Thursday, September 17, 2009

Making money

Moral: Wherein we consider that money has a lot of meaning which we'll be looking at. Of course, there is the economic sense.


One way to make money is to print it or wish it out of the air (extractions can be of several types). However, let's change the subject slightly to talk about making a living (money as bread).

He who orders the printing doesn't make too much, in terms of pay, as one would expect with a government job. Nor do those who actually run the printing pressess as they are of those who toil. Others have flows that are outrageous, such as the head of a major health agency whose income is on the order of 1000s of bucks per minute.

While many today, it was said on the tube, live from paycheck to paycheck. Well, that's not new. As we know, many others are without a paycheck. Some try to make money from financial manipulations.

Is profiting from the financial casino, which some see as making money, really so? What, profit comes about from mere winning in a shell game?

Or, is this thing that has been allowed to develop and to take most of the economic energy just some allowed manipulation of near-zero situations because we don't understand yet how to model the full impacts? Is it that accounting always lags in its political maneuverings? Ah, perhaps, we'll have some type of mathematically based approach someday - albeit, even with undecidability and quasi-empiricism, it would be a step up.

An Atlantic article mentioned the IPO rage that persisted for some time, with some making oodles. Others not. That is profit? Those who had the ka-ching in those deals were the consultants, such as those of the golden sacks.

Then, we have things like someone from another health organization saying, on the tube, that a return of 25% is desired. Mind you, that is after all expenses! Sheesh, where did that notion come from? Even the nun-based seem to have been influenced by the lure of bucks. As we know, many patients don't (or didn't) get the care that they need so that the health provider could profit more. Like the one organization (same as above) where the head went out to the pasture with almost a billion (yes, billion) of bucks.

Huh? And, we can't afford general health care?

Note: We can go back and see the history behind the current state, with the increasing trend toward the vacuous financial state. Sort of going backward, we are now where a very small percentage holds a very large part of the wealth. For the past couple of decades, the middle class essentially has become paupers. Oh, I know, they have goods up the wazoo out there for them to buy and to contend themselves with. Ah yes, all of it quality stuff. On the upper end, we have the ever-increasing houses (way beyond McMansions) and boats (football field in length) and planes (personal flying apartments). And more. Of course, there is the Madoff type (who may be more prevalent than we think) working hard for illegit gains. Also, we had the computer come along of late causing lots of things to change, including the financial game's basis. At some point, let's say early 70s, there was probably some rational link between capitalism as an ideology and the reality as practiced. That has all been lost. The best-and-brightest, who are to be our saviors, have for the most part been lured into greed and egoistic assuages (read that, CEOs). Methinks that Adam Smith is turning over in his grave from all this disarray that has been promulgated under his name. Things, folks, are way off base. Of course, the game continues daily, or, at least, five days a week. Thankfully, there are the two days of the weekend. How long would it take, and under what circumstances, for the realizations of things being awry to take hold and for the steps to get it on a better platform to start? That, folks, is one goal of this blog, to bring this discussion to fore.


09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks (leftmost mug of the rogue table), by Rolling Stone and Daily Ticker.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/01/2009 -- The consumer as focus.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/05/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of.

Modified: 09/21/2011

No comments:

Post a Comment