but also those who don’t work ? Thats right. Therefore, they would get good rewards for their work ? Well, that depends:-
(1) Those in the sweatshops get barely enough to survive, basically just money for some food. And they share it with their extended family.
(2) The next level up are those on a minimum wage of – say - $10 per hour, 40 hours per week.
(3) Then its you and me, making from $30,000 to $90,000 a year.
(4) Above us is the Chief Executive Officer – he is likely to receive something like $10 million per year (incl. options and bonusses). That number is hard to imagine. If you are a lowly worker on the minimum wage, you would need to work for 480 years to make $10 million.
(5) Those dealing in private equity and hedge funds occasionally make $1 billion in one deal. Now, this is even harder to visualise. But as some American has calculated: "US$1bn is the total economic product of 20,000 average workers". Wow. And remember, the deal-makers, while making a lot of money, do not actually work. For more details see Live Well Without Working.

Ironically, taxes to support the non-working population are mostly paid by you and me. The Chief Executive and the private capitalist pay very little, because – you see - their income is either overseas or it is offset by substantial losses in other business ventures. Why can’t you and I reduce our taxes ? Because we can not afford expensive accountants like TwiceWaterBlouseBloopers or even more expensive ‘wealth managers’ like YouBeeS. The thing is, because we are not wealthy, we can’t afford a 'wealth manager'. Logical, isn’t it ?

And this raises another question: How does one get rich - I mean – really, really rich ?
Not from working, nor from saving. Consider this example: With a good job, you could save – say - $10,000 per year, net after tax. Put this into a savings account at 3 % real interest pa. Do this every year for 40 years and you’ll have a capital of about $750,000 - not exactly enormous. And this is assuming you have had a job for all of the 40 years!
So, the result is: You don’t get rich from working. Nor from saving.

Of course, the boss gets rich. Filthy rich. How come ? Its the famous ‘value added’ by entrepreneurs. They combine capital equipment and workers, and – bingo – here is a product thats worth more than the sum of the two. Who is entitled to this ‘more’ ? This fruitless debate was started by – hold your breath – Karl Marx.

What about those who make a lot of money without actually working ? They make it by dealing in some unsavoury businesses and - allegedly - illegal activities. Here is a menu of what is available:

Trade in arms, slaves, human organs, drugs . Mercenary activities. Abduction, torture, extortion, 'disappearances', murder-to-order, or lobbying for any of the above.

Tax evasion, common theft, insider trading, general corruption, and the like are called white-collar crimes and they are seen as ‘not quite as bad’. You know, they are more like a gentleman’s aberration. Therefore, they should not be punished as hard as the ‘real bad’ crimes. But then, of course, none of them is punished, anyway. Thats why I called it ‘allegedly illegal’ above. As long as you have a good, ie. expensive lawyer, you can get away with almost anything. "All are equal before the law"? Yeah right. As they say: "If you kill two people, you go to jail. If you kill 20, you go to a psychiatric hospital. If you kill 20,000, you get a nice palace on the shores of Lake Geneva and a generous income for the rest of your life."
For some examples of how you, too, could make a good living without actually working see Live Well Without Working.

PS:
With some spare money you could easily improve the rest of the World.