If you have a question about this blog or the 12 other anti financial terrorism blogs I have created, please email me at info at alexlogic.com. If you are having trouble leaving a comment, please let me know at the email address listed above.
Wall Street doesn't really create much of anything. Instead Wall Street simply re-packages existing success stories in an attempt to squeeze the last little pulp of profit out of them. Of course Wall Street then takes their fees and commission off the top, then they escape before problems with the investment "opportunity" come to light. If the problems grow too big, they simply have the government bail them out.
In Missouri, the home foreclosure settlement money was sent to the legislature, which in turn allocated it to "higher education" to offset the pension promises made over the past few decades that are starting to create budget imbalances in many states.
These pension promises were usually made by democrat politicians in exchange for the union's vote.
Anyone who is paying down their overall consumer debt levels every month should have their interest rates slashed to almost zero. This one act alone would almost instantly fix the world economy and fairly rebalance wealth in a relatively short amount of time.
The powers that be have manipulated news coverage into two stark and disparate corners, it's either "debt forgiveness" by the lunatic progressive wing of the democrat party, or "get a job" by the insufferable republican neo cons.
In the middle, where MOST americans actually live and breathe as moderate conservatives and moderate liberals, (and where Hillary Clinton is most popular) resonates a more reasonable position, "Can I get an interest rate reduction if I am lowering my overall debt level every month?"
Higher unemployment rates could be a good thing if it also means the consumption of resources is declining as well.
Here's an example of how higher unemployment can both help the planet and the economy. If someone is caretaking for a family member instead of "working", and if that family member also does all the necessary chores around the house, including gardening, water and energy conservation, that's actually a good thing since the person is reducing their "footprint" on the earth's resources.
However, it is wall street and the rich elite that get the media to report that all unemployment is bad for the economy. Unemployment simply means one is not receiving cash for work they may be doing.
This work only matters if cash is involved is simply a ridiculous notion.
A person who conserves all kinds of resources, grows food from their own property, recycles ALL of their vegetable, fruit and vegetation clippings back into their own property (along with some of their neighbors grass clippings as well), and care takes for one or both parents while living in the same house, is actually an economic benefit to those who must rely on additional resource consumption for working away from the home.
The notion that everyone must have a job where they either commute by car, or attempt to work from home trying to get other people to buy a product or service, is mind numbingly backwards, outdated, and old school.
Work is work.
It is work to conserve overall consumption of energy resources, it is work to garden, it is work to recycle, it is work to caretake for an elderly member. All of these conservation and healthcare activities actually reduce overall use of resources, both environmentally and state resources as well, yet the person doing all of these activities is treated like a pariah by the banks, the state, the insurance industry, and even the government.
As for governments and big business trading green energy credits, bring that on baby, because there is plenty of money to be made between governments when it comes to fabricating green energy credits.
Where are my green energy credits? The ones that I personally earn?
And once again, just like the bailout, the government and the banks hold onto the green energy credits for themselves, never passing it down to those who are actually doing the conservation.
Don't be duped by stupid economic news that claims that job growth is the only answer to a successful economy. Success can be as simple as a wheel. If you have to carry something heavy by yourself, it is usually an ineffectual way to do it.
But if you have a wheel barrow, grocery cart, or many other forms of non motorized wheel transportation, your task is made much easier. Should the economic indicators and forecasters complain because non motorized wheel technology can actually help increase people power while conserving energy? They kind of do, every day, we just don't realize it.
Of course, Barack Obama gets no credit for higher unemployment for one simple fact, the bankers and debt collectors are stealing whatever assets americans still have with unfair, heartless, excessive interest rate charges, penalties, and fees collections no matter what the reason for the debt!
If consumers were LOWERING their overall debt levels while unemployment rose, that would actually be ok! But that could only happen if Obama had been prescient enough to favor debt neutrality.
As homeowners settled into the homes they may have spent decades making mortgage and never ending property tax payments, have states panicked at lower than desired property tax levels? While I don't know the rules for all 50 states, in California, the longer one lives in their home, the more affordable their property tax rates as compared to newer homeowners.
Every time a homeowner who has lived in a home for a long period of time (say over 10 years), sells that home, the new homeowner will instantly pay a higher property tax rate. Could state unions, pension fund managers, and the democrats they fund all be in cahoots dragging their feet in helping foreclosure victims in general since it might mean an overall increase in property tax revenue?
The purposeful shunting of the moderate liberals and moderate conservatives in favor of neo con republicans and progressive liberal democrats has led to NO intelligent discussion of pension fund obligations that every state in the nation faces.
If a state retirement pension hovers around 100% to 120% of the amount of a state employee's highest yearly income, while the private sector's social security benefits hovers between 33% to 66% of their highest yearly income, a discussion is needed to explain this difference and see how much more is justified for a state retirement pension fund versus social security.
I believe that many state jobs are "tougher" than private sector jobs. Most state jobs require non stop interaction with the public (DMV and teachers), many state jobs require dealing with habitual criminals (prison guards), or, simply dealing with the mistakes made by society that have to be fixed by those who have state jobs, (aka firefighters, drug counselors, abuse counselors, police, the court system), and lets not forget the most unsung of all, the sanitation workers. I believe these types of jobs should pay a higher annual pension than social security, the question is, how much higher should a state job retirement pension be versus the private sector social security?
This simple question is rarely posed in the media. Instead the media simply feeds off of a "tastes great, less filling, beer commercial" mentality. You are either for education, the police and firefighters, or you are for big business. I want a discussion about what is fair when it comes to state retirement pensions.
I believe the 100% to 120% of the highest salary earned is too high. I believe the last 10 years should be averaged together, and the rate should be 75% of that amount. However, I am not against a full additional perks, such as a discount on property tax rates, and perhaps even a discount on sales tax rates as well.
But having an actual discussion about state retirement pension funds seems off the table based on the present day neo con conservative vs progressive democrat war that George Soros helped set in motion when he used his vast financial empire to ensure that Barack Obama, and not Hillary Clinton, was the 2008 democrat nominee.
As time goes on, I fear that the long term homeowner will continue to sold out by state budgets that continue to be in the red. Remove a long term homeowner from their home, and the new homeowner pays a much higher property tax rate, satiating the financial thirst that the state pension funds desire.
But what if the home is a foreclosure and sold for a lot less money? That scenario still favors the state. The property tax rate will still probably be at the worst, equivalent to the long term homeowner. However, the lower price on the home will enable the new homeowner to be able to make more local purchases for their new home, and pay the state sales tax on their purchases.
The more states clamor for new tax revenue, the more I believe the long time established homeowner is in danger of losing their home. California used to allow an elderly homeowner to defer their property taxes until their death, at which time the amount owed could be attached to the home. No more.
Banks have been slashing home equity lines for the past several years, this act could result in a homeowner losing their home over a modest property tax bill even if their home has several hundred thousand dollars worth of home equity in it!
Apparently Debt Collectors never do anything wrong. Since debt collectors never do anything wrong, it's time they be "protected" from the "swarms" of "litigants" who dare to challenge a debt collector in court.
State Government Pension Benefits might be bankrupting State Budgets, were those benefits legally negotiated? Somehow, on the state level, state governments got put into a position where they were forced to share the economic good times of the 90's with their unions, but the promises they made then seem to have caused other problems now and into the future. Check out the CBS video about pension problems in San Jose.
People don't believe that Wells Fargo would refuse a mortgage payment and then foreclose on a home and resell it a month later. Please go to HSI Trust and see for yourself. Doubt them in the comments section if you like.
But please, please, do go to change dot org and add your name to the petition to have Wells Fargo rescind their apparently boorish action. If you don't feel comfortable leaving your real address and zip code, don't, make it up! But I think it is effective to use your real name and real email address. I was the third person to sign the petition.