HAVOC
phil scott
Superb piece.... its coded, here is the legend.
- 'sovereign' being govt and central banks...
- 'leach' being investment banks, huge private interests etc... and
- 'subject' being us working citizens...
with the lines blurred, since about 40% of the 'workers' (subjects)
are actually civil servants or serving govt.
>21, 8:30 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> Sovereign Default
>
> Two guys, Sovereign and Subject, have an arrangement of sorts. Subject does the work, Sovereign sponges off of him. Subject puts up with it, because Sovereign will beat him up if he doesn’t.
>
> Sovereign has gotten greedy of late. He’s decided to issue bonds backed by Subject, with a guaranteed return rate. He keeps some of the funds raised for himself, and maybe uses some to make Subject’s life a little more productive as well, but with the explicit condition that Subject is going to have to pay these funds back with interest.
>
> Subject doesn’t like this plan. He also sees that Sovereign has very little incentive not to overpromise what Subject is capable of.
>
> Sovereign has two takers in his Subject bond offering, Investor and Leech. Investor is impressed by what Subject is capable of, and wants to keep him well funded to achieve more, and to profit in the process. Leech is a bully and a coward, and wants Sovereign to squeeze Subject for all he can. Both have purchased bonds for very different reasons, but both are very concerned by the writing on the wall. It’s becoming apparent that Subject is overworked. He’s lost his motivation, and he’s been giving so much to Sovereign and Sovereign’s creditors that he hasn’t been able to properly take care of himself. Payments meeting the exorbitant amounts Sovereign has promised are no longer a given.
>
> Naturally, Sovereign is troubled greatly by this development. If Subject underperforms, his gravy train derails: Not only does he lose his direct revenue stream, but also his take from controlling access to Subject.
>
> This is similarly a catastrophe for Leech, as he’s been counting on Sovereign keeping Subject producing. Leech doesn’t have the strength or courage to push Subject around himself, so he’s been content to get his cut from funding Sovereign’s bullying efforts. But with recent developments, he’s starting to get cold feet.
>
> Investor is worried too. Specifically, he’s worried what Sovereign and Leech might do to Subject if he doesn’t meet Sovereign’s demands. Sovereign might just kill him in a fit of rage. Leech might give up on Sovereign altogether and just try to extract what Sovereign promised him directly from Subject.
>
> Poor Subject. He’s saying to anyone who will listen “I never asked for this! I wanted to be left alone. I promised nothing to anyone. Why should this be my problem?”
>
> Investor sympathizes. He’s always seen Sovereign’s involvement as an obstacle, not an asset. Investor always saw his bond purchase as a way of buying into the opportunity that Subject represented.
>
> Leech is having none of it. He has no qualms about trying to hold Subject responsible for Sovereign’s promises. All he knows is that he was promised a guaranteed return, and he’s gonna get it one way or another.
>
> What honest man would blame an equally honest fellow man for refusing to honor debt incurred by others? How would such a default constitute a moral failing? When a private individual incurs debts in another’s name without his consent, that is called identity theft. Why is it considered to be a binding agreement when perpetrated by government?
>
> When I hear of the legacy of debt I and my children and my children’s children will be buried under, all I can think is “Hell no. I’m not gonna pay.” Let’s get this crap off the balance sheet. It doesn’t belong there. We need to throw out the bums who thought it was proper to promise our labor, and to repudiate the debt incurred by them. I have no sympathy for the creditors who thought it was safe to count on our compliance. And for those creditors who thought they were making an investment, I’m sorry, but you were mistaken, and you are a victim as much as we have been. Let’s get up, dust ourselves off, leave Sovereign and Leech in the wreckage of their ill-conceived plan, and work together directly from now on.
Superb piece.... 'sovereign' being govt and central banks... 'leach'
being investment banks etc... and 'subject' being us working
citizens...
with the lines blurred, since about 40% of the 'workers' (subjects)
are actually civil servants running govt, they dont produce much as a
rule, so these span the 'sovereign' and 'leach' classes as
well....both sucking the life blood from the 'subjects' us goods
producing folk.
and yes indeedie, when we are over worked so we cant surive and
prosper we collapse... usually only after a total collapse do we
revolt however.... like clock work ...all through history.
this time though, its different...the mess is multi national/ world
wide/ so is the 'leach'... and it controls much of the sovereign, and
it is staging apparently to own all the assets in the next collapse...
to become the supreme rentier... (as it beats its renters into the
ground.)
the question is will the remaining 'subjects' tolerate that or hunt
them down in their enclaves and bunkers..... is suspect the latter.
already, world wide, there are entire districts that a nations police
nor military even will not attempt to enter...recent riots in England
and france for instance... even in some smaller cities, its that
way... Chico calif for instance, a clean, small college town, has an
area where the citizens fire on the police and utility workers.
with unemployment now approaching depression levels, that scene among
the starving classes is ramping up at warp speed... those populations,
from asia even, the Hunan.. are breeding at 4x the established
population.. they come from nations that routinely murder their
officials such as south america.
These will be a majorty of the US population and the working class in
less than 20 years... it does not take a majority though to raise
havoc....
Phil scott
Old Pif
>
>... and 'subject' being us working citizens...
>
The Chinese mostly.
Antonio Huerta
Have you ever had a Chinese as your boss ?
Old Pif
No. But I had two from India. I don't think it worse.
phil scott
this is why I recommend various forms of self employment... you can
side step
that stuff, or at least issue a quote and binding terms. that works,
even in worst cases
it can be made to at least be viable...but it takes practice.
Most of those btw can see me coming, no way in hell will some sign my
contracts...these know what to look for, desperate countrymen... sure
as hell not american tradesman or experienced professionals...
fortunately its a diverse world
Phil scott
BMJ
> On Nov 23, 5:22 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 5:04 am, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 7:14 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 22, 2:00 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>>>> ... and 'subject' being us working citizens...
>>>> The Chinese mostly.
>>> Have you ever had a Chinese as your boss ?
>> No. But I had two from India. I don't think it worse.
>
> this is why I recommend various forms of self employment... you can
> side step
> that stuff, or at least issue a quote and binding terms. that works,
> even in worst cases
> it can be made to at least be viable...but it takes practice.
On the other hand, one can work towards being financially self-contained.
One of my former colleagues was a weekend farmer while he was teaching and,
now that he's retired, spends much of his time out there. One of his
objectives was to train a quarter horse starting while it was a foal.
>
> Most of those btw can see me coming, no way in hell will some sign my
> contracts...these know what to look for, desperate countrymen... sure
> as hell not american tradesman or experienced professionals...
>
> fortunately its a diverse world
They get what they pay for.
>
>
>
>
> Phil scott
Old Pif
>
> this is why I recommend various forms of self employment...
>
Well, the corporations took care of that. To get a contract from the
most of the big companies - and that is where the money are - you must
get to the list of the most preferable vendors first. They don't give
you any work if you are alone. Right now I am observing how it works.
Some people that have been laid off recently but are essential for the
business cycle are coming back through consulting companies. The whole
deal looks ridiculous: the managers make two phone calls - one to the
person they know and another one to the consulting company which is on
the list of preferable vendors and arrange the match. People are
admitted to consulting companies under the guaranty of a contract. The
question is why they don't take them as self-employed people? They pay
considerable overhead to the consultant bureaucracy and still to hire
the independent contractors directly. I have heard that they are
taught this stupidity in MBA programs.
phil scott
yes thats one of the tactics... meantime their trade secrets leak to
the temps, and the temp persons next contract and
home nation.
One way small business can get into big jobs though is on minority/
disabled preference and tax incentives lists.
These get a 10% credit for being a minority...so if you bid 100,000
dollars they can bid up to 110,000 and get the contract.
some get multimple credits, Minority owner, 10% or whatever, over
60% minority staff, another 10% or so, disabled owner or partner,
another 7%, so you get a peg leg, fat ass secrretary signed on the
corporation papers, then you have a blind, recovering ex conn as CEO .
for another 15%... so you can bid 150,000 on a job everyone else bids
around 100k and still get the work.
then these sub it out to the lowest dope addict bidder for 80k seing
as how they are personally not able to do the work....after great
success as businessmen, these move into government.
Phil scott
Antonio Huerta
> this is why I recommend various forms of self employment... you can
> side step
> that stuff, or at least issue a quote and binding terms. that works,
My experience of 10 years ago shows that the companies and
corporations do not want to have business with a small company/sole
business operator who offers cheaper prices, because the service
provider has to be from the list of the approved providers... and such
an approved provider has to be a large company itself.
So, no hope for a sole businessman to get into business.
Antonio Huerta
> On Dec 4, 10:22 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > this is why I recommend various forms of self employment...
>
> Well, the corporations took care of that. To get a contract from the
> most of the big companies - and that is where the money are - you must
> get to the list of the most preferable vendors first.
Geez... I wrote the same reply to phil scott without knowing what you
Old Pif wrote :-)
> They don't give
> you any work if you are alone. Right now I am observing how it works.
> Some people that have been laid off recently but are essential for the
> business cycle are coming back through consulting companies. The whole
> deal looks ridiculous: the managers make two phone calls - one to the
> person they know and another one to the consulting company which is on
> the list of preferable vendors and arrange the match. People are
> admitted to consulting companies under the guaranty of a contract.
I observe the same in our govt lab as well. The management got money
from external sources to do some consulting (for the industry or for
other govt agencies). The management needs people to do that work, But
the management cannot hire anymore of the public servants (their
number is capped). So, they hire the contractors. But the contractors
cannot be hired directly; they are hired through the 'umbrella'
companies who are the approved vendor for our govt lab. This is how
the things are done (on my memory).
Old Pif
That is why everything is so damn expensive.
phil scott
you are partially correct
.. except on the last point.... small business does business with each
other
but yes its not as profitable as dealing with big business
Most of my clients are small businesses however and they do business
with giant corporations as
a matter of course... for instance supplying them parts, air
conditioning systems, etc
for instance car dealers, are small business, one of my clients builds
those dealership buildings, not for
general motors, but for the dealership,,, another small business
Phil scott
phil scott
> On Dec 6, 7:10 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 4, 10:22 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > > this is why I recommend various forms of self employment...
>
> > Well, the corporations took care of that. To get a contract from the
> > most of the big companies - and that is where the money are - you must
> > get to the list of the most preferable vendors first.
>
> Geez... I wrote the same reply to phil scott without knowing what you
> Old Pif wrote :-)
I have personally on my own paper with my own small staff, operating
from modest facilities
done the following business with giant corporations'
IBM consulting on why their RISC chip plant failed 250 m my
fee 20k
General Dynamics (fighter jets and rockets) 300k air conditioning
for a manufacturing area
I had 28 staff for that
US Dept of Energy,,, several differents sites consulting 100k or
so fees
Northrup aircraft and many other aerospace companies,,,, 50k jobs
rebuilding various equipment
etc
but not of course selling them a fighter jet, thats too big for me
>
> > They don't give
> > you any work if you are alone. Right now I am observing how it works.
> > Some people that have been laid off recently but are essential for the
> > business cycle are coming back through consulting companies. The whole
> > deal looks ridiculous: the managers make two phone calls - one to the
> > person they know and another one to the consulting company which is on
> > the list of preferable vendors and arrange the match. People are
> > admitted to consulting companies under the guaranty of a contract.
>
> I observe the same in our govt lab as well. The management got money
> from external sources to do some consulting (for the industry or for
> other govt agencies). The management needs people to do that work, But
> the management cannot hire anymore of the public servants (their
> number is capped). So, they hire the contractors. But the contractors
> cannot be hired directly; they are hired through the 'umbrella'
> companies who are the approved vendor for our govt lab. This is how
> the things are done (on my memory).
you are correct, the engineering job shops get most of the work as
umbrellas these days
but NOT for work that has a heavy hands on, physical component,...
trouble shooting and modifications
that goes to private contractors often smaller ones
>
> The
>
>
>
> > question is why they don't take them as self-employed people? They pay
> > considerable overhead to the consultant bureaucracy and still to hire
> > the independent contractors directly. I have heard that they are
> > taught this stupidity in MBA programs.- Hide quoted text -
you are largely correct regarding your disciplines, research and
consulting but not correct when
it comes to construction, and service and trouble shooting... I fit a
niche between the two so get in
on my own paper through that gap
many others do as well... and have since been very successful... but
it is not something for a
person with an employee mental set,,,, but an entrepreneurial mental
set... that is the dividing line
Phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
phil scott
Ive known a few individuals in the R and D business who became filthy
rich and did most of the ongoing
facilities development for one of them now filthy rich
Dr Bryan Zwann, optical electronics interface development in Santa
Monica calif with is first lab .. a small space in a strip warehouse
complex... he mounted his own hepa filters, after asking me what the
issues were.
his next lab, 10 years I designed and buult 5,000 sq ft of class 10
clean rooms,, a show place... as advanced as it gets
he did that on money he got from his client in silicon valley. he
drove mercedes benz's but was not rich
10 years later he developed test equipment DIGL and became filthy
rich selling its stock
Many others have gone that route..... the founders of Microsoft and
Apple for instance
Phil scott