I Think We Should Abolish The Stock Market

DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial analyst, consultant, banker, stock trader, economist, or any other type of expert when it comes to money.

I don’t have much money, so I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the American economy, but I think I know what one of our biggest problems is: the stock market.

I think we should abolish the stock market.

Speculating on, buying, selling, and trading stocks, commodities, futures, and whatever else is legalized gambling.

I have nothing against gambling, so long as it is done responsibly, meaning that the gambler bets only what they can afford to lose and doesn’t borrow or steal to place or pay their bets.

The problem is, Wall Street is like a Las Vegas that’s legitimized by our political system.

The Federal Reserve Bank is just a bullying casino boss that gets it’s way, pressuring the United States government and therefore it’s people, into doing whatever best profits them.

The average stock holding citizen, that perhaps does a little light trading on the side, is not so much the problem. I’m not blaming our economic crisis on working people who are making a few investments in the stock marker on the side, although I think it’s most prudent if someone is going to do so that they put most of their money into other investments that aren’t so much like a roulette wheel.

The problem is the big players, like financial analyst firms and lending firms and banks that play little games with the money that their investors have in their companies. I suppose this is the way it has always been done, as the return on investments made by the institutions allows them to pay the interest on their customers’ investments in them. What seems to be one of the roots of our present predicament is that, as always seems to happen, people who do know a lot about money and how to move it around, explain away discrepancies, try to get to fancy, and basically play games with money, dribbling it in and out between their legs and behinds their backs like the Harlem Globetrotters do with basketballs, all in an effort to maximize short term gains for those involved, at the expense of the stability of the economy, and it ends up affecting everybody, except maybe for those who are actually playing, since they are usually wise enough to know that the magical bubble they are blowing so big is eventually, inevitably going to pop, and therefore they hide away a few million or billion into foreign bank accounts for the rainy day they are helping to ensure in the future.

I think the stock market is the most obvious example of how wealthy people gamble not only with their own money, but with the money and jobs of the everyday worker, who is too busy toiling away in obscurity to realize that their life savings or their retirement or their home mortgage or their kids’ college tuitions is about to be lost at the craps table by some guy in a remote tower in a distant city.

Speculating and trading stocks, commodities, futures, and whatever other things they have on Wall Street nowadays is just a bunch of rich guys playing a giant card game trying to trick each other into giving up the good cards and whomever ends up with the best hand walks away the winner while the rest of us leave the table broke.

We don’t need stocks. Companies don’t need to be publicly held or traded. The only people who benefit from such nonsense in a major way is the people who usually end up screwing everything up with their greed and cheating and lies.

If everybody just kept working and making and buying things, we’d be alright without stocks.

Things would be worth as much tomorrow as they are today and as they were yesterday.

Maybe it’s not as glamorous or exciting, but it’d be a hell of a lot more stable.

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bailout, budget, change, corruption, credit, economy, future, history, industry, lobbying, politics, society, stimulus, stock market, taxes, trade, truth

An Energy / Financial / Environmental Crisis Survey, by Me

Follow this link to take my survey, hosted on PollDaddy.com: SURVEY


Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in activism, alternative energy, bailout, budget, change, choice, coal, ecology, economy, electricity, employment, energy, environment, evolution, freedom, future, gas, health, hydrodynamic, industry, lifestyle, nuclear, oil, politics, pollution, recovery, reform, science, society, solar, stimulus, technology, transportation, wind

The Boy Scouts of America and Homosexuality

 

On My Honor, I Promise To Get Some Poontang

On My Honor, I Promise To Get Some Poontang

 

 

I recently came across a blog entry with scanned pages from the 1965 Boy Scout handbook. Some of those commenting mentioned that the book has a chapter concerning masturbation. One commenter included a quotation of one section of this chapter, which reads as follows:

At times the glands discharge part of their secretions through the sex organ during sleep. This process is called a nocturnal emission or a “wet dream”. It is perfectly natural and healthy and a sign that nature has taken care of the situation in its own manner.

There are boys who do not let nature have its own way with them but cause emissions themselves. This may do no physical harm, but may cause them to worry.

Any real boy knows that anything that causes him to worry should be avoided or overcome. If anything like this worries you, this is not unusual – just about all boys have the same problem. Seek the correct answer to any question which bothers you about your development from boy to man. But be sure to get your information from reliable sources – your parents, your physician, your spiritual adviser.

It’s funny that the writer practically plants a suggestion to the readers that pleasuring themselves will possibly trouble their consciences. I’ve never felt worried about masturbation, nor has any man or woman I’ve ever met who has been willing to discuss the topic with me. Any guilt associated with self-pleasing acts is generally forced onto people by the judgement of others who are less open-minded.

However, what strikes me as strange is that the discussion on the page mentioned above focuses on masturbation, which was important enough to mention in the book, but that there is no mention of homosexuality. I assume that this is because, at the time, gayness was less accepted and less talked about in society, and as such was not a topic deemed necessary for inclusion in the manual. I guess the writers of the book were afraid that mentioning homosexuality might have given sexually frustrated boys ideas about how to work out their issues without resorting to masturbation?  

Wouldn’t the BSA rather have Scouts jerking off in their sleeping bag than playing leap frog in the showers? Perhaps the organization saw masturbation by a boy as gay, because pleasing yourself as a male means that a male is pleasing you, and is therefore somehow a homosexual act?

I was a Scout, and Eagle Scout in fact, and I don’t remember a single Scout leader, event, pep-talk, pledge, or piece of literature that ever mentioned the pursuit of sex or the act of sex, so I therefore assumed that the Scouts was not a group concerned with sexual orientation. It’s not like the Scouts is about getting girls anyway, so why would they care whether you wanted to?

I was in Scouting from 1982 to 1992. It wasn’t until the mid-1990s that the topic of homosexuals vs Scouting became a hot button issue in the news, nationally.

My immediate response was twofold: why would gay boys, who are generally more effeminate, want to go rough it in the wild with heteros, who would probably make fun of and bully them, and why would Scouts, who enjoy being clean and doing crafts, not want gay members?

I have often thought it funny that an organization that wears such gay outfits as short shorts with slits in the side, long socks with fuzzy balls on them, scarves, and berets would be so anti-gay. Hmm… Maybe that’s why gay boys would want to be Scouts; for the lovely uniforms?

I later caught on that the real issue is that many parents were concerned more about gay leaders, who they felt might molest or corrupt their boys, than actually about gay boys intermingling with straights. Protecting your child from sexual predators is a valid concern, but I think that most statistics would show that hetero men are far more likely to take advantage of girls than gay men are of boys. So, I think that the uproar against gays in Scouting was kind of overkill.

Maybe we could help to rectify this issue by blending the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts into just the Scouts, the way it is in most countries around the world. But perhaps the USA is still too sexually repressed to let our little boys and little girls play and work and camp together?

I guess as a para-military organization, you want to prepare the men to die in trenches some day defending the flag? I think unless they include some merit badges about boobs and getting nookie, they should just not worry about it.

Parents: teach your kids to tell you if adults take advantage of them sexually or otherwise, in Scouts, or elsewhere, and get over it and stop giving the Boy Scouts of America a hard time.

Scouts: stick to teaching citizenship and survival skills and personal & social responsibility, and let boys decide whether they wanna get with girls or boys or animals or whatever…

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in camping, ceremony, children, choice, coeducational, conformity, discrimination, diversity, double standard, fear mongering, freedom, hate mongering, liberal, liberation, lifestyle, patriotism, philosophy, politics, public opinion, reform, scouting, sexuality, tradition, virginity

Sign My Petition – Bring Manufacturing Back To America – More Jobs, Less Lead Paint!

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bailout, budget, change, choice, ecology, economy, employment, energy, environment, future, global, industry, lifestyle, lobbying, manufacturing, patriotism, politics, pollution, proletariat, protest, reform, stimulus, taxes, trade, union

The Math of 72 Virgins awaiting each Muslim Suicide Bomber

WARNING:

This blog is written by an infidel, and may offend Allah, anyone named Mohammed, suicide bombers, self-proclaimed “martyrs”, religious nut-cases, and third world child molesters and rapists who like pre-pubescent wives…

Since first hearing about the claim of 72 virgins awaiting Martyrs of Islamic Jihad, some time back in 2001, after the December 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, I have often questioned the math behind this outrageous claim. I am not the only one, I admit. All you have to do is Google “72 Virgins” and you will see many, many sites joking about the fraudulent logic involved in such a concept.

For the few of you who may not be familiar with this idea, supposedly, according to many Islamic extremists, every “martyr” is supposed to be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise after blowing up themselves up to kill innocent civilians in their Jihad to please Allah.

I will not go into the very misguided morality of attacking random, innocent, uninvolved men, women and children to avenge some wrong that certain governments and/or militaries have done to those who consider themselves Jihadists. Needless to say, they are usually too cowardly and poorly funded and trained to actually strike at the people directly responsible for their oppression, namely their own governments and the governments that their nations are at war with. It’s kind of like the little boy whose daddy beats him so he beats up the smaller boys at school, or the dog who gets kicked over and over by the mean old owner and then turns on the little girl walking by the fence; it’s safer to hurt someone weaker than you by surprise than to take on the power that is hurting you in a direct confrontation.

Anyway, I will now put aside ethical judgements and get back to the matter at hand, which is refuting the illogical lack of math behind the claim of “72 Virgins”…

Most of the sites that my search results returned on Google ended up being either Islamic blogs claiming that Israel is responsible for spreading this notion to western civilization, which I am sure is in at least some small way true, or people simply commenting “has anybody ever done the math” or something to that effect.

Well, I have decided to do the math, or at least to pull together various resources from around the web offering estimates and statistics where other people have done the math of how many people have ever lived and died on the Earth, and out of people that die, how many are female, and out of those how many are virgins. I am not going to bother calculating how many are virgins of legal age or who have entered or completed puberty, as this does not seem to matter in most of the Muslim world, especially in the middle east and other parts of Africa, where girls of 12-14 routinely are sold to men as wives and often, even girls of 8 or 9 years of age as well.

According to reports by Population Today magazine, the journal of the US Population Bureau, as of 2002, about 106 billion people had ever lived on Earth.

If we estimate that 50% of them were women, that means that by 2002, there had been about 53 billion women who had ever lived on the Earth.

I don’t know of any statistics that measure how many women that die are virgins or not, so, for the sake of argument, I will again take 50%, which is probably way off since usually 50% or more of even unattractive women are molested by the time  they are teenagers.

So, by a liberal estimate, there may have been as 26.5 billion female virgins who had ever lived on the earth by 2002.

If we divide that number by 72, which is the number of virgins that each martyr is apparently promised by Mohammed, or Allah, or Osama, or whomever is in charge of their gang, we get the number 368,055,555.55555555555555555555556 . I will round off the decimal point, since 55% virgin does not a virgin make.

That means that, using some very liberal estimates, there were enough virgin women who had died on Earth as of 2002 for 368 million suicide bombers, assuming that people of all races, cultures, countries, and religions all go to the same heaven, and that all the virgins went to heaven, and not hell or purgatory or limbo or were reincarnated or whatever.

According to most of the global population data that I can find on the web that takes religion into account there are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.

For expediency’s sake, I will guess that about half of these are men. This is important because only male “martyrs” are rewarded with virgins.

That would mean that there are about 750 million Muslim males in the world right about now.

Assuming that only about 10 % of these guys are Jihadists, which I think is fair, since it seems to me that while most religious people in the world are illogical, only a few of them are suicidal and/or homicidal, that would mean that there are about 75 million male followers of Islam on Earth that would be willing to blow themselves and other random people up so that they could be served by 72 virgins.

If we now multiply the 75 million possible suicide bombers by the 72 virgins that they will each supposedly receive, that adds up to only 54 billion virgins, and as we calculated before, there are probably no more than 26.2 billion female virgins who have ever died on Earth, so if all of these guys blew themselves up for Allah, they would end up getting only about 34.56 virgins, and as we also decided before, a partial virgin doesn’t count, so if all the possible suicide bombers blew themselves up, they could only have 34 virgins each.

So, my message to Muslim guys is this:

34 virgins is hardly worth blowing yourself up for. Wouldn’t it be easier just to cruise high schools and colleges in kick-ass cars and say that you just got out of prison? Plenty of young hotties, innocent or not, love bad boys in muscle cars. You could rack up 34 before you know it, and live to tell your sons and grandsons about it. Think about it!

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in conspiracy, death, fanaticism, infidel, islam, lifestyle, opinion, parody, philosophy, politics, propaganda, religion, satire, sexuality, society, torture, truth, Uncategorized, virginity

my response to some Conservative Capitalist propaganda

According to an article on a site called “Moonbattery”, which is either a blog dedicated to lunar energy, lunar abuse, or liberals (called moonbats by conservatives), under President Obama, whom they are calling “Chairman Zero” (which I must admit is a little clever, given his socialist speeches and his big O logo), some people who make more money are being taxed more than poor people who can barely afford to survive. These social Darwinists would rather the poor people just die out, with their children starving to death or freezing on the streets.

I quote the site, and link to the graph that they reference:

<BEGIN QUOTE>:

“Nation of Vampires … According to this graph, the terminal cancer that is liberalism has passed the tipping point:”

 

wealthy people pay more taxes than poor, boo-hoo!

wealthy people pay more taxes than poor, boo-hoo!

…< END QUOTE >

I think that people who argue that wealthier people shouldn’t have to subsidize poorer people seem to forget that a great many of the wealthier people get wealthier by charging the poor ever more for goods and services, while paying them ever less for their labor.

If wealthy people get that way at the expense of the poor, why be so surprised when poor people elect officials who help to bring some of the money back their way?

Also, since it is the cheap labor and the expensive purchases and bills paid by the poor that make the rich richer and the poor poorer, I should think that it is in poor taste for the rich to complain about

giving a little back so that the poor can survive and have some quality of life. 

I guess when you get comfortable, financially, you lose human compassion and understanding for anybody who isn’t; I wouldn’t know…

I’ve never made over $25,000 a year for any of the hard work that I have done for my various wealthy employers, but I would gladly give up a third of my money in taxes if someone would pay me $100,000 or more, instead of making $15,000 and getting back a $5000 tax refund.

If any of you six figure making, higher tax bracket types out there want to switch incomes and tax brackets with me, so you don’t have to pay anything and get a refund, I’d be more than willing to consider moving into your fancy house and driving your fancy car to your easy job, and you can live in my small apartment and work crappy jobs as you can find them, driving around in an aging crappy car.

I think you would quickly realize that paying some of your wealth in taxes beats not having any, and learn not to complain about being taxed for enjoying the luxuries that so many live without.

I am constantly amazed at the way that Conservatives, especially Republicans, either can’t see how hypocritical their thoughts and words and actions are, or just don’t care!

The best example of this is their support of “bailing out” the corrupt and inefficient titans of industry, so that banking and auto CEOs can give themselves bonuses for losing and embezzling money, which is not free market capitalism, which they supposedly promote, but rather SOCIALISM and WELFARE for the rich. But when it comes to the working poor and middle classes from whom they stole the money and exploited the cheap labor and overcharged for goods and services, suddenly SOCIALISM and WELFARE are evil things that are supposed to make people think of totalitarian dictatorships.

Also, as long as we are describing different forms of government, it’s amazing to me that Conservative Republicans can call Obama and other liberal Democrats Socialists, but can’t face reality and admit that Bush and his administration were Fascists. If we are going to call a Socialist a Socialist, lets also call a Fascist a Fascist, despite any negative connotations the word may have, like invoking thoughts of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. Euphemistic language never did anyone any good. If there is to be an honest and productive dialog between the political extremes, each needs to accept it’s own true nature if it expects the other to.

“The people who say that money can’t buy you happiness are just the rich people trying to keep the poor from striving to get their money.” – Me

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bourgeoisie, corruption, darwinism, democrat, double standard, economy, election, employment, hypocrisy, justice, liberal, lifestyle, philosophy, politics, proletariat, propaganda, republican, society, stimulus, taxes, truth, voting, workers

There are roaches in the walls of America; let’s clean them out!

When I contemplate the sad state of America today, the first thing that comes to mind is our political system.

We call ourselves a democracy, but are far from democratic. In a democracy, citizens vote on issues, taking an active role in decision making.

We are supposedly a republic, which is a representative democracy where citizens elect officials based on their platforms and promises, according to which candidates best represent their beliefs, and thus are most likely to vote the way that the constituents who elect them would vote.

We are actually more of an oligarchy, where  the majority of power is held by a small group of people from certain families, communities, universities, and secret societies, and the monopoly of power is kept from the common people, with the rich and powerful controlling the military and law enforcement to protect them from retribution, all the while making decisions which are beneficial to the business interests that pay for their campaigns and support their opulent lifestyles with bribes once in office, rather than enacting legislation to protect and serve the workers of the lower and middle classes.

We are obviously not a meritocracy, wherein persons are elected or appointed and given power and responsibility based on talent and ability! If this were the case, we would see a lot less corruption and ineptitude in the daily news stories of our politicans’ exploits…

I think the main problem with our political process is that it’s designed so that being corrupt and getting paid off are too easy, and there are many rich and powerful interests lobbying the politicians to ensure that it remains that way.

If we reformed the nature of political positions to make them more transparent and accountable, then mostly only people who wanted to represent the people would bother getting into politics, with the exception of a few who are willing to work harder at being sneaky and underhanded.

I doubt that this will ever happen without a violent revolution, as the people responsible for reform are the same people who profit from corruption. However, for the sake of argument, I offer the following suggestions:

I suggest that politicians be held legally accountable for their platforms and the promises they make when campaigning, and that they be immediately terminated if they do not fulfill the duties specified in their contracts, JUST AS ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WOULD! After all, the elected officials in our government are not supposed to be our bosses, but rather our servants.

If a person interviews for a job and is hired, but fails to perform the duties that they have accepted, in a timely and reasonable fashion agreed upon with the employer, the person is fired.

For example, let’s say that an employee is hired on at a convenience store. In the job interview, the candidate agrees to perform transactions, stock products, and clean. Once hired, the person talks to friends on the phone, steals money from the cash register, and deals drugs from the establishment, while neglecting their job. In almost every case, the person would be promptly fired, even if it leaves the team short-handed.

Why is it then that when a candidate for office makes campaign promises and then doesn’t keep them that they get to keep getting paid for 2 to 4 years, even if they are not doing the job they were hired to do, and that they then might even keep the job longer unless another interviewee can convince the employer (the American people) that they would be a better employee?

I think that any politicians that are not doing exactly what they said they would should be immediately fired, every time, PERIOD.

Then we can interview some new candidates, and have them sign legally-binding contracts that they will have to abide by, or they too will be terminated.

The contracts for publicly held offices should be specific, stating how the candidates will vote on key issues (yes or no), and how much money they will spend on various projects and expenses.

Then, each president, senator, house representative, governor, secretary, committee member, etc. would be required to keep a publicly viewable log on their website showing when they were in session, when they were not in attendance for important decisions, how they voted on each topic, and how much of our money they agreed to spend on what.

To take this accountability and transparency one step further, holders of public offices should be required to take input from their constituents on each issue, perhaps with voters logging in with distinct ID numbers and casting their voted directly. In that way, corruption by lobbyists and other bribery would be blatantly obvious, assuming that it made them vote differently than a majority of the people that they supposedly represent asked them to, which is usually the case.

Until this kind of reform is carried out, I am certain that corruption will continue to proliferate in the American political system.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bailout, bourgeoisie, budget, change, conspiracy, corruption, economy, election, employment, future, hypocrisy, law, legality, liberation, lobbying, patriotism, philosophy, politics, proletariat, reform, revolution, taxes, truth, voting, workers
September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
Mark Baland


This blog has moved to mark.baland.net/blog.

Top Clicks
  • None
Blog Stats
  • 3,334 hits
Flickr Photos