finansu industrija turbut jau senokai perzenge riba, kur is kuriancios tapo griaunancia jega, laikancia ikaitais vyriausybes ir visuomene. "Moral hazard" pasetas placiai ir baigia isaugti iki absurdo.
Verslo etika visuomene vis labiau pripazista, tad kur etikos vieta finansu versle?

Kaip visuomene- nubrezkime riba, ivertinkime poveiki ne tik ekonomikai, bet ir bendruomenei, ateinancioms kartoms (jei norite, matuokime human development index, Gross National Happiness ar kt. indikatorius)

keletas krypciu diskusijai:

1)zvelgiant per balansa: privatus turtas = valstybes skola. Kitaip tariant kokio dydzio balansas yra optimalus?
dabartinis prioritetas- nuolatinis balanso putimas, turta koncentruojant 1-5% rankose, o isipareigojimus- likusiems. Istorija rodo, kad anksciau ar veliau si itampa sukelia iskrova, verciancia imperatorius, carus ir karalius.

2) bendruomenes prioritetai: palukanos ar svietimas, medicina?
stimulas uz skolintus ar konsolidacija- tiktai ciklines bangos. Esminis klausimas: ar gali parazitine industrija pjauti saka, ant kurios sedi visuomene t.y. viesasias paslaugas.
prielaida, kad neissilavinusia visuomene lengviau valdyti galioja tik tol, kol sekancioje kartoje i valdzia ateina ta pati minia. Tuomet prasideda "kulturines revoliucijos", fasizmas ir kita destrukcija.

3) darbo / kapitalo santykio vieta visuomeneje. Siuo metu vyrauja krastutinis neo-liberalizmas, kur zmogus jau nuo vidurines mokyklos ar universiteto uzkraunamas skola, veliau seka busto paskola, lizingai ir apie puse darbo atiduodama kapitalo aptarnavimui.
dar reiketu prideti ~10% sumoketu mokesciu, kurie panaudojami valstybes skolos aptarnavimui.
palyginimui: "gudzioj senovej" mokedavo 10% karaliui ar baznyciai.

4) palukanu vieta visuomeneje? dauguma religiju isvis pasisako pries jas. Matematikai irgi sako- jomis pagrista sistema yra netvari.

5) Frakcinio rezervo bankininkyste: inovacija ar iteisinta vagyste?
per 30-50 metu bankine sistema uzvaldo didziaja dali visuomenes turto...

6) valstybes monetarines nepriklausomybes praradimas.
paprastai: tiksline 2% infliacija sukuria fiskalinis 2% deficitas, kuris yra monetarizuojamas. Jeigu valstybe negali monetarizuoti sio skirtumo, o turi ji skolintis uz palukanas is bankininku (kurie "kuria is oro")- zaidimas baigtinis ir pabaiga aiski.
Dar 1930-aisiais buves Anglijos Banko vadovas pasake: atimkite sia teise. Deja ji gule ir i Eurozonos pagrindus.

7) demografija ir kartu konfliktas. Finansines industrijos vieta pensiju sistemoje.
ar tikrai privacios pelno siekiancios ribotos atsakomybes bendroves gali uztikrinti didejancios visuomenes dalies islaikyma? juk tai tik paskirstymo klausimas tarp jaunu dirbanciuju ir vyresnio amziaus zmoniu. Ar galima ilgu laikotarpiu uzdirbti daugiau nei salies BVP augimas? Optimistinis vidurkis sudarytu ~4%. Bet vien valdymo mokestis yra 1%. Ar prisiimama rizika adekvati 3% grazai? tiketinas ateities scenarijus: eilinis pelnu privatizavimas ir nuostoliu perkelimas visuomenei.

8) Labdara. Islamo tradicija tam skirti 10% pelno.
Kapitalizmas vystesi asmenio pelno troskimu. Kol tai skatino gamyba, inovacija- tai buvo kurybine jega, sukurusi industrine baze ir pagerinusi visos visuomenes gyvenimo lygi(produktyvuma, BVP). Finansine inovacija-krastutine egoizmo forma, atliekanti tiktai turto perskirstymo funkcija tuo destabilizuodama visuomene, griaudama gamybine baze ir t.t.

kiek daug yra gana? per sia krize ne vienas milijardierius baige gyvenima savizudybe. O galejo sauniai padirbeti kaip mecenatai.


na ir daugelis kitu aspektu- papildykit apie ka mastote.

komentaras po Irish Independent straipsniu (The human cost of Irish crash):
"Under the old capitalist regime, the state aided capitalist operations. Govs effectively under-wrote the more reckless financial adventures, & so smoothed out the economic ups & downs with judicious handouts, disguised as gov projects.

This is a new phase. Capitalism has evolved into corporatism. Hidden from public view, govs are just the PR facade of financial structures. The latter now bypass the risks of capitalist production & lending by robbing the public directly thru the gov.

So much easier! And if the public balks at this blatant protection racket, our 'protectors' threaten us with total economic chaos & unimaginable consequences in human suffering.

Formal democracy has been suborned by brute money power. No govs now have the will, intention, or power to face down the banksters. A revolution is needed - to take back the gov monopoly to print money, so re-asserting public control over economies. 'Moderate' policies will achieve nothing, except perpetuate this monstrous racket of usury, only legitimized by ancient custom"

Etika finansuose ? Prekyba finansų rinkose skaidri. Vedame į sąskaitas pas brokerius savo santaupas, bandome pigiau pirkę ir brangiau pardavę SĄŽININGAI turtėti.

Laikausi devizo: "Pasaulyje neteisingai paskirstomas turtas - būtina perskirstyti" . Štai ir einu šiuo keliu - keliu pasiimti iš finansų rinkų tiek, kiek reikia mano ir artimųjų poreikiams patenkinti, o toliau bus matyt...



Nematau jokio skirtumo , ką mąstome. Svarbu ne mąstymas, ne matymas , o veiksmai .

Jei mąstome bei matome teisingai , ir jų pagrindu atliekame finansuose teisingus veiksmus - turtėjame .

Jei nesuprantame kas vyksta , nesugebame teisingai matyti - skurstame ir bankrutuojame.

Samprotavimai , rašymai forumuose nieko neverti - jei nesugebame daryti teisingų veiksmų.

Ginčytis dėl to, kieno požiūris teisingesnis - beprasmiška. Jokio skirtumo, kas ką šneka ar samprotauja.

su "tiek, kiek reikia mano ir artimuju poreikiams patenkinti" yra dvi problemos:
1) poreikiai auga greiciau nei galimybes.
2) pasaulis yra susisiekiantys indai- ar manai kad nestabilioje visuomeneje imanoma issaugoti turta ir juo naudotis? tavo turtas (kaip ir visais laikais) yra kolektyviniai visuomenes isipareigojimai.

John Law, "Mississipi bubble" organizatorius, pirmasis Prancuzijos centrinis bankininkas baige gyvenima tremtyje, o jo seimai karaliaus atskiru isakymu garantuotas islaikymas buvo atsauktas.
"The story of John Law and the Mississippi Company is as intriguing as any modern financial disaster. In the end, many of the new millionaires were financially destroyed"

Gift Economy

In his brilliant book "The Gift: The Erotic Life of Property", Lewis Hyde points to two types of economies:

In a commodity (or exchange) economy, status is accorded to those who have the most. In a gift economy, status is accorded to those who give the most to others.

http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/theGiftEconomy-article.html
http://www.gifteconomyconference.com/pages/confstate.html

Globalization is one more development of Patriarchal Capitalism by which more gift labor and cheap resources (resources of which a large part is free to the buyer) can be transferred from the South to the North. The market economy makes it appear that the gifts are going the other direction, that the Capitalists are giving jobs to the people of the South. Having caused enough scarcity through exploitation and debt creation, the North has diminished the level of life in the South so that the price of labor is cheap for the Northern investors - that is it brings a large percentage of gift value. By privileging a few workers by monetizing their labor, Northern corporations create a funnel or bridge by which gifts from the South can be brought to the North, with the appearance that the Corporation is providing the only source of a decent livelihood.

Šiaurės vėjau, kaip suprantu, siųlai atimti ir išdalinti? Tai jau buvo ir ne kartą. Ar nurašyti skolas, paliekant indėlius ir palūkanas?
Beje, kas ta etika? Bankininkai paprastai gerai rengiasi ir yra gerų manierų, laikosi etiketo - ar to neužtenka?

del "kas ta etika?"- pradziai kreipkimes i populiaruji saltini
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etika

bankininkai valdzios nykstuku rankomis atims ir be musu (jei dar nepastebejote kur einame)
tiesiog atgal neisdalinus- itampa visuomeneje issilies per krastus. Gerybiu lyg ir visiems uztektu, bet morales truksta.

tiesiog siulau pagalvoti kaip issaugoti visuomene, kad nereiktu "su sakemis" gatvese stumdytis.
Ir pasitaikancias idejas bandau sumesti i viena tema.

p.s. olandai ir italai garsiai protestuoja pries kulturos pjovima, tuo tarpu Lietuvoje jaunesni kurejai tyliai vyksta kurti kitur, o like raso projektus ES paramai gauti.

Capitalism has evolved into corporatism...?
The question and the answer vienoje vietoje. Turėtum pastebėti, kad de facto jau prasidėjo korporacinė era, ir kol kas matomi tik korporacinės etikos pumpurėliai. Jei kapitalizmo prioritetas buvo individo norų/poreikių realizavimas ir tai buvo laikoma etiška, korporatizmo etika atrodys kitaip. Bankai, kaip ryškūs korporacijų atstovai demonstruoja naujosios etikos pradinius momentus. Beje, jei susiduri su įvairių pasaulinių korporacijų (ne bankų) bazinėm nuostatom, 99% po gražių žodžių fasadu turėtum pastebėti viską tą patį, ką aprašei pirmam temos poste. Evoliucionuojam, tsakant...

nemanau, kad korporacijos esamoje formoje islaikys savo "fasadus" ir vieta evoliucijoje.
Civiliniams neramumams isibegejus jos armijos neturi (dauguma). O valstybinese tarnauja ne turtinguju vaikai...

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief-cover/404751-rage-spreads-across-europe
"Democratically elected institutions appear to be overwhelmed by the predatory ambitions of big capital, which roams from one country to the next in search of immediate profits. Our leaders are presiding over a “historic setback for social rights in Europe" and putting about the dangerous message that we should simply sacrifice everything instead of confronting those responsible for this fiasco."

šiaurės vėjau, suvokiant, kad korporcijos kol kas yra vystyklų stadijoje, ką jos turės ir valdys ateityje galima tik įsivaizduoti. Netgi dabar - jų visokių lygių apsaugos tarnybos - kas tai, jei ne mini armijos?
Jei pabandytum kai kurias nedideles valstybes palyginti su pasaulinėm korporacijom, manau, skirtumų rastum nedaug. Esminis - valstybės suformuotos ir funkcionuoja viso labo teritoriniu ir dažnai tautiniu pagrindu. Korporacijos tobulesnės tuo, kad jų formavimo ir funkcionavimo pagrindas - korporacijos narių gerovė. Tad vieninteliai galimi neramumai - kovos su kitom korporacijom dėl įtakos. Kol kas tai buvo vadinama konkurencija.

Taip ir nesupratau kas blogai su tais finansininkais. Paskolino buduliams pinigų, tie juos iššvaistė ir nenori atiduoti. Prie ko čia etika?
Dabar jau nebeduoda pinigų - vėl blogai.

Droidas, o prie ko čia pinigai?

idomus procesas Islandijoje:
http://www.lrytas.lt/-12908538161290565567-islandijoje-renkami-eiliniai-pilie%C4%8Diai-kursiantys-nauj%C4%85-%C5%A1alies-konstitucij%C4%85.htm


Islandijoje "buduliai" nesiskolino, skolinosi keletas finansininku, kurie veliau sugriove visa sali.
Bitai ir olandai priverte paprastus islandus atidavineti jiems keletos bankininku prisiimtas skolas.
Latvija is esmes irgi uzlenke "Parex", ne "buduliai", Airija- taip pat.

O blogai yra tai, kad egzistuoja isskirtinis luomas, kuris gali kurti kapitala "is oro", ir veliau ji duoti arba neduoti.
Kai vieni turi uzdirbti/sutaupyti, o kiti naudodami esama bankine sistema- susikurti kiek tik nori anksciau ar veliau iskyla butent etikos ir morales klausimai.

keletas citatu:

IF IT CAN’T PROTECT ITS CITIZENS WHY DOES GOVERNMENT EXIST AT ALL?
But what use is a government that merely allows depression to be imposed on all of its citizens – even those who behaved prudently when others did not? Here in the USA we are firing teachers and firefighters because bankers speculated on real estate. Why should a child lose his/her teacher because of a mistake that a banker makes?
From a societal perspective that should never be acceptable.
And if you cannot protect your own people then what good is your government? This is the question Europeans ultimately have to be asking themselves today….

***
o siai citatai jau virs simto metu
“Talk about centralisation! The credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralisation, and gives this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner— and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it”.
Ten years ago, a quote from Marx would have one deemed a socialist, and dismissed from polite debate. Today, such a quote can (and did) appear in a feature in the Sydney Morning Herald—and not a few people would have been nodding their heads at how Marx got it right on bankers
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/steve-keen-roving-cavaliers-of-credit.html

truputi link politikos, bet vaizdialis ispudingas cia kaip US respublikonai isivaizduoja stabilia visuomene svarstant mokestiniu lengvatu paskirstyma

http://pragcap.com/ireland-iceland-and-letting-banks-fail
keletas nesenu ir senesniu palyginimu: Islandija/Airija ir Svedija/Japonija (1990)
esminis klausimas: gelbeti bankus ar leisti jiems zlugti?

pavyzdziai rodo, kad jei visuomene bankams suteikia isskirtinio verslo statusa ir prisiima ju nuostolius- tai tiesus kelias i susinaikinima.
Ir atvirksciai: leidus privatiems pelno siekiantiems subjektams atsakyti uz savo klaidas- atsigaunama zymiai greiciau ir tvariau.

Islandijos prezidentas aiskiai pasake: "How far can we ask ordinary people — farmers and fishermen and teachers and doctors and nurses — to shoulder the responsibility of failed private banks….That question, which has been at the core of the Icesave issue, will now be the burning issue in many European countries."

ir si klausima anksciau ar veliau tures spresti visos salys, kuriose isigalejo moderni bankininkyste.

p.s. "If you go through a bubble economy and you need to correct it, the answer is not to convert private debt into public debt. Rather it is to restructure the debt to the level of the assets".

And shall we die for the banks?
teises profesorius kelia tokius klausimus:
Between October 2008 and October 2010, the European Commission approved 4,589 billion euros of state support to banks. And invariably decisions on sums to be spent in state support are taken far from public scrutiny, under conditions that are not competitive or transparent, by administrators that are not answerable to the general public. Without ever being consulted, European tax payers have been dragooned into participating in the effort to rescue failing banks, and no questions have been asked about its legitimacy.

We agree to pay taxes because we recognise the need to provide funding for essential state systems: education, health care, law enforcement, the judiciary and defence. But if the financial sustainability of these systems is jeopardised, because the state has made it a priority to rescue failing banks, then we should no longer feel that the obligation to pay taxes still applies. We do not want to pay taxes to a state that simply throws our money into a black hole created by a financial system that is still guided by the slogan "greed is good."

States do not only owe debts to banks: they also owe a debt to their citizens. And the debt that is owed to citizens is more important, because citizens are in the majority.

Just look at what has happened to Ireland — a country that refused to allow its banks to fail and bailed them out:
The Irish state is now bankrupt and under the control of financiers, who are not accountable to the people

Icelandic President, Olafur Grimsson, put it simply: "How can we oblige people to pay for mistakes made by banks?" And this is a good question, not just for presidents, but also for prime ministers and central bank governors.

http://michael-hudson.com/2010/12/deficit-hawks-one-two-punch/
So what Alan Greenspan and others call the postindustrial economy is really neo-feudalism. It’s a financialized economy where all of the surplus goes to the banks. And if you’re a banker and somebody comes in and wants to take out a loan, you say, how much do you make? How much do you spend on food? You realize that most people, most workers in America have to spend 20 percent of their income just on basic goods and services–food, clothing, transportation to get to work. Everything over that, they think that’s all available to be paid to the banks. The idea of a bankers is for the entire economic surplus to be paid to them in the form of a financial surplus.

ir dar vienas:http://michael-hudson.com/2010/11/schemes-of-the-rich-and-greedy/
societies polarize if they don’t maintain vigilant protection against wealth addiction, above all in the financial sphere. If regressive taxation and an oligarchic (anti-socialist) state is not resisted, the economy will shrink. And as it shrinks, the wealthy will gain even more relative power, and make the tax system even more regressive – locking in a dynamic of economic and financial decline.

The main threat to every nation’s economic interest is mounting global pressure to back policies that slash living standards, capital investment and infrastructure spending in order to pay exponentially growing private and public debts.

Does country really need inflows of foreign credit for domestic spending when it can create this at home? Accepting credit and buyout “capital inflows” from the North provides a “free lunch” for key-currency issuers of dollars and Euros, but does not help local economies much.

Today, financial maneuvering and debt leverage play the role that military conquest did in times past. Its aim is still to control land, basic infrastructure and the economic surplus – and also to gain control of national savings, commercial banking and central bank policy. This financial conquest is achieved peacefully and even voluntarily rather than militarily. But the aim is the same: to make subject populations pay – as debtors and as dependent junior trade partners. Indebted “host economies” are in a similar position to that of defeated countries. They lose sovereignty over their own financial, economic and tax policy as their surplus is transferred abroad and public infrastructure is sold to foreigners.

The business plan of bank marketing departments is to capitalize all economic surplus into debt service. Loan officers see any net flow of income as potentially available to be captured as interest payments. Their dream of growth and financial success is to see the entire surplus capitalized into debt service to carry loans.

The European Central Bank insists that governments borrow only from commercial banks and other private-sector creditors. The demand that countries “balance their budgets” is a euphemism for selling off the public domain and slashing pensions and public spending on education, medical care and other basic preconditions for raising labor productivity.
The collapse of the “Baltic Tigers” and other post-Soviet economies where neoliberal planners had a free hand stands as an object lesson for how self-destructive these policies are for nations that submit to them.

cia istraukos is nesenos konferencijos Brazilijoje, kur Michael Hudson pataria kaip jiems gintis. Kiek issamiau cia: 6199-debt and financialization by michael hudson.doc

"The classical political economy of Adam Smith was a much broader, more humane subject than the economics that is taught in universities today", todel perkeliu bukanieriaus DD temoje ideta nuoroda, kuri labai tinka ir siai temai:
http://deoxy.org/korten_betrayal.htm