Too many thoughts, too little time

I'm too lazy to think. I think too much. And yes, the prior two statements are truthful contradictions. Who said life wasn't interesting? ;p
You see, I think alot. About everything. But I'm too lazy to analyze things in depth. Too easily contented with what I have, I take a step back and with a sigh of satisfaction, declare my mediocre efforts sufficient. I mean, come on! How lazy can a person get?? Apparently, very..
I have a smart friend, very talented and inspired friend, who calls me smart too *smug look sweeps across my face*. She says, "the world needs another Great Depression". And I find myself surprisingly taken up to the idea.
I've been wondering, in the face of this "crisis of the global economy", about the reasons and true definition of "growth". Across the globe, nations abound clamour for more growth. And to what end? Caught up in the endless race for growth, I take a step back and wonder, Why?
Mathematically, our theory of economics are rather sound, and ceteris paribus, amount to very rationally panned out thoughts. But ultimately, isn't the study of economics purely a reflection of the hunger for growth that our society exudes? If that is so, then the fact that our economic policies are governed by people who are studied in the "art" of economics, will make our economy a self-perpetuating endless cycle. It's hilarious really, but it seems to me that the "flaw" that leads to crisis and recessions is nothing more than a by-product of the mentality perpetuated by society's elite. For who else profits the most from "growth" but the people who leads them (the growth).
Call me anti-elitist, but I feel that a change in mindset is in order. It can only be for the better, at least in reference to the spiritual health of humanity.

Onto other issues... the Lehman Mini-bond debate. "The MAS – a desperate headless chicken?", "Minibonds : No leadership in times of trouble....!", and on the flip side, "S’pore’s financial system is sound, S$150b guarantee for deposits sufficient". The case made is that MAS and the Singapore government have been slow to react to the "plight" of the investors "conned" into buying Mini-bonds, and that we have been lagging behind in monetary policies, most prominently being the guaranteeing of deposits which came a day after Hong Kong made theirs. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not going to shoot down the investors. On the contrary, I pity them for their plight. They have been misled into wrongfully investing their savings into a product which isn't as risk-free as is proclaimed. Whose fault is it though? The banks who sold them? The banks who packaged them, which may or may not be the same? Or the investor, for not doing enough research? Definitely, some individual responsibility should be taken, BUT if the banks really did misrepresent the products, knowing the risks involved and understating them, then that IS a fraudulent act. There is no fault in them banding together to take up action against the financial institutions involved. But to rant about the incompetence of MAS? I beg to differ.
Short of proclaiming the ignorance of these prominent bloggers, lets view the directives of MAS.

"MAS is the central bank of Singapore. Our mission is to promote sustained non-inflationary economic growth, and a sound and progressive financial centre."

MAS FUNCTIONS

• To act as the central bank of Singapore, including the conduct of monetary
  policy, the issuance of currency, the oversight of payment systems and
  serving
  as banker to and financial agent of the Government
• To conduct integrated supervision of financial services and financial
  stability surveillance
• To manage the official foreign reserves of Singapore
• To develop Singapore as an international financial centre

From this, we can already see that MAS has no obligation to the plights of the investors as individuals and they had every right to ask them to take up the issue with the court of law. Their duty to supervision extends only as far as to ensuring the integrity of the system. If any, we should question the failings of that duty rather than MAS's reaction to the situation. Also, MAS's first and foremost priority is the integrity of Singapore's finance, which unfortunately, does not include the plight of these investors.
In view of this, Singapore financial institutions are in good stead (relative to the global situation), hence there was no reason to guarantee deposits. This explains the reactionary stance which MAS has adopted. The only reason why MAS made an about-turn has nothing to do with improving the state of the economy, but rather with the competitiveness that Singapore offers as a financial hub. Singapore is unable to ignore the actions which Hong Kong, as a direct "rival", undertakes, regardless of how redundant some of the policies may be. Guarantee-ing deposits is akin to money sunk, that is, that money may be, with high confidence, unable to be recovered. But in terms of competitiveness, it is money that Singapore can ill-afford to save, if she is to continue attracting investors and maintaining her reputation of being a strong and competitive financial hub.

Perhaps, MAS has to be blamed. Not for their indecision, but for their failure to uphold their task. To supervise the integrity of our financial services. The dent in MAS's reputation lies in this fact, that they have been lax in their control over financial institutions in exchange for the growth potential which they promise to the country.

I feel that the leadership has been unnecessarily criticised. With this rationale, what MAS is doing may not be the wisest, but it is the best course of action to fulfil its directives. What should be criticised though is the direction and fundamentals of MAS and our government as a whole. The fact that our citizens regularly complain about the actions taken by our government and government bodies, despite the actions being "by the book", so to speak, shows that there is a lack of unity between the ideals of the citizen and the direction in which the government is heading. If this is the case, it is then not a question of leadership, but rather a question of "leader". Is the government which leads us today, the one that we truly want? We fault our leadership for being weak and reactionary, slow and uninspired. The truth is, so are we, the citizens, for being blind to the truth that since a decade or more ago, the path that our government seeks for us, and the path that we desire, have been divergent. Do not criticize others of faults which you own. It may be time that Singaporeans reflect on their political mindset. This is no longer about PAP or opposition. It's about how we want our country to be led. Regardless of opposition or PAP, I can say with some confidence that growth will always be prioritised over welfare, for it is the nature of our society. "We are not a welfare state.". Sounds familiar? Enough said.

Do we still want growth? I don't know.. I'm too lazy to think further. It is greed, a manisfestation from the desire for growth, that has led us to this state. A simpleton will agree that we don't want growth, but where will that leave us then? This is something which this simpleton, yours truly, cannot comprehend. It seems I've many years of thinking yet to be done.

p.s. I like this site. Den of The Lion Investor

The world as we know it 2

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=235
The above is an article against the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street by the US Fed Treasury.
Read it, think through it.. Now STOP.

Seriously, there is some truth in it, but anyone who thinks we should let Wall Street crumble and die IS selfish. I am soo pissed off that I'm posting this right here, right now.
Wall Street is crumbling. The idea is that it is a liquidity crunch. "What is a liquidity crisis?", you ask. It's when you have assets but no cash to back it up, to put it in layman terms. You've got stuff but can't sell them off. No cash, and no one to borrow from, you're stuck with debts that you can't pay, because you can't recover the cash owed to you, and you can't sell off your assets. That's what the major financial institutions are going through.

Why is the world over watching the scenario so carefully? Lets see.. what happens if the bailout does not occur. AIG has already been bailed out. What if it hadn't?
1) Many people will lose all their money invested in insurance. Globally.
2) Many people will lose their jobs.
3) Man United will not have a main sponsor.
ok this is simplistic. let me delve deeper...

If financial institutions fall, we're talking about century old companies falling. there's a big void with no one to fill it in the short run. In business, everyone runs up good debt. You borrow to start up. You borrow to get a project going, be it construction or the next Broadway musical. You borrow to get supplies for your next harvest. You borrow to buy a house.
Sure, it's these very institutions' fault for being blinded by greed and making rash risky loans with high risk of defaults to ppl who can't afford the houses they're living in. But punishing them would be detrimental to the country. Just look at the list in yellow. The collapse of these institutions as a whole would bring the country's economy to a standstill. Employees won't get their pay check on time, rents will be overdue, utility bills unpaid... you get the picture. It'll be a bleak time for the citizens, but that's not all. 401(k) pension plans invested in these very firms will be gone, extinguished, evaporated, just like that. Imagine being 50 and finding out that all your hard-earned savings have been wiped out. How would you feel?

The bailout plan is a short-term solution. It is not meant to be a solve-all solution. A lesson learnt and a long term solution to the industry and its regulation is required for sure. But that doesn't make the bailout plan any less urgent or important. Everyday, the taxpayers that you're worried for are losing their savings, their insurance, and if a company goes bankrupt, they lose it forever. If this plan is not put into effect, there will not be any cash moving around. No banks buying up ailing banks to stop their freefall. No banks lending money to provide the necessary liquidity to tide over the influx of defaulters. Paper loss is still a loss, and without the necessary liquidity to cover for it, that loss will be realised, and even the super rich won't be able to afford it.

So quit thinking of revenge, stop wishing for payback, because it's not going to happen. In reality, the rich will be rich, and they'll stay that way, as we've found out in this "crisis". Think of the consequence if their companies fall. They'll still be rich. Heck they've earned more than enough for a dozen lifetimes. But the fall of the companies they run will mean the death of the accounts of millions of citizens, and millions more people worldwide. Remember, these firms we're talking about are international organisations. Barclays, AIG (AIA), CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, ...

@ Barclays. It's not just confined to the US. Already, repercussions are felt worldwide. European governments are rushing to provide the necessary liquidity to keep their companies afloat. ING along with government-funding have bought over a competitor to prevent it from failing in Holland, and across Europe, the situation is viral. The only way to stem the tide is for a strong reaction by the US. However, blinded by personal agenda, they've held the world hostage.

Sure, 700billion sounds alot and unreasonable, and i'm sure it may be so, but the world needs a saviour, and they need it fast. The meltdown is scary, but it's quite real. Face facts, and take responsibilty as a person of the world. You're but one person in a billion, but what you do affects billions. So think twice.

p.s. the bailout plan is a tiered plan. 700billion is a cap. 250billion is the initial amount released. 350billion being the 1st tier cap, and the other 350billion up to 700billion max will be under case-by-case scrutiny before release.