It is really sad that there is no real democracy in this country. Real democracy is the ancient Greek city state style voting directly on issues rather than what is the current form called "representative democracy". The aware ones know that representative democracy is crap. Currently we have the ruling class rich families in an oligarchic style and corporations that are all too powerful and above law since they have politicians who are supposed to be our representatives in their pockets. Of course if -as an American- you ever took any classes on political systems or history of the ancient world, you would have a better idea of what is really going on in this country and realize that you are nothing but a peasant and most likely your employer is your slave-owner holding you by the balls in one way or another. If you took any class like that in this country, you are very likely to have been told that direct democracy is not plausible in the current world due to much bigger populations and representative democracy (what an oxymoron) is the way to go. They want you to believe that so that you can yield power to a group of families and people that have monopolized the political system in this country. Does it not strike you as odd that fathers and sons, and grandfathers and grandsons and whatever else have been elected the presidents, governors, and what not several times??? That to me sounds like a sultanate. Was George W so much better than any other option that he became the president, twice??? Or Obama, Mr. Change for that matter. You know how the easiest way I know there is no democracy in this country besides the fact that there is no real justice when it comes to the banks and corporations? It is how the American people voted the republicans out of office because Bush's men Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner went above their powers, gifted trillions to the banks at the taxpayer voters expense and yet Obama who came to power promising change kept the same men in power. Who really is in power Bernanke, Geithner and similar a few other people or Obama? Obama must have agreed to keeping these men before being chosen by some powerhouses of the political system in this country that does not let or make it easy for anyone else to get anywhere near power. So was Obama really democratically elected or was he shoved down our throats by a bunch of these powerful people who want to think we are living in a democracy whereas they choose all the candidates the way they want and just like Manchurian candidates these candidates are all the same give or take a little.
Going back to our topic of direct democracy, don't you think with the advent of internet and cellphones direct democracy should be a lot easier to implement? I think it would be very cheaply and easily implemented, but it won't because some people and those people are rich and powerful, do not want this to happen. We are living in the times of kings and lords people, don't fool yourselves. There is no justice or democracy.
Below is an
example:
"
Bank Of America Says Its Lehman-Style Bogus Balance Sheet Manipulation Is A-Okay
Posted Mar 24, 2010 09:57am EDT by Henry Blodget
As John Hempton pointed out last week, Lehman wasn't the only bank that engaged in bogus end-of-quarter balance sheet manipulation to trick investors into thinking it was less leveraged than it was.
Turns out, Bank of America (BAC) did it, too.
Hempton compared Bank of America's "average quarterly assets" and "end of quarter assets" and found that, in each quarter, billions of dollars of assets conveniently disappeared briefly at the end of the quarter, only to return again at the start of the next one.
Thus, Bank of America interrupted its wild gambling for a few days at the end of the quarter, presented a sober snapshot to its investors, and then went right back to gambling again.
Was this illegal?
Probably not. Like Lehman, Bank of America probably found some legal loophole in some country somewhere that allowed them to momentarily hide tens of billions of dollars of assets somewhere where Wall Street wouldn't see them.
But it's certainly not transparent and forthright, either.
Anyway, ProPublica caught up with Bank of America and asked them to comment on this behavior. Naturally, Bank of America thinks it's perfectly acceptable:
"Efforts to manage the size of our balance sheet are routine and appropriate, and we believe our actions are consistent with all applicable accounting and legal requirements."
Mm hmm. As ProPublica notes, this is almost exactly what Ernst & Young said about its Lehman accounting:
"Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and we remain of that view."
"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment