I wish I could help the modern mother to understand that one sigh of hers (in the presence of a child) may have more life long consequences on that child then all the preaching at church in a year could.
And that then taking care of the children rather then being in a Bishoprich meeting is in no way saying that women are less valuable then men.
There are so many feminist mormons out there that just can't wrap themselves around the differences inherent to men and women to understand our different callings in the church and home. Not only that but in the world in general, women's tradition roles are so poorly understood. Even the way the economy accounts for things leave traditional women's roles unaccounted for, as if they didn't even exists.
I have a few books that broach the topic of the way the economy accounting should work, but I have yet to open them. We should be able to find it within ourselves first- we shouldn't need the political and economic climate to agree with us before we act.
I just wish there was a way to help others understand. I want others to see that my conclusions are not a product of brain washing, but an answer with in myself that I had to struggle to find and understand how to implement.
What is weird is that these ideas are not being fought in a gender vs gender arena, but are being fought mostly in the hearts and minds of our own gender.
Are we asking too much of our own gender to seriously give our all to our next generation?
Real feminism should be seen as a movement to understand and fully utilize our gender for all the beauty and good it can fill the world with.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Great article about America's Financial issues
Wow- of you want to understand the banking/ financial issues in America right now- this is a great article.-
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
here are some highlights:
At the root of the banks’ problems are the large losses they have undoubtedly taken on their securities and loan portfolios. But they don’t want to recognize the full extent of their losses, because that would likely expose them as insolvent. So they talk down the problem, and ask for handouts that aren’t enough to make them healthy (again, they can’t reveal the size of the handouts that would be necessary for that), but are enough to keep them upright a little longer. This behavior is corrosive: unhealthy banks either don’t lend (hoarding money to shore up reserves) or they make desperate gambles on high-risk loans and investments that could pay off big, but probably won’t pay off at all. In either case, the economy suffers further, and as it does, bank assets themselves continue to deteriorate—creating a highly destructive vicious cycle.
To break this cycle, the government must force the banks to acknowledge the scale of their problems. As the IMF understands (and as the U.S. government itself has insisted to multiple emerging-market countries in the past), the most direct way to do this is nationalization. Instead, Treasury is trying to negotiate bailouts bank by bank, and behaving as if the banks hold all the cards—contorting the terms of each deal to minimize government ownership while forswearing government influence over bank strategy or operations. Under these conditions, cleaning up bank balance sheets is impossible.
Nationalization would not imply permanent state ownership. The IMF’s advice would be, essentially: scale up the standard Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation process. An FDIC “intervention” is basically a government-managed bankruptcy procedure for banks. It would allow the government to wipe out bank shareholders, replace failed management, clean up the balance sheets, and then sell the banks back to the private sector. The main advantage is immediate recognition of the problem so that it can be solved before it grows worse.
.... To those who say this would drive financial activities to other countries, we can now safely say: fine.
The second scenario begins more bleakly, and might end that way too. But it does provide at least some hope that we’ll be shaken out of our torpor. It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and—because eastern Europe’s banks are mostly owned by western European banks—justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration’s current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy “stress scenario” that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks’ balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
here are some highlights:
At the root of the banks’ problems are the large losses they have undoubtedly taken on their securities and loan portfolios. But they don’t want to recognize the full extent of their losses, because that would likely expose them as insolvent. So they talk down the problem, and ask for handouts that aren’t enough to make them healthy (again, they can’t reveal the size of the handouts that would be necessary for that), but are enough to keep them upright a little longer. This behavior is corrosive: unhealthy banks either don’t lend (hoarding money to shore up reserves) or they make desperate gambles on high-risk loans and investments that could pay off big, but probably won’t pay off at all. In either case, the economy suffers further, and as it does, bank assets themselves continue to deteriorate—creating a highly destructive vicious cycle.
To break this cycle, the government must force the banks to acknowledge the scale of their problems. As the IMF understands (and as the U.S. government itself has insisted to multiple emerging-market countries in the past), the most direct way to do this is nationalization. Instead, Treasury is trying to negotiate bailouts bank by bank, and behaving as if the banks hold all the cards—contorting the terms of each deal to minimize government ownership while forswearing government influence over bank strategy or operations. Under these conditions, cleaning up bank balance sheets is impossible.
Nationalization would not imply permanent state ownership. The IMF’s advice would be, essentially: scale up the standard Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation process. An FDIC “intervention” is basically a government-managed bankruptcy procedure for banks. It would allow the government to wipe out bank shareholders, replace failed management, clean up the balance sheets, and then sell the banks back to the private sector. The main advantage is immediate recognition of the problem so that it can be solved before it grows worse.
.... To those who say this would drive financial activities to other countries, we can now safely say: fine.
The second scenario begins more bleakly, and might end that way too. But it does provide at least some hope that we’ll be shaken out of our torpor. It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and—because eastern Europe’s banks are mostly owned by western European banks—justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration’s current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy “stress scenario” that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks’ balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Non- Economic Plan
And for those people who have yet to hear about the details of the Geithener's plan to bring American Financial Stability to it's own funeral- here is my rendition of it.
The 3 part plan is as follows:
PART 1. Gov't + Biz back (bad) loans so that we can purchase toxic bank assets with what is left of our 401Ks.
PART 2, TALF makes loans to investors to purchase junk consumer debt (making it easier for us to purchase the toxic bank assets.
PART 3, The FDIC (yep, the people you trust to back your money in the bank)makes loans to purchase Toxic bank assets.
Theoretically these 3 pieces are supposed to assure the banks get good money to sell off their bad assets.
And who is the bottom line consumers of these toxic assets? We are- 95% of them coming from our hard earned income tax and 5% coming from what is left of our 401Ks.
The 95% really bothers me- the 5% will lead some crazy investment people to invest and say it was "Good" because the loans are backed by the Gov't. Meanwhile the Gov't is throwing in the 95% by printing more money (that are backed by the toxic assets) and leading down a fun road of hyper inflation.
The bottom line is : Bank's bad assets to US (the US taxpayers)
It also will equal a nice little small latte for $100 a cup.
I think I will invest in something that inflation won't rip apart- like maybe food storage and a garden.
The 3 part plan is as follows:
PART 1. Gov't + Biz back (bad) loans so that we can purchase toxic bank assets with what is left of our 401Ks.
PART 2, TALF makes loans to investors to purchase junk consumer debt (making it easier for us to purchase the toxic bank assets.
PART 3, The FDIC (yep, the people you trust to back your money in the bank)makes loans to purchase Toxic bank assets.
Theoretically these 3 pieces are supposed to assure the banks get good money to sell off their bad assets.
And who is the bottom line consumers of these toxic assets? We are- 95% of them coming from our hard earned income tax and 5% coming from what is left of our 401Ks.
The 95% really bothers me- the 5% will lead some crazy investment people to invest and say it was "Good" because the loans are backed by the Gov't. Meanwhile the Gov't is throwing in the 95% by printing more money (that are backed by the toxic assets) and leading down a fun road of hyper inflation.
The bottom line is : Bank's bad assets to US (the US taxpayers)
It also will equal a nice little small latte for $100 a cup.
I think I will invest in something that inflation won't rip apart- like maybe food storage and a garden.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Shaken, not stirred
Yup, I have been shaken, but not stirred.
I happened upon the fate to send a deer flying tonight, and the experience literally left me shaken. My mind was calm, but my hands were shaking as I tried to get my cell phone to work.- Which it did not- battery was exhausted. Silly phones, they need to learn to keep a charge for a week at a time.
Anyways, the front drivers side corner of my beautiful blue pruis was smooshed in enough to keep the tire from wanting to move- so the car is still sitting upon the scene that occurred 1/2 mile away from home. Nobody but the deer was hurt and I am not sure how bad the deer was hurt. At first I thought the thing was instantly dead- but then it started to move it's head, and then it started to move it's back and it managed to get itself sitting upright. We called the sheriff's department and they are in charge of the deer.
Ewan, who was with me, is thinking they will bring the deer to an animal hospital- I didn't have the hart to tell him how they would "take care" of it.
I happened upon the fate to send a deer flying tonight, and the experience literally left me shaken. My mind was calm, but my hands were shaking as I tried to get my cell phone to work.- Which it did not- battery was exhausted. Silly phones, they need to learn to keep a charge for a week at a time.
Anyways, the front drivers side corner of my beautiful blue pruis was smooshed in enough to keep the tire from wanting to move- so the car is still sitting upon the scene that occurred 1/2 mile away from home. Nobody but the deer was hurt and I am not sure how bad the deer was hurt. At first I thought the thing was instantly dead- but then it started to move it's head, and then it started to move it's back and it managed to get itself sitting upright. We called the sheriff's department and they are in charge of the deer.
Ewan, who was with me, is thinking they will bring the deer to an animal hospital- I didn't have the hart to tell him how they would "take care" of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)