Log book day 17

NO SMOKING, OF COURSE

A tradition that went sour

In a shocking afternoon, chaos was spread all over a country that so far was not known for massive killings. Killings that reminded of Columbine in the US - if you have not seen Michael Moore's documentary do so.
Finnland was known for Santa Claus, Nokia, its fishermen, some turkish sounding villages, its high suicide rate, its quiet people and in general all the cliches that apply to a nordic country.
What was not known for is that it is the third country in the world with the highest civilian gun ownership (1.6m guns, first two are the USA and Yemen). A 15 year old can buy and own a gun provided there is parental concern.
All guns must be accompanied by a license. The answer is simple you might say: Stop giving kids guns. Well, yes agreed. But I am Greek and with the same nobrainer attitude I could also ask a Brit why do they need royalty? "Tradition" would the answer be. So would be for gun ownership in Finland. The hunting lobby in the country is among the strongest, and there is strong tradition in family bonding hunting excursions in the dark cold north Finnish woods.
However the killing yesterday, second to an equally appauling high-school massacre by an 18-year old last year, makes country population to start reconsidering.
Now, the question is whether the government will afford to take the huge political cost of abolishing this liberal attitude in gun ownership or whether they will just send condolences to the victim families. Remains to be seen.
There is also another issue that arises from the latest unfortunate massive killing statistics. Finland was one of the top countries in suicide. Mainly due to depression. Mainly during winter months, for semi-obvious reasons. The winter is just starting and Finland has at least another 8 months to go.
Tradition is good only when it serves the community. It would be stupid to stick to it while people die. Fullstop.

LOG BOOK DAY 16

NO SMOKING

Post mortem regulation is not enough

The two remaining ultra mega financial institutions Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, are now protected by the government. Tougher restrictions on the type and nature of transactions and they will now be engaging in more traditional and safe funding sources: deposits from ordinary people and businesses. It will be much more expensive for them now to borrow large sums of money for further financing and there will be more due dilligence when borrowing is to take place. They will now have to behave more like banks rather than free standing investment institutions. Now they will have to play a different ball game and compete more with banks and have less opportunity to grow via corporate lending
Question, if the banking and financial institutions are now planning to be financed more on individual and private business deposits, these individual and businesses should be able to have some money to deposit.
Perhaps saving the goliaths is not enough. Perhaps the government should start thinking to have better unemployement benefits. With so many large corporations going bankrupt, there will be hundreds of thousands of former big spenders with no income to spend nor save. Perhaps the biggest aid that the US government could provide to its economy in crisis is the stability of ensuring money flow. Over the last few ten years, america was going out of its mini-recessions because of consumer spending. Perhaps if consumers had money they could help this time once again

cavo video

Myconos clubbing snapshot. In this video, Danny, Vicky, Zeta, Fanis, Yiannis. Nice. Zeta might need to say farewell

Remembering some good old house tunes

Sunday night home with friends after a vafristia evening and a washing down the vaftisia experience at kolonaki, home with friends trying to find some good old dance tunes. The winner is...Tori Amos

Log book day 10

No smoking. Thinking about it, but no smoking

Darker Monday

As a home owner, my biggest fear would be to lose my flat. My second biggest fear would be to see its value drop. Middle class Americans unfortunately experienced both these dreadful situations this year. The economic crisis which was caused by the energy crisis, budget deficits, natural disasters among other things, caused a lot of companies to downsize. Not everyone found a job. Not paying the mortgage - with current legislation - for more than a few months gives the bank the right to forclose the house. Even if the owed value is a tiny fraction of the original loan. So many Americans this year not only lost their jobs, savings, in some cases spouses because of the upset, but also their homes. The one thing that they have been working their life to built was taken for them. Losing a home sends an unberable strike to the ex-owner.
In the midst of that crisis, banks and other financial institutions that gave loans saw an opportunity to make a quick buck. They foreclose the houses of the unlucky ones and flooded the market with low cost but high quality housing through auctions etc.
What this created was a bigger drop in house prices, stock price collapse of institutions that had loans/insurance tighed to mortgages and Wall Street's strongest quake since the Great Depression leading to $700bn losses in one day!

Unfortunately it is not over yet


Now, I can not help but think of the following points:
1. The banks and other financial institutions lay their bed so they should sleep in it. Had they not flooded the market with low cost housing this would not have happened.
2. Usually those who pay the dearest price are the ones with the least resources. Once again proven right. Unfortunately!
3. This clearly shows the need for a new type of legislation to be imposed on banks so that they can not forclose a house if someone shows inability to pay for a period of time that can be prolonged given circumstances. Banks can afford to wait. People should not have to live on the street.
4. Loans should not be that easy to give away. Having a social security ID should not be just enough!
5. I never really liked money markets. In my opinion they are largely a hot air bubble that is easy to manipulate.
6. Although I am a fan of a deregulated market, in a Smithonian laisser faire-laisser passer approach, there should be some frame that maintains a minimum level of contigency plan for people in need. Otherwise the social divide between the rich and the poor will increase and totally unregulated capitalist societies such as the US will end up being completely bi-polar. Some measures have been taken after the disaster but there should be some preventive mechanisms.



And of course I can not help but wonder:
When McCain and Palin say that the economy improved over the last 8 years and that they shall continue to work on the same successful recipe, which country's economy were they referring to?

About skin color

Will Smith is both good looking and a good actor/singer who also happens to sell. Ever since his early Prince of Bellair days. Since then, his career moved to the stratosphere and has enjoyed a lot of comic roles. They suit him well too. So when any hollywood producer would like to think of superhero who is really funny - not that preppy - he would seem a good choice.
What I don't get is why in the Hanckock poster, and in all the official photos, his skin has changed color. One of the two key reasons why Mr. Smith is that goodlooking is his genes. The other is the hours exercising - and moisturising no doubt. Why would the marketers deny him (and us) the most significant characteristic of his beauty - and of course personal identity? Why would they have turned him white? Sure his skin is not as dark as perhaps a Kenyan but on his poster that has filled the streets of Athens - and I am sure many more capitals around the globe - he looks white. I am not mistaken, there is a lot of pink in that photo. Not swedish, but white. I know a lot of white people that are darker than how he appears on that poster.
Even if my life depended on that, I could not have recognized him. I had to see his name written on the poster. Why did they have to do that? Incomprehensible. Does it matter if a superhero is of African origin? And why would he approve that to be the official poster? Money I would assume (to be honnest, I would change my skin color too on a poster for a fraction of what Mr Smith pocketed). Why, however, has not anybody raised hell about it? Isn't there any organization protecting the rights of African Americans? There are organizations protecting the rights of every possible inerest, why isn't there anyone to tell these guys off? How can they get away with tihs??
If for the success of a hollywood blockbuster the hero needs to change his skin color, can you imagine what political marketers might ask from Barack the remaining few weeks?

Log book day 8

No cigarettes. A few beers. A bit more food than usual. Keep myself extremely busy. No cigarettes!!!