The Inside Job is a documentary like few of its contemporaries: mainstream and accessible enough to win an Academy Award, yet sharp, piercing and well-researched enough to actually convince even the most sceptical among the viewers. This is a film narrated by an A-list hollywood star, Matt Damon, that dares to shred the current global economic system to pieces, along with the financial organisations that comprise it. A film that presents — in (perhaps over)simplified, digestible fashion — all those aspects of the financial crisis of 2008 that torment and dehumanise billions of people globally; that exposes the incomprehensible greed of those in the U.S. financial sector, the history behind financial deregulation from the 1980s onwards, the excesses, the abuse and the corruption that remains to this date unchallenged by the political powers, in the States and elsewhere, despite the damage the the system (not the crisis itself) has caused to both U.S. and European countries.

A matter of reputation

What really stuck in my mind after watching Inside Job, is how — throughout the film — the importance of credit rating organisations is highlighted and showcased in several occasions; organisations like Finch, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s that provide ratings for anything ranging from corporations, bonds and sovereign states. Corporations that gave AAA ratings to CDOs based on subprime mortgages, allowing them to be bought by large institutional investors with strict requirements with regards to their portfolio contents. Corporations that had a determining role in the ‘creation’ of one of the greatest global financial crises of the past century and that continue to do so, through collusion with large financial organisations and as seen through their effects in the recent — partly unfounded — rating downgrades of various european states based on their national debt.

Surprisingly, those organisations were not affected by the crisis, despite their role and their position in the market. When asked, they all stated that their ratings only reflect their ‘opinion’, somehow deflecting the real issue — their de facto institutional part in a system of ‘free market’ that is largely guided by them. Despite their monumental failing, their antisocial, anti-investor, borderline illegal masking of the true value of subprime based CDOs in the mid 2000s and up until the 2008 crisis, those organisations continue to provide ratings as if they have a perfect reputation. I cannot imaging any other profession or industry when a person or corporation has consistently failed so bad at their core function and have remained in business, let alone maintained a dominant position that largely determines the actions of the largest institutional investors and with them the market.

For someone without intricate knowledge of economics and the way the financial sector in the U.S. works, Inside Job is worth watching even if it were only for the interviews and the simplified explanations of the crisis — which occasionally border on oversimplification. It serves as an eye opener that showcases how little has changed since the 2008 crisis, how consistent the actions of recent U.S. presidents (including Obama’s) have been with regards to turning a blind eye (or even supporting) Wall Street’s reckless course for profit, how the system is still as fragile, dangerous and completely inadequate, run by the same people and organisations that caused the 2008 crisis and (un)regulated in the same way. If anything Inside Job is approachable and basically sound, which is more than one can say for most other works out there that often border on sentimentalist, populist drivel similar to Moore’s works or high-brow academic works that alienate the intellectually-challenged.

One of the most impressive and original groups that I’ve listened to in the past few years, I’ve been meaning to write something more substantial about this for ages, but never got around to doing it. Difficult, but warm, exceptionally rich in sounds and meaning and at the same time simple, even minimalist in structure, but above all uncategorisable, The Books [on Wikipedia] make music that I’ve come to love more than most in the few years that I’ve been aware of them. It’s not just the rhythmic patterns, the exceptional sampling of natural sounds, the vocals and dialogues, the instruments that are presented in such a subtle, refined way, but the extreme attention to detail and extremely artful manner in which effects, speech samples, sounds and acoustic instruments come together in a glorious reminder of how great real music can be, no matter whether it is the result of natural or artificial means. This is not a band keen on posturing or interested in demonstrating technical prowess; their music is timeless precisely because it focuses on what matters and does away with trends. The music of The Books has soul, but at the same time retains a musical sophistication that’s rare. Open minds and open ears required.

This past weekend, during coding, I opened last.fm and clicked on ‘My Recommendations’ and a short while later ‘B Minor’ from the 2001 album ‘Elm Street’ by Lanterna started playing from my speakers.

The track is captivating, its ambience, smooth and flowing — so different to many ‘guitar-based’ tracks out there, while at the same time more interesting sonically from the ‘electronic’ equivalents. It took little time after this before I visited 7Digital and bought the album in mp3 format.

The album, twelve instrumental pop-rock tracks featuring acoustic and — in general — clean electric guitars, strings and pads as well as playful basslines and up-beat drums is perfect material for those times when music needs to be subtle, yet more than just sonic wallpaper.

The music is hard to pinpoint, somewhere betweeen post-rock and shoegaze with a strong element of pop making it easy on the ears, yet at the same time more than your archetypal commercial variety.

The ‘band’ released a few more albums, since Elm Street came out. I’ll certainly be looking for them in the near future.

The tensions among the first Bush cabinet on many issues were pretty evident. Colin Powell’s appointment as Secretary of State was meant to satisfy the moderates, after all. That and perhaps balance the factions within the Republican party, at a time when G.W. Bush seemed clueless on practically anything that mattered and Cheney/Rumsfeld represented an — up until then — largely unknown ‘neo-conservative’ wave that had yet to realise its intentions in full.

It should then come as no surprise that given Powell’s disagreement with many of Bush’s policies, his tactics and — perhaps — world view in general, he would endorse Obama. Or should it?

Colin Powell is a very highly respected and decorated former General; one of the architects of the post-Vietnam U.S. military doctrine; an experienced soldier, a moderate, a man of reason. His choice as Secretary of State in the first Bush cabinet was a good political move. Two years later Colin Powell was trapped in a situation he couldn’t escape from: choosing between loyalty and judgement. When he appeared before the U.N. Security Council, presenting his ‘evidence’ that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, it was pretty clear that loyalty had won.

His speech was nothing like Adlai Stevenson’s 1962 Cuban-missile crisis speech. There was nothing convincing about his findings that would justify going to war against Iraq. Certainly, not without a second resolution. Ironically, that was exactly what he was after. Fortunately, he didn’t convince (most of) Europe, Russia or China. Unfortunately his continued participation in the government was unattainable.

Powell’s tenure as Secretary of State might be considered by some to be his fall from grace: Going against his judgement, he lost the power struggle, but chose to maintain his loyalty (as a good soldier) and presented an extremely weak case for going to war that cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars as well as tarnished the image of the United States of America across the globe.

His endorsement of Obama might as well be considered the beginning of the endgame as far as these elections go; it is bound to boost Obama’s acceptance rate among undecided moderates and independents that have doubted his ability to lead, handle foreign relations and national defence; it is bound to detract from McCain’s appeal.

Ironically, if it weren’t for his tenure in Bush’s cabinet and the symbolism of his position at a time like this, Colin Powell’s endorsement would count for much less than it did a decade ago. But then again politics are rarely about substance.

The recent financial crisis brought back memories of ‘Black Monday’, October 19th, 1987, the day of the greatest financial crisis of the late 20th century and the day the concept and practice of automated trading entered the consciousness of millions of people around the world.

“Imaginary Wealth”. In Search of An Ethical Justification

The ethical value of the capitalist system, of the form in existence in most countries today, is inherently dubious; Some of the typical accusations is that it’s biased towards profit while ignoring arguably much more important aspects of life and society, the human civilisation, personal and social liberty and the environment. That it is unjust and anti-competitive and exploits the weak while protecting the strong and rich — see how debt, prosperity and personal freedom have shifted all over the world, but specifically in the third world in the last forty years. That it is deeply inefficient and promotes corrupt practices. That it presents the illusion of freedom when in reality it is as restrictive as most of the totalitarian systems in the history of mankind, only softer and less aggressive. I’m sure that many will agree with the above criticism while many others won’t. It doesn’t matter.
»