Capitalism inherently believes that all human beings have free will and should be free to exercise that freedom without coercion from others in economic matters. Now the very idea of free will and freedom presupposes the divine, the supernatural. Freedom presupposes something more than a mere mass of atoms and random chance. It presupposes something more than the material world. It presupposes something (or someone) that can actually choose, i.e. the soul, and thus presupposes a Soul-Maker too. Thus capitalism is less materialistic than any of its alternatives.

There is a distinction between materialism and productive use of the Creation. But of course, if you are an atheist, this distinction necessarily has no meaning for you.

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/hillary-clinton-its-not-over-till-its-over/#comment-2844

It was a rigorous discussion of inside-the-beltway issues like whether Michigan and Florida should be seated and isn't the recent tide of super delegates to come out for Obama a sign Obama's the presumptive nominee?  As interesting as those topics are for political junkies, like myself, I can't help but wonder why aren't more questions asked that would really help voters make up their minds?

For example:

1. To really reduce the price of gas for those WV nurses (who can't see certain patients because of gas prices), what about drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, with strict environment-protecting controls, and releasing some of the SPR until those new wells come online?  This would really lower the price of gas for average Americans, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve our trade deficit.  The Dems have really limited domestic drilling - which has kept domestic supply down.  If Democrats don't go along with it now, why shouldn't those nurses, and everyone else, blame the Democrats for high gas prices?
2. Isn't it true, Senator Clinton, that the booming 90s economy, you keep taking credit for, actually began in March, 1991 - a full 21 months before your husband took office?  Isn't it also true that the 1994 Republican's fiscal discipline and the Bush 41 recovery have more to do with the late 1990s surpluses than anything your husband did?  If so, why should Americans trust you with our economy?  In fact, given the Dem majorities, isn't it more likely a Hillary economy would be more like Carter's economy than the one your husband inherited?
3. Lastly, and far more important, are questions about Rwanda - most media has been afraid to ask the Clintons about Rwanda – until now.  After the Holocaust, we promised “never again” at the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.  In 1994, over 50,000 blacks per week were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide.  To avoid our UN obligation, President Clinton tried to convince the world it wasn’t technically “genocide”.   Incredibly, the world believed President Clinton and, for 14 long weeks, the slaughter continued until over 800,000 blacks died.  Senator Clinton - As someone who has fought for women and children for 35 years, why didn’t you speak out publicly against your husband when you saw the news footage of the Kagera River, red with the blood of victims and clogged with the bloated & hacked body parts of women and children?  You call yourself a feminist and yet you remained silent while hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.  Why did you remain silent?
4. Do you believe your husband’s apologies are enough given that over 800,000 blacks lost their lives on his watch?  Recent reports indicate your husband and V.P. Gore may have been aware as early as week three that a horrific genocide was happening, but did not acknowledge it publicly. 
5. By week three, the Hutus had slaughtered over 100,000 Tutsis.  When did you begin to think it was genocide?  If early on, why not speak out publicly to save lives?  If not until later, why should America trust you to be President if you failed to see such a significant human disaster was unfolding and that urgent action was needed? 

I know these questions are a little rough but the subject matter is rough.  I truly believe journalists have a solemn obligation to hold leaders accountable, even if questions are difficult.

Worried About the Price of Gas? End the Wars

Ismael Hossein-Zadeh | May 14, 2008

Despite all the recent talk of soaring prices at the pump, political and economic pundits rarely mention the impact of war and political instability in the Middle East on the skyrocketing price of oil. There is strong evidence, however, that the heightened price of energy is a direct consequence of the destabilizing wars and geopolitical insecurity in the region.

These include not only the raging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the threat of a looming war against Iran. The record of soaring oil prices shows that anytime there is a renewed U.S. military threat against Iran, fuel prices move up several notches.

Not long ago the price of oil was about a quarter of what it is today. But soon after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the price of oil began to escalate in tandem with the escalation of war and political turbulence in the Middle East. The fact that the rise in the price of oil has followed the heightened insecurity in oil markets is neither accidental nor a simple correlation; it represents a causality that runs from the heightened insecurity in oil markets to the inflated price of energy.

The war also contributes to the escalation of fuel cost in indirect ways; for example, by plunging the U.S. ever deeper into debt and depreciating the dollar. As oil is priced largely in U.S. dollars, oil exporting countries ask for more dollars per barrel of oil as the dollar loses value.

Not only are the raging wars in the Middle East responsible for energy price inflation, they are also responsible for price inflation of many other commodities, especially grains and other foodstuff, whose production and transportation depend on fuel. According to the World Bank, food prices have more than doubled over the past three years. The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year alone. The mounting food prices have caused hunger and deadly violence in many countries, including Haiti, Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, Senegal, and Malaysia.

This shows that the disastrous consequences of U.S. wars of choice go beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United States. The skyrocketing costs of fuel and food tend to plunge many of the world economies into a 1970s-style stagflation (a combination of stagnation and inflation) that threatens many lives and/or livelihoods around the globe.

Neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration and beneficiaries of war dividends—wishing to deflect attention away from war as the main culprit for the skyrocketing energy prices—tend to blame secondary or marginally relevant factors: OPEC, China and India for their increased demand for energy, or supply-demand imbalances in global markets.

Whatever the contributory role of these factors, the fact remains that the current oil price hikes started with the beginning of the Bush administration’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, a closer examination of these factors reveals that their roles in the current price inflation of oil have been negligible.

The claim that there is a supply-demand imbalance in global energy markets cannot be backed by facts. The alleged disparity between supply and demand is said to be due to the rapidly growing demand coming from China and India. But that rapid growth in demand is largely offset by a number of counterbalancing factors. These include slower growth in U.S. demand due to its slower economic growth, efficient energy utilization in industrially advanced countries, and increases in oil production by OPEC, Russia, and other oil producing countries.

Nor can OPEC be blamed for the current energy crisis. OPEC’s desire to sometimes limit the supply of oil in order to shore up its price is limited by a number of factors. For one thing, OPEC members are not unmindful of the fact that inordinately high oil prices can hurt their own long-term interests as this is bound to prompt oil importers to economize on fuel consumption and search for alternative sources of energy.

For another, OPEC members also know that inordinately high oil prices could precipitate economic recessions in oil importing countries that would, in turn, lower demand for their oil. In addition, high oil prices tend to raise the cost of oil producers’ imports of manufactured products as high energy costs are bound to be reflected in higher costs of those products.

For these reasons leading OPEC members such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have repeatedly stated that they prefer stable, predictable, and moderate oil prices to short-term oil price hikes that result from war, political turbulence and unstable markets.

The political implications of this discussion are clear: to bring down the prices of fuel and food requires bringing home the troops. By lowering the energy costs of production and transportation this will help save our own and many other economies from the plagues of inflation and stagnation. It will bring relief to hundreds of millions worldwide who are burdened by crippling energy bills and the crushing costs of feeding their families.

Not many people would doubt the devastating socio-economic consequences of the U.S. wars of choice, both at home and abroad. The question is: why can’t they be stopped?

The answer is that while the war has been ruinous to many, it has been a boon for a few, the powerful special interests who not only benefit from war (both economically and geopolitically), but who have also positioned themselves within the U.S. power structure in ways that allows them to constantly invent new enemies and make new wars in order to further their nefarious interests.

Who are these powerful special interests, the highly influential beneficiaries of war dividends who camouflage their evil objectives behind national interests in order to perpetuate war and militarism and fill out their deep pockets, or further their geopolitical interests in the Middle East?

A most widely-cited factor behind the Bush administration’s drive to war and the soaring energy cost is said to be Big Oil. Despite its popularity, however, this claim cannot be supported by facts; it tends to rest more on perception and precedent than reality.

It is true that for a long time, from the beginning of Middle Eastern oil exploration and discovery in the early twentieth century until the mid-1970s, colonial and/or imperial powers controlled oil either directly, or through control of oil producing countries—at times, even by military force. But that pattern of exploitation of global markets and resources has now changed.

It is also true that, once the Bush administration commenced with the invasion of Iraq, American oil companies set up shop in Baghdad in order to partake in the spoils of war. But this was not limited to oil companies; many non-oil transnational corporations likewise rushed to Baghdad to make an economic killing.

The larger part of the perception, however, stems from the fact that oil companies handsomely benefit from oil price hikes that result from war and political turbulence in the Middle East. Such benefits are, however, largely incidental. Surely, American oil companies would welcome the spoils of war. From the largely incidental oil price hikes that follow war and political convulsion, most observers automatically conclude that Big Oil must have been behind the war.

There is no hard evidence, however, that oil companies pushed for or supported the Bush administration’s plans of invading Iraq—just as they are now leery of the administration’s threat of a military strike against Iran. “The big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war,” says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, an energy consultancy firm based in Washington, D.C. “Corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region,” adds Mohamedi [1].

During the past few decades, major oil companies have consistently opposed U.S. policies and military threats against countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya. They have, indeed, time and again, lobbied U.S. foreign policy makers for the establishment of peaceful relations and diplomatic rapprochement with those countries. The Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1996 (ILSA) is a strong testament to the fact that oil companies nowadays view wars, economic sanctions, and international political tensions as harmful to their long-term business interests and, accordingly, strive for peace, not war, in international relations.

The 1996 Iran-Libya Sanction Act, which amounted to a total trade and investment embargo against these two countries, penalized not only Iran and Libya, but also major American oil companies, especially the Conoco oil company that had just signed a $1 billion contract to develop fields in Iran.

It is no secret that the major force behind the Iran-Libya Sanction Act was the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The success of AIPAC in passing ILSA through both the Congress and the White House over the opposition of the major U.S. oil companies is testament to the fact that, in the context of U.S. policy in the Middle East, even the influence of Big Oil pales vis-à-vis the influence of the pro-Israel lobby [2].

So, if Big Oil no longer favors war and political turbulence in oil markets, what, then, are the driving forces behind the Bush administration’s war and military adventures in the Middle East?

Many would immediately point to the power and influence of neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration. While obviously this would not be false, it would not be the whole truth either; it hides more than it reveals. Specifically, it tends to lose sight of the bigger, but largely submerged, picture: the powerful special interests that lie behind the façade of neoconservative figures.

There is clear evidence that the leading neoconservative figures have been long-time political activists who have worked through think tanks set up to serve either as the armaments lobby, or the pro-Israel lobby, or both—going back to the 1990s, 1980s and, in some cases, 1970s. These corporate-backed militaristic think tanks include the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

There is also evidence that the major components of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, including the war on Iraq, were designed long before George W. Bush arrived in the White House—largely at the drawing boards of these think thanks, often in collaboration directly, or indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and pro-Israel lobby. Even a cursory look at the records of these militaristic think tanks—their membership, their financial sources, their institutional structures, and the like—shows that they are set up to essentially serve as institutional fronts to camouflage the dubious business and political relationship between the Pentagon, its major contractors, and the pro-Israel lobby on the one hand, and militaristic neoconservative politicians, on the other [3].

While the Bush administration’s unilateral wars and military adventures have brought unnecessary death, destruction, and economic hardship to millions, including many in the United States, they have also brought fortunes and prosperity to war profiteers. Pentagon contractors constitute the overwhelming majority of these profiteers. They include not only giant manufacturing contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, but also a complex maze of over 100,000 service contractors and sub-contractors such as private army or security corporations and “reconstruction” firms.

The rise of the fortunes of the major Pentagon contractors can be measured, in part, by the growth of the Pentagon budget since President George W. Bush arrived in the White House: it has grown by more than 76% percent, from $297 billion in 2001 to almost $520 billion in 2008. These figures do not include the Homeland Security budget, which is close to $40 billion for the 2008 fiscal year alone, and the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which amount to nearly $200 billion per year.

The skyrocketing Pentagon’s share of public money has meant that, for example, in the current (2008) fiscal year military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs [4]. (Discretionary programs include everything except Social Security and Medicare, that is, education, health, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and environment, justice, veterans’ benefits, science and space, transportation, training/employment and social services, economic development, and several more items.)

The soaring military spending has also meant that beneficiaries of war dividends are essentially looting the national treasury in order to line their pockets. These include not only the Pentagon and its military contractors but also members of the key Congressional committees who have grown increasingly addicted to generous contributions to their reelection that come from the fortunes of the Pentagon and its business clients.

U.S. lawmakers have additional, more direct, financial interests in war and military spending: “Members of Congress have invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contractors to provide goods and services to U.S. armed forces.” This means “lawmakers charged with overseeing Pentagon contractors hold stocks in those very firms” [5].

It also means that our esteemed lawmakers know how or where to invest most profitably: “Shares of U.S. defense companies have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq. . . . The feeling that makers of ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs” [6].

It is not surprising, then, that many elected officials with input or voting power in the process of the appropriation of the Pentagon budget find themselves in the pocket of defense contractors. Neither is it surprising that these dubious relationships should serve as breeding grounds for the near legendary levels of waste, inefficiency, and corruption that surround the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Two major conclusions follow from this discussion. The first is that, as pointed out earlier, war and political instability in the Middle East are the major driving forces behind the soaring price of oil; and that, therefore, to contain or reverse the rising trend of energy prices requires bringing U.S. troops home. The second conclusion is that achievement of this goal, the goal of ending U.S. wars of aggression, is possible only if (a) money or profits are taken out of war, and (b) money is taken out of elections [7].

References

[1] See Roger Burbach, Bush Ideologues vs. Big Oil: The Iraq Game Gets Even Stranger, CounterPunch.

[2] Melinda K. Ruby, “Is Oil the Driving Force to War?” unpublished Senior thesis, Dept. of Economics and Finance, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa (spring 2004); see also Herman Franssen and Elaine Morton, “A Review of U.S. Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran,” Middle East Economic Survey 45, no. 34 (26 August 2002), pp. D1-D5 (D section contains op eds. as opposed to staff-written articles).

[3] William D. Hartung & Michelle Ciarrocca, “The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex,” Multinational Monitor (Jan./Feb. 2003); DiLip  Hiro, Secrets and Lies: Operation Iraqi Freedom and After (Nation Books 2004).

[4] Hartung, W. D. 2007. “Bush Military Budget Highest since WW II”, Common Dreams.

[5] Abid Aslam, “US Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars,” Common Dreams (8 April 2008),

[6] Bill Rigby, “Defense stocks may jump higher with big profits”, Reuters.

[7] “Taking money out of war” in order to end imperial wars of aggression was, perhaps most forcefully and convincingly, formulated by the late General Smedley D. Butler, in his famous War Is a Racket (Los Angeles: Feral House, 1935 and 2003).

Citi is Beyond Repair

Kaja Whitehouse | May 13, 2008

Banking analyst Meredith Whitney blasted Citigroup's turnaround plan yesterday, saying the financial giant is so deep in a black hole that even renown physicist Stephen Hawking could not help the ailing company.

"We wish [Citi's] management team all the best in their ambitious endeavors, but we fear [it] is past the point of fixing," quipped the Oppenheimer analyst known for her forecast that the company would slash its dividend.

The biting remarks, in the form of a research note to clients, came on the heels of Citi's long-awaited turnaround plan, unveiled by the bank's executive team on Friday.

In a nearly four-hour presentation with investors and analysts, CEO Vikram Pandit said the bank aims to get rid of $400 billion in noncore assets but otherwise rejected calls to boost the stock by spinning off units.

Instead, Pandit outlined plans to further integrate the conglomerate by doing away with overlapping technology systems, among other changes.

Whitney gave Pandit's presentation two thumbs down, saying it was "glaringly light on actual mechanics," and "almost identical to one given by former CEO Chuck Prince about a year and a half ago."

Prince, who was dethroned for his role in Citi's mortgage-related losses, stepped down days after Whitney issued her infamous prediction about Citi's dividend and placed an "underperform" rating on Citi's already battered stock.

Whitney agreed Citi's "antiquated and disparate" technology systems need work, but expressed skepticism about Pandit's plans to pull it off in tough financial times.

Similar efforts at JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo were "extremely disruptive and expensive," she said.

Whitney also predicted, in an interview with Bloomberg yesterday, that Citi will be forced to sell major businesses by the end of this year or early next year, and specifically pointed to Banamex, a Mexican bank Citi bought in 2001.

She also recommended investors sell their shares, which closed up a penny at $23.64 in New York Stock Exchange trading.

"The credit outlooks and the loss assumptions for banks across the board are way too low," Whitney said. "The outlook for earnings across the board is going to be much worse than people expect."

--------

On the topic of the need to plan an economy before the community develops its own, Big Fish Games' Toby Ragaini pointed to Asheron’s Call as an example: "In Asheron’s Call, they made money weigh something, so rich people couldn't carry their money around. So players came up with their own exchange for a small, lightweight item (shards). Everyone traded based on these items."

Habbo Hotel developer Sulake Corporation's CTO Osma Ahvenlampi noted, "In Habbo, at first they made the currency non-tradable, but players were trading everything else. They finally decided it would make it easier for everyone concerned and made bags of gold etc. When that happened, it reduced eBay transactions because it was easier and more trusted by players to do it internally."

Many social games developers are taking an iterative approach to their game design. In general this is a great approach. It allows developers to quickly react to what your players like about their game. However, virtual economy design is one aspect that deserves a substantial amount of design work up front. Neglecting it can create a situation where success begets failure because the economy gets out of control and ruins the "fun" for your best players.

Another reason conservatives are happier than their liberal counterparts is the fact that conservatives are simple folk (yeah I said folk). Most conservatives do not expect more out of life than what they put in. Think of it like this, with a lot of hard work and some luck you can be successful in anything you pursue. So go out there and work, fail, succeed, and earn. If you do this you will feel much better about yourself. The alternative is to do nothing, get depressed and wonder why your cable just got turned off. When you are able to say “I worked for everything I got,” your feeling of self worth will skyrocket, and you will be a happier individual. You may not have everything you want, but you will deserve everything you earned. On the flip-side, if you look to the government for “everything” then you are worthless. The point is, don’t expect anything from your government and you will be happy. Real quick, I really do not want to get into this right now… there are people who need the government for just about everything. That is understandable, give aid to those people, but if you are capable of working and adding value, get off your butt and do it. Nobody owes you anything, conservatives understand this, liberals tend to get forget that. Oh this reminds me of a song…

…An', I ain't got no money,
But I damn sure got it made.
'Cos I ain't askin' nobody for nothin',
If I can't get it on my own.
If you don't like the way I'm livin',
You just leave this long-haired country boy alone…

OK, sorry about that little sidestep, now where was I? Oh yeah, so to be happy we must get government out of our daily lives, so we can be more free! Let me quote the Great Communicator: “…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” Cons feel justified fighting the Washington machine, and through their cause cons become happier than the libs who try to take away our liberty and freedom. We can conclude from this, if you need liberty and freedom to be happy, you better be a conservative.

There is so much more to say about this topic, but I think you get the general idea; The individual who works hard and earns, their material possessions will be happier than the person who is lazy, blames others for their faults, and waits for handouts.

Joseph Schumpeter had a brilliant economic theory a case study of which should be the Dodge car company. Here a biographer's description of Creative Destruction.

 "Schumpeter's signature legacy is his insight that innovation in the form of creative destruction is the driving force not only of capitalism but of material progress in general. Almost all businesses, no matter how strong they seem to be at a given moment, ultimately fail and almost always because they failed to innovate."

Chrysler and Dodge resisted making fuel efficient cars so long that the only incentive they have left is to sell you subsidized gas for three years. That's pathetic.

If Natalia Paruz makes enough money to get a few drinks after playing music on her saw in the subway, it’s been a good day. Ms. Paruz, who calls herself the “Saw Lady”, doesn’t expect people to give her enough in tips to pay her rent, and she doubts busking would be as fun if she was worried about that kind of profitability.

“If your busking in the subway for the money forget it,” she said.

Ms. Paruz makes a distinction between performers who focus more on getting money, such as dance troupes who will wait until a large crowd gathers before performing, and performers like herself who play even when there are just a few people watching them. Most buskers, she said, fall into the latter category, and have to have outside gigs to pay the bills.

If it’s hard to make a lot of money doing it, can busking be a small business? It is difficult to make a living playing on the street, performers said, but busking is an integral part of many New York musicians’ careers. It allows them to practice their skills in front of an audience, and to make contacts with other musicians and with promoters or party planners who may be passing through the subway.

“I’ve gotten gigs because of it,” said Mike T, a drummer and singer who was playing in the Times Square subway station this week.

Some performers also sell CDs while they are playing. That allows them to get their music in the hands of some new potential fans. Indeed, if busking is a small business, it is more akin to a marketing business than a traditional service or artistic business. Musicians use their public gigs to drum up support for more lucrative private sessions, and to practice for their other gigs.

“A musician needs an audience,” Ms. Paruz said. “If you’re just waiting for your next gig and your next gig might be a week from now. For me whenever I feel like performing I just go out there and there is my stage and there is my audience.”

Mike T said he can make about $100 if the crowds are feeling generous and he sticks around for a few hours. He plays gigs at clubs, however, to make enough money to support himself.

Mike T likes playing in the subway, however, because he feels like he can control what he plays more than if he were playing for a paying customer.

“When I’m down here, I can sing the songs that I want” he said.

In one other sense, busking can be considered a kind of business. Although playing music in public is a form of free speech, the MTA has a licensing program for musicians who want to play in the subway. By auditioning and then licensing these musicians, the MTA is essentially saying they are artists and businesspeople, not beggars.

By Randall Butisingh

This article was written in 1971, a few months before I retired.

I was very dissatisfied with what was taking place in school; where political expediency ousted teaching ethics resulting in a breakdown of discipline, insubordination and the degradation of Education in the schools of Guyana.

--------

Teaching had always been regarded as a vocation, and it was expected that the men and women who entered its ranks did so because of that sense.

The earliest teachers were volunteers who gave their spare time to educate the young ones of their time. Robert Raikes, an Englishman was one of the first of this kind. His pupils were the scum of the English slum – the stray boys as they were called – and his first task was to teach them Religion, and later Reading and Writing.

From that humble beginning sprang the Church Schools which gave formal lessons in the Three R’s and also taught them Religion... Teachers were remunerated but the pay was so small that only the dedicated offered their services. To these it was an opportunity for service to their fellow men.

Even in this country, in the nineteenth century, teaching attracted to a great extent, the dedicated and conscientious worker. Teachers never used to grudge giving services during unofficial hours; to them, it fitted with the sense of vocation.

Vocation knows no holiday and working in an occupation in which one is dedicated is a holiday in itself. The good teacher enjoys this perpetual holiday and is bored and unhappy when he is away from his charge.

For the past half century and more, much has been done to mar the spirit of devotion, though it is not entirely eradicated. The payment by results system, in Dual Control, when government came in and paid the bills, has been one of the ugliest blots in the administrative system. If teachers gave extra service, they gave it through compulsion; they struggled hard to survive, and in the struggle, some resorted to unethical means. The smartest and not always the most conscientious survived.

This state of affairs, where results mattered most, proved a bane to real progress because, if volition which is consistent with the spirit of dedication is removed, then vocation becomes a misnomer, and true education, that what is worth knowing and becoming suffers.

At present the payment by results system does not obtain, but teaching in the context of Guyana, has been made attractive in the form of more pay for teachers, opportunity of training for all – formerly only the few academically best were selected for training – protection of a trade union which can resort to the strike weapon and go-slow tactics, and numerous holidays.. These have attracted into the profession many who have no love for teaching, self-seekers, opportunists, who can never inspire or motivate their pupils.

Some of these square pegs however, are intrinsically good, with a potential for other type of occupations, but unfortunately, the system offers them no scope for their development, neither has it been able to discover their hidden talents. So the potential technician, craftsman, farmer, fisherman and others find teaching a field for financial exploitation, and also a stepping stone to more lucrative employment... With the promise of free education for all, what will happen to the army of youths of average ability who will pass five or more subjects at the G.C.E “O’ level? Surely the teaching profession, the civil service and the industries will not be able to absorb all of them in white collar posts. Many of them will roam the streets and be a burden to state and society.

The type of Education which does not take aptitude into consideration cannot successfully build a young nation that is struggling for economic sufficiency through Cooperatives. Technical skill and brawn are the things most needed... Without them our Education would be unproductive, it would produce unproductive teachers who would perpetuate un-productivity.

A manual- based Education is the best thing for our schools. Pupils should be made to use their hands right from the beginning and produce. This productivity should continue all through the school... No school should be without a Garden, a Handicraft and a Domestic Department. Here is where the children would learn that there is dignity in labour and would enjoy the fruits of labour. Every School, if properly organized will be able to pay some of its expenses. If this is done, when the pupils leave school, they will be able to wrest a living from the Agricultural lands, Forests, Water and other resources of the country.

Again proper incentives should be given to the manual-type worker if this type of occupation is to be stressed. The scavenger who does the dirtiest work but very essential job should be better paid than the clerk; the farmer should be rewarded with bonuses and national honours and compensated when his crops get destroyed by floods or pests.

The indispensable service of the farmer should be properly recognized as his profession is a noble one and people owe him its sustenance. Also a National Farmers’ Day should be held every year when public recognition could be paid to them.

Because of the security which teachers enjoy and the unwillingness of many to go the ‘second mile, they should be made to do by compulsion what their counterparts of the past did voluntarily. What reason is there why teachers should not work more than five hours a day, five days a week and during vacation? This does not mean that they will have to do routine work all the time, but they can surely help the Nation in social work like Adult Education, Youth Club activities and classes for the underprivileged. They can also find some time visiting parents, arranging their own refresher courses, writing text books and learning to use their hands among other things.

The holidays given throughout the year should not mean exemption from duty for teachers. They should be considered on duty and be available for utilization in the National cause, especially as they are paid for these periods.

At present, apart from the three months’ holidays teachers get every year, a month’s leave every three years, many hours are lost to teaching in this country by teachers who take leave for illnesses real, or imaginary, and for selfish reasons.

Is there any wonder, taking all these things into consideration that Teaching has ceased to be a Vocation for many?

------

Update: All the recommendations concerning Farming that I have made in this article were later implemented by the People’s National Congress (P.N.C.) Government administration.(1964-1992)

I. Introduction

Islamic banking that is basically dealing with syariah compliant financial instruments is becoming very popular due to the booming economy in the Middle East resulted by the increase in oil prices[i]. However, the issue of time value of money remains to be resolved in Islamic banks. For the purpose of studying time value of money, we take a research paper by Shamim Ahmad Siddiqui from the Department of Economics University of Brunei Darussalam entitled ‘The Controversy over Time Value of Money among Contemporary Muslim Economists’. Time value of money[ii] shows us that a dollar in hand today is worth more than a dollar received tomorrow because a dollar today can earn interest through investment[1].Time preference on the other hand refers to an intense preference to receive goods or services immediately[2]. The two terms may be connected but are not interchangeable. The research paper seeks to understand time value of money from the Islamic perspective.

II. Summary

The research paper attempts to give an overview and general perspective concerning time value of money and its relevance to Islamic banking and finance. The argument is centered upon the suggestion that people do not prefer present consumption over future consumption and instead points out different factors and reasons of why people prefer to receive money earlier rather than later.

M. Fahim Khan (1991) pointed out the contradiction in the prohibition of interest with the permissibility of Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam. He argues that like interest that are predetermined and fixed, Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam should not be used because of the existence of time value of money. Monzer Kahf (1994) refuted the above argument by stating that rent and wages which is permissible proves the permissibility of time value of money.

According to Zarqa (1983), a positive time preference is not a certain characteristic of an individual. He claims that even western scholars such as Patinkin and Samuelson admitted that positive interest rates do not result in time preference. This is because borrowing and lending rates of an individual depends on their net worth and credit worthiness. Furthermore, because of inflation, tax and compensation for risk, interest rates do not solely represent the lender’s time preference.

The justification of interest and also time value of money by western economists includes uncertainty, the reward for waiting, business profit, compensation for present utility, and also the prospect of increasing income for borrowers in the future. The research paper also justifies that uncertainty, inflation, and alternative investment opportunities serve to prove positive time preference. Therefore both Anas Zarqa and Monzer Kahf are correct that the prohibition of interest in Islam serves not to deny the existence of time value of money except to compensate inflation. Extra payment should be given if a business is profitable through the usage of the loan.

Banks do not invest or lend money for free and expect a positive return on their investment. Interest seems to justify this statement with the exception of the case of desperation for food, clothing, shelter, and etc. In this case, a solution by giving loans without interest seems appropriate. Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam is not the solution as Chapra in 1985 has pointed out that Riba Al Fadl (which is present in the two financial instruments according to author) is not allowed. Instead, equity financing should be carried out instead.

III. Issues

The research paper by Mr Shamim Ahmad Siddiqui seeks to understand time value of money through the Islamic perspective. Interest is prohibited in Islam as it constitutes riba[3]. However, substitutes for interest like those used in Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam posed problems of their own. Furthermore, the author insists that both financial instruments should not be permitted in Islamic banks as they are also exploitative in nature and therefore constitutes riba.

Bay Muajjal refers to credit sale while Bay Salam refers to a forward contract. Both of which are not the solution to interest because both of these financial instruments are predetermined like interest. Devising a financial instrument without interest would require a unique environment. First, inflation must be kept low and stable. Second, there must be no preference between giving loans to high net worth individuals (with good credit standing) compared to low net worth individuals. Third, loans without interest are only for inexpensive for the needy. Lastly, down payments must be to the maximum to encourage savings before the loan.

Besides that, the article stresses that just because a good (instead of money) is involved in a Bay Muajjal or Bay Salam transaction is not enough to justify their validity in Islam. Both are similar to that of interest. Chapra (1985) pointed out that Riba Al Fadl was disallowed by the Prophet (PBUH) to remove all injustices in the economy. Therefore it is hard to believe that deferred sale on higher than present price like Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam would be allowed by the Prophet (PBUH).

IV. Personal Views

The economic function of banks is to serve as financial institutions that help to channel funds from household, firms, and governments with surplus funds to those with a shortage of funds[4]. The question is now whether an Islamic bank is a business entity or a non-profit organization. Should an Islamic bank be a non-profit organization, then both Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam should not be allowed.

According to the Islamic Banking Act 1983, Islamic banking is based on syariah principles or more specifically under the muamalat section of the syariah principles. Islamic banking may be defined as an organized institution framework designed to spread the application of an interest-free banking concept by establishing banks and investment organizations carrying operations in accordance with Islamic economic doctrines[5].

In my opinion, time value of money exists because of the environment (inflation) or time preference. The problem that Islamic banks are trying to solve is how to ensure that financial instruments with time value of money taken into account is not exploitative and harmful to consumers. Therefore both Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam should be allowed as the profit margin is predetermine through mark ups and value added rates.

Furthermore, Islam does not treat money as a commodity and therefore there should be no price for its usage[6]. Ever since the collapse of the Bretton Woods System, money has lost its fundamental value and has become fiat money that is not convertible into gold[7]. Therefore, earning interest on money is prohibited while Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam are allowed on the basis that commodity and goods are involved instead of Fiat money.

V. Conclusion

According to the Qu’ran, trade is permitted while usury is forbidden[iii]. This shows that in Islam trading (with the exception of currency) is permissible and therefore both Bay Muajjal and Bay Salam are also permissible. However, the dilemma of time value of money must be solving in order to compensate lenders for time preference. In the western perspective, interest compensates lenders for both time value of money and time preference. However, interest is prohibited in Islam because it constitutes riba by exploiting and earning in excess from borrowers[8]. Profits by mark up or value add and equity financing may solve this problem. So the question remains on how much profit can an Islamic bank earn without exploiting consumers and whether Islamic bank can establish a non-profit banking arm to help desperate borrowers who are in need of financing (with low credit standing). Islamic banks should help prevent the imbalance of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer by adopting time value of money without interest rates.

The Financials such as Citigroup (C) and Bank of America (BAC) were all good plays with decent volume and volatility which allowed great entry and exit positions. Fake sizes and Pushers were also very evident on many Big Cap stocks which provided unique opportunities and at the same time increased the risk factor today. EMC Corporation (EMC) was a very good long early in the day with a good bid size near the open. The stock pretty much went up the entire day.  Nabors Industries Ltd. (NBR) had a pretty big level for its volume at $40.00 which allowed big short positions to be taken and for those with lower share sizes, scalping between the ranges throughout the lunch and afternoon session. Honeywell International, Inc. (HON) was another good candidate today which broke key levels and allowed some great punches (Hitting the Ask Side) and hold positions to be taken.  Overall the market was not clear on a direction and will be analyzing the numbers coming out this week to determine the direction of the economy. Expect similar market activity during the next two days.

Yahoo had some interesting developments today as Billionaire investor Carl Icahn (who owns significant shares of Yahoo) is attempting a proxy slate to change the Yahoo board of Directors. This is definitely a key development as it might lead to a potential Yahoo acquisition depending on who Ichan brings on board. Rumors are running around of Microsoft's covert backing of Ichan and an attempt to acquire Yahoo through proxy means (i.e via the shareholders).  The proxy slate is to be announced tomorrow which should give us a good idea on the players behind the scenes. The decisions of two other key shareholders namely Gordon Crawford who has a history of influencing Yahoo's board, and Bill Miller (their combined holdings total to a 23% stake in Yahoo!) will play a major role in the future shake up of Yahoo and whether Microsoft will be coming in again.

From a business point of view it is important to ask whether this deal is a solid proposition to both companies. Yahoo which had been in dire straits since last year clearly needs to redefine itself and its core business (something which it has failed to do for a long time). It's competitor Google knows its core business which is search and has ensured its entire focus on search and search related products. Yahoo on the other hand views itself as a Web Portal rather than a search engine but has yet to define itself on what exactly it needs to focus on and what are its core areas of revenue generation. The DNA of the company is also very different from Google (which is a more chaotic business model) and does not motivate innovation which is a key element of web businesses. The same problem also exists in Microsoft's DNA (i.e innovation) and it is one of the reasons why it is simply unable to compete with Google on the Internet domain. Microsoft if anything needs this deal badly so it can seek to have a presence in cyberspace which is increasingly being viewed as the next evolution for software (i.e Cloud computing etc.). Just like IBM was killed by Apple and Microsoft in the late 80's the process of creative destruction seems to be re-occurring once again and MIcrosoft knows it needs to have a greater presence in cyberspace to ensure its future survival and dominance over the Software and IT market. I will be keeping a close eye on this deal and it should be interesting to see what efforts Microsoft undertakes in order to pose a serious challenge to Google's dominance over the Internet...

-Danial Jameel (www.daytraderlog.com)

First the obvious: John "Two Americas" Edwards threw his support to Obama today. Most likely he saw those exit poll numbers that showed about 35% of Clinton voters (poor or working class, white, Southern -- all Edwards' specialties) in West Virginia said they'd vote for McCain instead of Obama if Obama got the nomination. That's a disconcerting number for a Progressive like Edwards, so he chose today to finally pull the trigger and say Obama is a better option than Clinton for cutting into the poverty level (Edwards' new anti-poverty initiative, Half in Ten, seeks to cut the number of people living below the poverty line in half by 2018... it won't happen, but we might as well aim high anyway). The bonus is that by endorsing today, Edwards makes clear to his supporters that McCain is not even a remotely good choice for those who share Edwards' priorities. ----- It was a nice touch, and again -as I've said before- a strong indication that Edwards is vying for either the VP nod or a major cabinet position in an Obama administration. I think he'd be great, personally. Maybe more effective as Secretary of Labor, Agriculture or Commerce, but as a VP he would shore up Obama's support among the possible Democratic turncoats who consider McCain a reasonable option.

Apropos of nothing: A poll of the U.S. asking what were the cities with the rudest drivers puts Miami at the top of that list. Second is Boston. This was no surprise to me, though I actually like driving there -- at least they know what they're doing and, for example, don't need TWO LANES empty to make a right turn on red like some morons around here. New York City was third, and my beloved Chicago was way down at #8 ! Finally some good news.  We're just nice over here in the Midwest. Youse could learn a little something from us.

Latest sign of the recession: people are't buying porn like they used to.  Yup, sales of DVDs and whatnot are down 30% from last year. And last year, it was already down 11% from previous years. Don't kid yourself, though. The industry is still turning huge profits. Probably what's happening is that the internet has cut significantly into the sale of DVDs and other hard goods (pun intended).

Speaking of DVDs, is anyone buying this b.s. about having to get a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player? In my studied, professional opinion, Blu-Ray's increase in visual quality on an LCD High Def screen is nominal at best (because a regular DVD on an HD monitor looks pretty great already). Not to mention, what are we supposed to do with all our perfectly good, 7-10 year-old DVD players? Sometimes I hate all this American compulsion to keep up with technology, not to mention the planned obsolence for the prior generation's product. I still use VHS to tape shows I can't watch in person, and my father-in-law's fifteen-year-old regular 8mm Sony video camera (which we got as a hand-me-down) is still more reliable than the piece of crap Canon DV minicam that I bought three years ago and has already broken twice. Bottom line: if you have not stepped up to a better TV yet, to get a great theater-like picture for a decent price, get a plasma screen from Sony, or even Panasonic, and stick with your regular DVD. The rest is just hot air.

The Tampa Bay Rays (they're no longer Devils... what, did the Satanist lobby complain?) just took over first place from the Red Sox. Now I KNOW the Apocalypse is just around the corner.

I dare not use the euphemism "My Fellow Americans", for albeit you carry passports, you have betrayed this great Nation. Our Constitution was designed to protect the Citizenry from the Government. It has now become the opposite. The Revolution was incited by this sort of governance.

You might ask how we have been betrayed? Simple. Our currency has collapsed, our jobs outsourced, our rights to bear arms infringed, and for certain our justice system has been diminished. It was diminished by you, when you refuse to vote on judicial nominations for the 6th Circuit; you must think pretty highly of yourselves to refuse the people of Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan a properly functioning Court. Indeed, partisan politics and ideology have ruined your common sense.

You have betrayed us by expanding the government beyond reasonable means, and taxing us to support it. It seems as if there is a competition to write more names on the list of government agencies every year. There are a few among you who still stand for justice, for liberty, and for peace. The Good Congressman among you, Dr. Ron Paul, stated in a presidential debate, "“We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, and over-regulated, and over-run by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with.” Most of you snickered, as your public-interest money comes pouring into your campaigns.

Senator Obama said "I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics."  Are you certain about that?  "Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes," said Benjamin Franklin. Senator Obama, sir, are the epitome of bad government and bad politics. 

Obama would increase taxes across the board, increase spending, and continue our Nation down the primrose path. McCain wants to lower taxes and increase the difficulty it would take to raise them. However, he supports a Balanced Budget Amendment. That means he would be forced to cut government spending. Perhaps he is fit for the Presidency. Perhaps we need McCain. Senators, Congressmen, I charge you this— whomever becomes president next, do not play games with judges. However, you must keep government spending under control. You have been acting like a child with an unlimited allowance— spoiled and selfish, and nobody likes you.

This crude recipe is based on little economic theory or empirical evidence; there is no reason to expect that regardless of the source of inflation , the best response is to increase interest rates. ...

Inflation ... is, for the most part, imported . Raising interest rates won’t have much impact on the international price of grains or fuel. ...

Raising interest rates can reduce aggregate demand, which can slow the economy and tame increases in prices of some goods and services, especially non-traded goods and services. But, unless taken to an intolerable level, these measures by themselves cannot bring inflation down to the targeted levels. [Doing so] would almost surely entail a marked economic slowdown and high unemployment. The cure would be worse than the disease.

When I worked at the Fed, one of our directors made almost the exact same argument, and frankly neither our president nor or research director had a satisfactory answer. On multiple occasions he asked, "If rising demand in China and U.S. food policy are the primary sources of both headline and core (via pass-through) inflation, how are we supposed to address that solely by increasing domestic interest rates?" I do not think he was confident enough in his economics background to make an issue of it publicly, or perhaps he declined for another reason. Regardless, it probably was the most incisive thing I heard in my two years working there.

So I suppose I will amend my previous position: inflation-targeting seems to be the most effective way to ensure that a central bank has the proper incentives to address "traditional" (i.e. domestic aggregate demand-induced) inflation. But all bets are off in an increasingly integrated world, and frankly I think the answer right now is that we do not know enough to have any clue what the best policy would be.

Imagine if we could buy and sell time.  Would we have long lived rich and short lived poor?  Would an extra day of rich life be pricier than an extra day of poor life? Would the ultra rich live extremely long lives?

Wait, maybe that market already exists...

* * *

Human behavior is not always consistent with standard rational choice predictions. The much-investigated variety of apparent deviations from rational choice predictions provides a promising arena for the merger of economics and biology. Although little is known about the extent to which other species also exhibit these seemingly irrational patterns of human decision-making and choice behavior, similarities across species would suggest a common evolutionary root to the phenomena.

The present study investigated whether chimpanzees exhibit an endowment effect, a seemingly paradoxical behavior in which humans tend to value a good they have just come to possess more than they would have only a moment before. We show the first evidence that chimpanzees do exhibit an endowment effect, favoring items they just received more than items they prefer that could be acquired through exchange. Moreover, we demonstrate that - as predicted - the effect is far stronger for food than for less evolutionarily salient objects, perhaps due to historically greater risks associated with keeping a valuable item versus attempting to exchange it for another. These findings suggest that the larger set of seeming deviations from rational choice predictions may be common to humans and chimpanzees, and that the evaluation of these through a lens of evolutionary relevance may yield further insights in both humans and other species.

* * *

To read about a related paper, see "A New Theory of the Endowment Effect."

If ever a title (to a post) or a famous namesake defined the term "euphemism," it would be here.

Some time ago, I had the "good fortune" to caddy for a member of the iconic Johnson family of Band-Aid, Baby Shampoo, and contraceptive fame. He rode in a cart while I carried his bag and the bag of his guest around for 18 holes. He was pleasant enough but was truly out of touch with reality (at least mine). Upon reaching the tee of the 12th hole and while waiting for the group ahead of us to clear the green, he turned to me and asked me "what I did for a living" (apparently unaware that I knew that he had literally never gone to work a day in his life while enjoying the fruits and labors of his esteemed lineage). "I'm a teacher," I responded. "A teacher! What a racket. Summers off, work half days, and you get to work with kids," was his comeback.

Did he not notice who was in the cart and who was the pack mule?

You can clearly trace the rise in oil prices with the creation of oil
middlemen and oil speculation. I talked to an oil broker at length and the rise in price is not related to supply demand but the perceived shortfall based on the perceived risk that an event might suddenly create a spike, delivering a massive profit to those holding contracts.

I was in Equatorial Guinea discussing oil futures and now country oil agencies are now learning to game the system (and getting kickbacks from brokers). The profit is staggering if you can find a spot in front of the firehose. It is quite similar to what Enron did by diverting power away from high demand areas and then selling back in at higher prices. Its something that Mr. Bush (the oil industry is the one thing he does know about!) says nothing about.

1. First proof:
Over nineteen major coin shops around the world ran out of silver as the price fell from $21 to $16, as I documented here: http://silverstockreport.com/ssrarchive.htm from March 19th to April 2, and there are many reports even now that it will take a month or longer to get silver! Some of the big name shops included the Canadian Mint, the U.S. Mint, the Perth Mint, Kitco, Amark who is Johnson Matthey's number one silver distributor to the public, and Johnson Matthey is the largest silver refiner in the U.S. Other major online dealers popular with investors who ran out included Tulving, NWT Mint, CNI Numismatics, APMEX, bulliondirect.com and more.

Click here for full story

Prices now are 25% higher than they were this time last year, and a whopping 250% higher than five years ago.  Imagine if a staple like bread or milk increased like that... there would be riots!  However, like bread and milk, gasoline is a staple that most of us can't do without.  So, when I hear people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talk about taxing the 'excessive profits' of oil companies, I wonder if they've ever heard the aphorism, 'don't bite the hand that feeds.'  Common sense and simple economics call for a different approach to solving this problem.

Econ 101

High school economics teaches the law of supply and demand.  Supply and demand maintain a fundamental balance through the mechanism of price.  When demand for a product exceeds supply, the price increases, reducing demand because fewer people can afford the product, and restoring balance.  When supply exceeds demand, the price decreases so that more people can afford the product, and the balance is restored again.

What's Behind the High Prices?

The biggest, but not the only, cause of high gas prices is soaring demand and flat supply.  Places like China and India are rapidly developing, moving from the third world to the first (which is good).  As more of the billions of people in this region drive cars, and as the factories there continue to use energy to churn out goods that we buy, demand increases.  Since little effort has been made to increase supply (more on that later), the prices have increased, reducing demand, and restoring the supply/demand balance.

There are also several secondary causes of high gas prices:

• The decline of the US dollar.  This decline is the direct result of government policies that pursue a weak dollar to prop up the manufacturing industry, and by out-of-control government spending with the resultant monstrous national debt.
• Speculation.  Due to global instability caused by the saber-rattling of tinhorn dictators (Venezuela, Iran), war in the middle east (thanks GW Bush), and terrorism, speculators are betting that supply disruptions will send oil prices higher.  Since oil is traded on a futures market where people bid on contracts for delivery of oil at some point in the future, this "fear factor" is already part of the price we pay. 
• Environmentalism and NIMBY-ism.  The most famous example of this by far is the successful effort by the environmental lobby to block oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  There are plenty of other examples, though, like the Republican governor of Florida blocking offshore drilling, or efforts to block the construction of new refineries.  In addition, there are actually people out there that think we should be paying $5 a gallon for gas, in order to reduce the environmental impact of driving, or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.  The problem is that the environmentalists have held mother nature and the animals above their fellow human beings.  Now the impact of those policies is hurting real people and families.

The Impact

The weekly trip to the gas station is not the only time when we feel the pinch of high gas prices.  These prices are being reflected in everything we buy, from food to consumer goods.  It reduces the purchasing power of our salaries.  It causes all of us to make adjustments in their lifestyle, and tough choices in order to balance their budgets.  It causes us to buy less, which leads to a further slowdown in economic growth.  It has even caused some of us to lose our homes to foreclosure.

What Can Be Done?

The solution to high gas prices is not to bite the hand that feeds us through punitive taxes, or to promote a meaningless tax holiday to score political points.  To truly solve the gas crisis, the root cause of supply must be addressed.  In short, we need to get more oil.  We need to go get it, wherever we find it.  The supposed costs to the environment become much more abstract in comparison to the very real benefits lower gas prices will have for our families and our economy.

Government needs to act by relaxing environmental regulations that discourage or prohibit oil exploration.  The federal government must also prevent states from enacting their own laws that put up roadblocks to oil exploration.  We have a national security interest in developing our domestic oil supplies, since that will make us less vulnerable to the effects of saber-rattling dictators and terrorist attacks overseas.

We also need to educate people about oil, its crucial role in our economy, and the fact that there is nothing on the horizon that promises to provide a replacement that costs less or is more efficient.  Nothing.  We are expected by the environmentalists to reduce our own standard of living so we can pay more for their supposed cleaner alternative fuels.  No Way!  Yet, oil companies are reluctant to invest in additional oil exploration or refining capacity when they hear that their product is on its way out.  Let's be clear... oil is NOT on its way out unless WE agree to artificial government laws and regulations that will legislate oil out of existince to the detriment of our families and our way of life.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, it seems that none of our leading politicians, Republican or Democrat, is willing to boldly go after the root causes of high gas prices.  While they waver, we suffer.  So in the meantime, We the People must demand that our politicians take notice and address high gas prices, which are causing real economic hardship for working families.  Does anyone out there care enough about US to pursue real solutions?  Or has the concept of common sense in government run out of gas?

Matt Latham

May 13

How do you define slavery in the 21st century? That's the question faced by the High Court this week. Five Thai prostitutes whose passports and airline tickets had been confiscated had to work off a $40,000 debt before they received any wages. Is this a valid employment arrangement, or modern-day slavery?

Transcript

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

Damien Carrick: In a few hours' time the High Court will be hearing a case about something most of us assume doesn't even exist: slavery.

This morning our country's leading legal minds will be pondering, what is a slave? And what is it to possess a slave? And this isn't some obscure legal point, in fact a sizeable number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions are all awaiting the outcome of this case.

Wei Zhou is a Melbourne lawyer who does voluntary work with Project Respect, an organisation that works with trafficked women. She's followed the Wei Tang case as it has wound its way up through the Victorian courts, all the way to the High Court.

Wei Zhou: Wei Tang was the owner of a brothel located at 417 Brunswick Street in Fitzroy, in Melbourne.

Damien Carrick: Which is a pretty trendy restaurant strip, isn't it?

Wei Zhou: Yes, it is, it's a cultural centre in Melbourne.

Damien Carrick: And what was she found guilty of by a jury some time back?

Wei Zhou: She was found guilty of five counts of possessing a slave, and five counts of using a slave.

Damien Carrick: Now that case was overturned on appeal, and is now before the High Court. But let's go back to the beginning of the story. What were the facts in this case? Who did it involve?

Wei Zhou: It involved Wei Tang. She was the defendant and the victims in the matter were five women; they were all from Thailand, and what we do know from the Court of Appeal decision is that they recruited in Thailand, they were approached by some people who said to them, 'Look, if you want to come and work in the sex industry in Australia, you can make lots of money.' We don't know very much about the contracts; they were told different things, but essentially when the women got to Australia, they were told that they owed approximately $40,000 to $45,000 and that in order to pay off that debt, they had to work in a brothel. They were sold for approximately $20,000 to Wei Tang who was the owner of the 417 brothel. There's a little bit of contention in relation to the degree of knowledge they had about the amount of debt, and it appears that each woman had a different understanding of what they were agreeing to.

Damien Carrick: These women came to Australia on tourist visas?

Wei Zhou: That's correct.

Damien Carrick: So they were sold by the Thai brokers to Wei Tang and some other people?

Wei Zhou: Yes.

Damien Carrick: Wei Zhou, what happened when these women arrived in Australia? What happened to them then?

Wei Zhou: They were met by someone associated with the brothel owner, Wei Tang, who then took them to a residence in Fitzroy. They were told that they would have to work at the 417 brothel and their passports were taken from them as well as their return airline ticket, and that was locked away in a locker at the 417 brothel.

Damien Carrick: Where did these women live once they arrived in Australia?

Wei Zhou: They lived in a residence in North Fitzroy, which was owned by one of the managers of the brothel. She lived there with them, and it appears that there were three or four women sleeping in one room. There was also another apartment across the road from that residence, and some of the women also lived there. It was, I think, a one-bedroom flat.

Damien Carrick: Now what were the working arrangements of these women at the brothel?

Wei Zhou: Essentially to pay off the $40,000 to $45,000 debt they had to work, and the arrangement was that for every man they saw at the brothel, they would pay off $50 of that debt; it worked out to be approximately 800 to 900 men, and they also worked six days a week at least for 10 to 12 hours per day.

Damien Carrick: And what about that seventh day?

Wei Zhou: That seventh day was what they called a 'free day', and they could either not work on that day, or in order to make money for themselves, they could elect to work, and which they would be paid that $50 for themselves.

Damien Carrick: Were the women free to come and go around Melbourne? Were they under lock and key? I mean were there bars on the window in the place or in the brothel?

Wei Zhou: It appears that there were many bars at the house. There aren't any bars at the brothel. However because they lived with the manager, essentially someone was with them at all times. They spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the brothel, and the time that they spent at the house was, you know, essentially for sleeping and all that sort of stuff. Some of the women felt that they were locked in, although there's no evidence that they were. On one occasion there was evidence that they had been physically locked in.

Damien Carrick: Were they free to travel around Melbourne as they pleased?

Wei Zhou: They were driven from the brothel to the house and vice versa, and they were taken—escorted, essentially—to the shops and all that sort of stuff, and sometimes on weekends they were taken to the karaoke bars and things like that for a bit of recreation. But from the evidence it appeared that the women essentially expressed that they didn't feel that they were free, although it wasn't ever really explicitly spoken that they weren't free to come and go.

Damien Carrick: What was the relationship, the personal relationship between the Thai women and Wei Tang and the other people who worked at the brothel?

Wei Zhou: They seemed to have a fairly complex relationship. The Court of Appeal held that there were aspects of ownership. However, it also appeared that the women called the woman that they lived with 'Mummy', and she was the manager of the brothel, and they did go to her with problems, and some of the women expressed that they had a good relationship with her.

Damien Carrick: So it was a complex relationship? It wasn't one of fear and intimidation?

Wei Zhou: Not necessarily.

Damien Carrick: Now these five women came to the attention of authorities when there was I think a raid by Immigration officials on the brothel. At the time of the raids, two of these women had in fact paid off their debts, hadn't they?

Wei Zhou: That's correct.

Damien Carrick: And the restrictions placed on them had been lifted and their passports had been returned to them, and they were free to choose their hours of work, and they were then at that point being paid for their prostitution, and they were also free to live in accommodation of their own choosing?

Wei Zhou: That's right.

Damien Carrick: And once they had paid off the debts, they had chosen to continue working in the brothel?

Wei Zhou: That's right.

Damien Carrick: After the raid on the brothel, charges were laid against Wei Tang. This case went to trial; what did the jury find and what sentence did Wei Tang receive?

Wei Zhou: The jury found at first instance, at the first trial, found that they couldn't come to an agreement, so there was a hung jury on all ten counts. Wei Tang was then re-tried. She was found guilty of all ten counts.

Damien Carrick: Of possessing a slave?

Wei Zhou: Yes. Five of possessing, and five of using a slave. She received a 10-year term of imprisonment, with six years to serve as a non-parole period. The defence then lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions.

Damien Carrick: Melbourne lawyer, Wei Zhou.

It was about a year ago that the Victorian Court of Appeal quashed Wei Tang's convictions. The court ruled that the trial judge had erred when he directed the jury about the elements of the offence. The trial judge had told the jury there were three elements, first, that the women were slaves, second that Wei Tang possessed them as slaves, and third that Wei Tang knew they were reduced to slaves.

The Appeal Court ruled that the trial judge was wrong about this third element. It wasn't enough that Way Tang knew they were reduced to slaves; she also had to have the intention to assert ownership over the women.

Jennifer Burn is an immigration lawyer; she's also the director of the Anti-Slavery project at the University of Technology in Sydney.

Jennifer Burn: The main question before the High Court is the definition of slavery in the criminal code. And the actual slavery offences are that a person who intentionally possesses a slave, or exercises over a slave any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership. It's very difficult to know what that means, whether it refers to slavery as it was understood when slaves were transported across the Atlantic between Africa and other countries; or whether it encompasses what we now know as a modern form of slavery.

Damien Carrick: And presumably a whole bunch of other investigations, prosecutions, and convictions will rest on how the High Court comes down on this question?

Jennifer Burn: It's very important. We have been testing the criminal law; significant amendments were made in 1999 and then 2005, but the High Court determination is absolutely critical. So it will be a major advantage to everybody when there is some clarity from the court.

Damien Carrick: Now this is the first time a trafficking case has come before the High Court. Last year, for the first time, a trafficking case came before the New South Wales Victims' Compensation Tribunal. Tell me about that case.

Jennifer Burn: The case was about a young woman who was trafficked to Australia when she was only 13.

Damien Carrick: A child.

Jennifer Burn: A child. In 1995. And she brought a case for victim's compensation last year in 2007, and she explained that she had come to Australia with the agreement of her father, who thought that she was coming here to work as a nanny to look after children. But instead of that, she was placed in sexual servitude. She was also told that she had a debt of about $35,000 that she had to pay off by having sex with women. She was restrained, she had no freedom of movement, she didn't have any money and her identity documents were confiscated. She was eventually detected by Immigration compliance officers, after she'd been in Australia for ten days. But the evidence to the Victims Compensation Tribunal was that during those ten days she had had sex with 100 men. Now after that, she was interviewed, and returned to Thailand. And following this case, we are in the process of exploring with other women who've been trafficked to Australia, the applications for Victims Compensation.

I think the case was important also for another reason: it really signals the progress that's been made in Australia since 1995. Really, it's almost a before and an after snapshot. In 1995 there were no slavery offences in the criminal code. In 2007 there are now offences of trafficking, trafficking in children, and debt bondage.

Damien Carrick: Now Nin was a child; I mean presumably there are also adults who come to Australia who don't understand that they're going to work in Australia as prostitutes. But is it fair to say that most women who do come understand that they will be working as sex workers?

Jennifer Burn: Many women do know that they'll be working in brothels in the sex industry. Other women don't know. But for the purposes of the criminal code, it doesn't really matter whether they knew that they were coming to work in the sex industry or not. It's really a whole lot of other factors around that that are critical in the identification of the trafficking and the slavery offences.

Damien Carrick: What are those factors?

Jennifer Burn: They include whether a woman was deceived, for example; about whether she'd be providing sexual services; or even if she knew that sexual services were part of the deal, whether she was deceived about the nature of the services, the conditions of work in other words. Whether or not there was deception about whether she would be free to leave the places that she worked, whether she'd have freedom of movement. And whether there's a debt. So these are now factors that are incorporated into the criminal code, and indeed there's a specific offence of deceptive recruiting for sexual services.

Damien Carrick: Does the state of mind of the woman count? I'm thinking here, we're talking about women from desperately poor developing countries, who might make, in their own mind, a calculation that this is a rational choice, an opportunity.

Jennifer Burn: And it may be a rational choice for them. It's very easy to forget about the global world when we live in Australia, and in very many parts of the world, there is extreme poverty. And it might not be seen as being a hindrance in the mind of a woman who decides to come to Australia to work in the sex industry. But I suppose what the law says is that the law is concerned to ensure that things are appropriate, that there's not exploitation, that there's not fraud or deception, that there is no harm, that there isn't a harsh and unreasonable debt, for example. So the law will look at all the conditions around the entry to Australia and the experiences faced by the woman while she is here.

Damien Carrick: Now earlier this year, there was a raid on a brothel in Sydney involving I think something like 10 Korean women; what do we know about that case?

Jennifer Burn: Well that case was reported in the press, and one of the interesting things about that case is that all those women held visas that entitled them to work in Australia. Again, just referring to the media reports, travel documents were taken from some of the women.

Damien Carrick: The Law Report is today looking at women from developing countries who work in Australia's sex industry. It's an issue that was even raised at the recent 2020 Summit.

Elena Jeffreys: I was lucky enough to be representing Australian sex workers at the 2020 Summit recently in Canberra. Scarlet Alliance, the Australian Sex Workers' Association, took to that Summit the importance of reorienting anti-trafficking measures in Australia from a prosecution focus to a prevention focus, and we would include more humane access to visas for migrant sex workers, as a key part of preventing human trafficking into Australia.

Damien Carrick: Elena Jeffreys is the president of the Scarlet Alliance, the Australian Sex Workers Association

Elena Jeffreys: Human trafficking is a transnational crime. However, by the time surveillance and detection and prosecution has taken place, the human rights abuse has already occurred. So a fully thought out response to trafficking into Australia will include a range of prevention measures, including allowing women to travel into Australia on visas that they can access themselves without having to go through third party agents and therefore be vulnerable to trafficking.

Damien Carrick: If Australia changed the laws to allow more women from developing countries to come in on work visas to work, bet it in the sex industry or any other industry, it would pull the carpet out from under the traffickers, by allowing women to travel here independently to work and they wouldn't have to resort to third parties or agents.

Elena Jeffreys: What we're calling for is a human rights framework where sex workers receive equal treatment to other people. That is, that sex workers aren't singled out to be denied visas to enter Australia; that we treat women or men wanting to travel to Australia for work from South East Asian regions with the same dignity and respect as we would treat what we traditionally understand as a skilled background wanting to migrate into Australia.

Damien Carrick: But is providing women from developing countries with bona fide work visas really going to solve the problem? Earlier this year there was a raid on a brothel in Sydney involving I think something like 10 Korean women and some of those, or all of those, did have work visas, and there were questions there about trafficking and about exploitation.

Elena Jeffreys: We have had in Australia what would appear from the outside to be an ad hoc raid and deportation approach to Asian-background sex workers in Australia, and millions and millions of dollars have been poured into that program with very few actual trafficking convictions in Australia. So we wouldn't like anybody to jump to conclusions about any of the women that were picked up in March until those cases are held in court. We can't say for sure that that's what was being busted in March.

Damien Carrick: If you did have these visas, would that mean that women would come to Australia and not come through an agent or a third party and find themselves entering into a kind of a contract, whereby they have to pay off a debt before they even start earning money from the work that they're doing?

Elena Jeffreys: The vast majority of migrant sex workers in Australia are from an Anglo background, from the UK. The second largest demographic would be from New Zealand and America. And yes, there is also a demographic of sex workers from South East Asian countries, Thailand, South Korea and China, and other countries around the region as well. Most of the women that are coming into Australia for sex work are accessing visas independently. Some of the women coming in to Australia for sex work are accessing visas through migration agents, or third-party contracts where they will agree to have all of their flights paid for, their accommodation paid for and generally their food paid for, and a lot of their transport paid for when they get to Australia. And they have a place of work when they get here. And in return they will work for a period of time paying off the debt contract to the migration agent that has helped arrange their visa and their travel and their transport.

Those debt contracts, the overwhelming majority of those debt contracts, are trouble-free and arranged in a way that both the sex worker and the person arranging the visa are happy at the end of it, and have a good relationship, and the person has a great time working in Australia, pays off their contract, stays and earns some money, sends money home, saves up some money while they're here, and goes home and has an amazing story to tell their grandchildren about the time that they travelled to Australia, and how much fun and how interesting it was.

Some of those debt contracts have been arranged in a situation where people have taken advantage of the vulnerability and the perceived lack of rights that an individual who's coming in to Australia for sex work may have, and some of those contract fees are ridiculously over-priced. This is when situations arise that we understand as human trafficking. When a person has been deceived, when their freedom is being curtailed, when their income is being withheld, and when they're basically in slave-like conditions, where they don't have control over their labour in a slave-like situation, with the person who has arranged their contract.

Damien Carrick: Like Elena Jeffreys, Jennifer Burn agrees about the need for strong prevention strategies. But unlike the Scarlet Alliance, Jennifer Burn maintains that Australia's current focus on investigations and prosecutions is a good use of resources. And she doesn't think visas in themselves are the answer.

Jennifer Burn: I'm not so sure that I share the Scarlet Alliance view on this. I look at the numbers of people who are coming to Australia on lawful visas, and I'm also mindful of levels of exploitation. I don't think that a visa itself is going to reduce or minimise exploitation, and in the 2007 year there were 130,000 working holiday visas granted to young people aged between 18 and 30, who want to come and holiday in Australia. There were also almost 230,000 student visas granted, and over 132 temporary work visas, such as the 457 visa. And we know that there have been many accounts of exploitation of people who hold these visas. So I don't think that a visa itself is going to operate to reduce or minimise slavery.

Damien Carrick: But coupled with the implementation of a sort of comprehensive labour rights framework for short-term visitors from overseas, that could be a way of minimising exploitation.

Jennifer Burn: I would agree that the issue is that in Australia we do not have a proper system of protection of overseas workers, and there are a whole lot of systems and reforms that could be introduced that would go part of the way towards minimising the possibility of exploitation. And I think that the debate in Australia will continue to canvass these issues and I hope that organisations and individuals concerned about these things will contribute to the government review of temporary work visas.

Damien Carrick: What do you say to the argument that sometimes contracts are not in themselves exploitative? Because often women from developing countries have no way of financing their trip unless they enter into a contract.

Jennifer Burn: Well the contracts that we've read about, and that we know about through the court processes and other kinds of evidence, are enormous. The going rate seems to be $45,000. It seems to be exploiting women in the region. We wouldn't imagine a situation in Australia where an Australian worker would consider such a contract. So I think that we need to look at these kinds of issues in a bit greater depth.

Damien Carrick: On that point, the Scarlet Alliance say the great bulk of foreign women who come to Australia and work in the sex industry are women from other rich world countries, and that shows that having foreign women working as sex workers in Australia is not necessarily exploitative.

Jennifer Burn: Oh no, it's not. I mean I think that's absolutely clear, and I'm not commenting about those situations. Many women do choose from such countries to come to Australia and work in the sex industry in Australia. In most parts of Australia the sex industry is not criminalised. It is possible to work safely in a good environment, and I'm sure that that's part of the decision in the minds of many women when they come to Australia to work as migrant sex workers...when they're not in an exploitative situation.

Damien Carrick: And when we're talking about people from developing countries, can you think of ways which would make working in Australia safer, less prone to gross exploitation?

Jennifer Burn: Nothing is going to work 100%. But it would be very useful in such countries if there was clearer information provided to people who are obtaining Australian visas, about the Australian legal and social environment. This information should include information on a person's rights and responsibilities; information about the police system that we have; the systems of support that we have. When people are coming on work visas, then there should be information that's given to them about where they can get help: what kinds of work conditions are considered acceptable in Australia? These are some of the areas of information that I would like to see given to foreign workers, especially from developing countries, where English might not be the first language. This would help minimise the risk of exploitation. So it's a bundle of ideas in country of origin, and then information that would apply in Australia, even information such as 000 is the number for emergency police help across Australia. This is not routinely provided to those who are coming here to work or to visit, and I think it would be a good idea.

Damien Carrick: Immigration law expert, Jennifer Burn.

Anne Gallagher is an international lawyer. She's a former adviser to the UN on trafficking and she's worked in over 50 countries.

She reckons that people trafficking needs to be looked at as part of the larger issue of labour movement from poor to rich countries.

Anne Gallagher: Worldwide there have been very few prosecutions relative to the agreed size of the problem. And there's a few reasons for this. I think the main problem is probably the most intractable. The economies of many countries depend to a greater or lesser degree on a disposable workforce, a group of people who can perhaps not be subject to the same kind of protections that the regular workforce is, a group of people who are being paid at a lower rate, and a group of people who can be very quickly moved out, or moved on, if the situation changes.

Damien Carrick: It does throw up some very tricky issues. I mean if you're a woman from a desperately poor developing country, and you choose to work as a prostitute in a Western country as a contract girl, whereby you pay off a debt by sleeping with men and after you've paid off that debt, you can then work and keep the wages, and sometimes apparently they can be very good wages. From the perspective of that woman, that can be a good