"We have to learn of better ways to keep the sovereign at bay"

	Inserisci i termini di ricerca Invia modulo di ricerca
	Web riberio.splinder.com

Marina Berlusconi e Piersilvio Berlusconi sono indignati , sbattono i pugni, non accettano lezioni morali e difendono l'onore della nobile casata. Il corriere della sera ne da ampio risalto.
Per dirla tutta, neanche a me va tanto giù la loro contro-lezioncina morale: non è colpa di nessuno (neanche di franceschini) se loro sono, per discendenza, ai vertici di un impero costruito su un monopolio televisivo ed editoriale il cui ex-presidente e azionista di maggioranza (il padre Silvio) è l'attuale capo del governo, che non è in grado di fornire uno straccio di versione credibile e coerente sulle sue frequentazioni con una (ex) minorenne napoletana. L'accusa mossa non è lusinghiera, ma se sguazzi nella merda di mestiere*, mi fai il piacere di non rompere le scatole sull'uso dei tovaglioli. Grazie.

*per sguazzare nella merda intendo partecipare al giochino monopolistico costruito dal babbo, per cui magari sei a.d. di mediaset mentre tuo padre controlla la rai stando al governo, oppure siedi nel cda di mediobanca (e mondadori e finivest, non sia mai) occupandoti di mantenere saldi gli equilibri mafiosi del sistema finanziario/big-industriale italiano.

Postato da: riberio a 15:47 | link | commenti (3)

A futura memoria, dal ft di ieri:

Baleful influence of Burlesque cronies
Published: May 26 2009 20:12 | Last updated: May 26 2009 20:12
Fascism is not a likely future for Italy. That is worth saying, because it is being forecast. Many assume that the financial crisis plus Silvio Berlusconi equals a return to fascism. It did, after all, start there.

But that is an unlikely outcome now. Italy in the early 1920s, when Benito Mussolini rose to power, was reeling from a brutally Pyrrhic victory over the Austrians in 1918, the degradation of the political class and a rising threat from leftwing totalitarianism. Mr Berlusconi is clearly no Mussolini: he has squads of starlets, not of Blackshirts.

The real dangers lie elsewhere. Over the 15 years of his political career – always as prime minister, or as leader of the opposition – he has had a largely untrammelled opportunity to shift the national mood rightwards. This he has done not by crude propaganda but by a steady concentration on glitz, glitter and girls and a hyperbolic style of media-geared rhetoric that sees all opposition as communist and himself as a victim.

Now, as hard questions are posed on his relationship with a teenage would-be starlet – first raised by his wife – he has turned on the most obstinate questioner, the left-of-centre daily La Repubblica, issued a veiled threat through an associate and sought to render the questions invalid because politically tainted.

He has shown equal belligerence towards magistrates who judged he had bribed the British lawyer David Mills (to avoid corruption charges) – calling them “leftwing activists” – even though parliament has made him immune from prosecution.

Still dissatisfied even with such a useful parliament, he has called it “useless” and said it should be drastically reduced to 100 members, while his powers increase. He has sought to rouse the masses in his favour, by encouraging a “popular initiative” to collect the required 500,000 signatures for the measure.

But the danger of Berlusconi is of a different order to that of Mussolini. It is that of media sapping the serious content of politics, and replacing it with entertainment. It is of a ruthless demonisation of enemies and refusal to grant an independent basis to competing powers. It is to place a fortune at the service of the creation of a massive image, composed of assertions of endless success and popular support.

That he is so dominant is partly the fault of a faltering left; of weak and sometimes politicised institutions; of journalism which has too often accepted a subaltern status. Most of all it is the fault of a very wealthy, very powerful and increasingly ruthless man. No fascist, but a danger, in the first place to Italy, and a malign example to all.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Postato da: riberio a 15:16 | link | commenti

Oggi ho capito perché ogni tanto qualche "accademico" si diverte a mettere on line pagine in html in cui colloca dei riassuntoni su quel che secondo lui non si può non sapere su un argomento, magari rivisitando dal suo punto di vista la faccenda e riportando l'esempio che gli aveva aperto la mente.
Sicuramente hanno avuto delle sudate fredde da pre-esami di dottorato, hanno guardato per un attimo alle 7 di sera il disordine di appunti, fotocopie e libri sulla propria scrivania e hanno pensato che, una volta superato il tutto, sarebbe dovuto rimanerne almeno un piccolo segno "pubblico".
Se andrà tutto bene, la mia pagina in html non mancherà.

Postato da: riberio a 18:00 | link | commenti

Riflessione condivisibile (di Gary Becker):
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/05/the_serious_con.html
"I believe that the best way to restore the consistency and attractiveness of the conservative movement is for modern conservatism to return to its roots of skepticism toward governmental actions. This involves confidence in the capacity of individuals to make decisions not only in their own interests, but also usually in the interests of society at large. Such a shift in attitudes would require more flexible approaches toward hot button issues like gays in the military, gay marriage, abortions, cell stem research, and toward many other issues of this type. It will not be easy for the Republican Party to emerge from the doldrums if it cannot embrace such a consistently skeptical view of government."

Postato da: riberio a 08:30 | link | commenti

http://lakesidecapital.wordpress.com/  gran bel blog!

Postato da: riberio a 14:08 | link | commenti (1)

As A.I.G. bordered on bankruptcy, Mr. Geithner pressed first for a private sector solution. A.I.G. needed $60 billion to meet payments on insurance contracts it had written to protect customers against debt defaults. A.I.G.’s chief executive at the time, Robert B. Willumstad, said he had hired bankers at JPMorgan to help it raise capital. Goldman Sachs had jockeyed for the job as well, but because the investment bank was one of A.I.G.’s biggest trading partners, Mr. Willumstad rejected the idea. The potential conflicts of interest, he believed, were too great. Nevertheless, on Monday, Sept. 15, Mr. Geithner pushed A.I.G. to bring Goldman onto its team to raise capital, Mr. Willumstad said. Mr. Geithner and Mr. Corrigan, a Goldman managing director, were close, speaking frequently and sometimes lunching together at Goldman headquarters. On that day, the company’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, was at the New York Fed. A Goldman spokesman said, “We don’t believe anyone at Goldman Sachs asked Mr. Geithner to include the firm in the assignment.” Mr. Geithner said he had suggested Goldman get involved because the situation was chaotic and “time was running out.” But A.I.G.’s search for capital was fruitless. By late Tuesday afternoon, the government would step in with an $85 billion loan, the first installment of a bailout that now stands at $182 billion. As part of the bailout, A.I.G.’s trading partners, including Goldman, were compensated fully for money owed to them by A.I.G. Analysts say the New York Fed should have pressed A.I.G.’s trading partners to take a deep discount on what they were owed. But Mr. Geithner said he had no bargaining power because he was unwilling to threaten A.I.G.’s trading partners with a bankruptcy by the insurer for fear of further destabilizing the system. A recent report on the A.I.G. bailout by the Government Accountability Office found that taxpayers may never get their money back.

Piccolo estratto dalla cronaca fatta dal nytimes dell'ascesa di un colluso: Tim Geithner, il ministro del tesoro dell'amministrazione Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Postato da: riberio a 12:55 | link | commenti