Eighth days in retreat when a visitor arrives.
In a battered Ford Bronco with California license plates.
This is friend Mike who is from Canada but lives in La Paz in Mexico.
He is one of the few persons that know how to find the Fuso Szulc.
And he likes to pass by sometimes to have a chat overlooking the Pacific Ocean.
Then Mike tells beautiful stories from a world totally unknown at El Triple.
Like how a yacht arrived at the opening of the bay of La Paz.
Too big to enter with its 127 meter length ( 416 ft).
Belonging to one of the top guys of Microsoft, a guy called Paul Allen who is worth $ 20 billion.
This extraordinary yacht, the "Octopus", build in Germany at a price of $ 200 million, has a crew of 60 persons.
And has for example a door in the back that opens so the submarine it holds can come out and dive.
A submarine that can take 8 people and stay under water for two weeks.
Besides the submarine there are two helicopters, seven boats and a remote controlled vehicle for crawling on the ocean floor.
This boat doesn’t anchor: it has in different places propellors and a GPS system so it can be kept in one place wherever it is.
This yacht takes 849.446 liters of fuel to supply the 8 Mercedes Benz diesel engines of 2.400 HP each.
Friend Mike was invited to come on board this bombastic and exaggerated boat and he reported that he couldn’t even hear the engines nor feel any movement because of the computer controlled stabilizers.
He talked to the captain and asked some very good questions.
Like what was the purpose of the thing.
Costing $ 20 million per year to operate the question is justified what this boat is all about.
The reply was that the boat is about nothing.
They just cruise worldwide looking for exceptional things on the sea.
Like now they were checking if they could find some giant squids.
Once they will locate them, they call the owner of this extravagant boat, Paul Allen, to inform him.
He comes down then in his private plane, gets on his boat by helicopter, checks out the giant squids and travels back to Microsoft in the USA.
Obviously Paul Allen does not find one moment of reflection and contemplation.
Wondering how this excessive spending of money harmonizes with the current state of affairs in the world.
According to Wikipedia over 1.7 billion people live in poverty at $ 1.25 per day but Paul Allen spends $ 55.000 per day to have his boat.
A $ 200 million boat with a crew of 60 to find and see giant squids.
Fantastic.
These giant squids are sometimes right here on the beach of El Triple!
In the comfortable house in the centre of Amsterdam, temporarily home, is a large flat screen TV.
Sometimes this TV is switched on and an amazing discovery was made.
There are ten TV channels in the Dutch language.
Three TV channels are sponsored by the Government and seven are from private companies.
All ten of them show commercials.
The three Government sponsored TV channels show programs made in the Netherlands.
With the seven TV channels of the private companies it is different.
They show films and programs they buy abroad.
Take last night.
The private channel RTL 5.
They start with Dr. Phil.
Followed by the comedy series “The king of Queens”.
Then “Everybody loves Raymond”.
At 18.15 h “Dharma and Greg”.
At 18.45 h “Masterchef”, an English culinary program.
At 19.55 h “Take me out”, a datingshow.
At 20.30 h “Leverage”, an American action series.
At 22.20 h “House”, an American drama series.
At 23.10 h “Shock doc: Life after burns”.
What on the next channel?
RTL 7
At 20.30 h the film “Speed” with Sandra Bullock.
At 22.55 h “Ticker”, American action film by Albert Pyun.
How about Net 5?
First “Friends”.
“Will & Grace”.
“Airline”.
“Bondi Rescue”.
“The little couple”.
The American film “The wedding date”.
“Cold case”.
“Law & Order”.
“Medium” American crime series.
With the two last private TV channels it is the same kind of programming.
Most programs on all seven private TV channels are from the USA.
Why would this be?
Can’t they make TV programs and films in the Netherlands?
Can’t they show TV programs and films made in European countries?
Absolutely.
They could.
Nevertheless they show exclusively films and series from the USA.
The explanation must be that they are the cheapest.
To show an old film like “Speed” with Sandra Bullock fills almost two hours of airtime at a low cost.
Hence, the criteria of the private TV channels is not to show a decent and educative and entertaining evening of TV.
They simply try to make as much money as possible.
On the one hand selling TV-time for commercials for as much as possible.
On the other hand keeping costs down to a minimum.
Obviously, this strategy results in poverty.
Poverty of the mind, the intellect and the heart.
Because most what is shown and came from the USA is of a very low level.
And made with the same principle as how the private TV channels operate: low cost productions, mediocre actors, few locations, superficial story, no imagination, no artistic efforts, to be as much in the middle of the road as possible, making money by selling this bullshit in bulk worldwide to private TV channels as there are in the Netherlands.
There is a TV in the comfortable house in Amsterdam but most evenings are spend reading a book.
.
The trip from Los Angeles to San Jose del Cabo, Mexico in an old MD-80 airplane of American Airlines.
At the self check in at Los Angeles International Airport, the screen of the computer eventually says to go and see a real person.
And no wonder.
A person with a passport from the Netherlands and a Mexican residence-ship traveling all over the world.
This is so out of the ordinary that an automated system is unable to handle and process the passenger.
The friendly American Airlines man checking in the passenger had to ask some questions.
Instructed to do so by the Homeland Security of the USA.
While the traveller was going to Mexico, he asked if there was a return ticket to go back to Europe.
And when was there a return to the USA?
Initially there was a feeling of opposition.
Why to answer questions about future travel plans when one will be in another country than the USA?
But lessons have been learned.
Better to stay docile and answer truthfully.
In the end, the USA considers itself at war and anybody is a potential enemy.
Opposition and rebelling would only lead to trouble.
This situation made an interview come back to mind that was heard on National Public Radio while driving in the morning to Los Angeles International Airport.
It was with Patti Smith, the rock singer, poet and writer.
Who had been involved with photographer Robert Mapplethorpe before he discovered he was gay.
One of the callers was an artist himself.
And he had a good way of putting it.
He said that besides being an artist, he also had to be an entrepreneur.
But that being an entrepreneur, just to make money to live, was consuming so much of his time that he hardly managed to be an artist.
He asked Patti Smith why in her days, the 70's in New York, it all was so much more easy.
And he asked what she recommended that a contemporary artist should do.
She replied that in her days of glory an apartment in New York would cost her $ 75 a month.
And that there were plenty of good jobs available like working in a library or bookshop.
Ms. Smith explained they also hardly had money but managed nevertheless to survive and be creative in New York in the 70's.
And admitted those days were over.
That New York has become too expensive and that there is no work that would suit an artist.
She recommended artists to go to cities where life was cheaper, like Detroit.
This is how life has become.
If you are somehow out of the ordinary, like an artist, society becomes suspicious.
And in fact doesn't want anybody to be different anymore.
Bohemianism has been excluded as a position people can practice in society.
It is not tolerated anymore.
You are not supposed to just travel anywhere.
And live in a big city on a shoestring.
It has become hard to live a romantic life.
And to be free.
.
Yesterday, fervent and loyal blog readers were having a look at the buildings of Cracow.
How some architects had been allowed by the city officials to build monstrosities.
But we must keep in mind that overall, Cracow is a most beautiful town where most buildings are very well preserved.
This does not exclude that other nonsense in this city is happening.
That somehow money forces its way into this society to make more money.
And now that destroying old buildings to construct calamities is hardly possible anymore, another way to confront the people with materialism and promoting consumerism has been found.
The entrepreneurs came with the clever idea to put large banners in front of buildings.
And the city administrators allowed this.
This phenomenon cannot only be seen in Cracow: in many cities worldwide this horrible way of making publicity is applied.
Good examples are the Hilton Hotel and the Polish TV office building in Cracow, Poland.
These two large buildings are located on the side of the river everybody sees when in the city.
In order to attract tourists to spend the night in the hotel and to promote some new TV series, gigantic banners have been placed against the side of the buildings.
In this way the whole facade of the building is obscured.
The architecture it represents has been eliminated.
The building designed by an architect is not a building anymore but it has been downgraded to a large publicity panel.
We may wonder why the responsible authorities believed this was a good and acceptable idea.
That the landscape to be seen from the city is not showing buildings and design and architecture anymore, but gigantic advertisements instead.
However, this anomalic situation is a peanut compared to what has been allowed on the Main Square of Cracow.
The very centre of this beautiful city where is a large square surrounded by century old buildings, churches and chapels.
With old cobblestones and calèches pulled by click clacking horses.
A square full of century long history and medieval atmosphere: probably one of the most beautiful town squares in Europe, period.
The authorities of Cracow have also allowed here even for banners to be put in front of the buildings.
Only to make publicity for again a TV-series or the food of the restaurant or for the exhibition in the building.
And as a compromise, on the banner they have imitated the windows that are hidden behind.
In Paris, France real estate owners would decide to renovate strategically located buildings.
A large scaffold would be put in front of the building and a large banner attached to it with an advertisement to promote for example a perfume or a car.
Often the money that was paid for the advertisement would finance the whole renovation.
And there have been cases that the renovation was willingly delayed because the advertisement was paid by month and bringing in substantial money.
In Cracow there is no renovation going on behind the banners.
It is just a way to promote capitalist consumerism.
The money a banner brings in to promote a restaurant is more important than keeping the beauty of the Main Square of Cracow.
Shame on the Cracow authorities to allow this.
.
For the next six weeks the option has become available to drive a car for free during two months.
No need to rent one.
Just go to a GM-dealership, buy a Chevy Malibu, a Buick LaCrosse, GMC pick up truck or a Cadillac and return it after two months.
They'll give you your money back no questions asked.
This campaign GM calls "May the best car win".
But marketing experts say it is just a gimmick.
A customer who goes through all the effort of going to a dealership, selecting a vehicle and the process of paying for it, is not very likely to return the car after two months to have to go through new hassle and then start the whole process of purchasing a car again at a Toyota dealership.
Research has revealed that only 2 % of the customers when in such a deal will actually return the car.
It would be a different story if other brands like Ford and Toyota would do the same thing.
We pay, let's say $ 20.000, into a special bank account and next we are allowed to drive first a Ford for two months, then a Toyota for two months and next a Chevrolet for two months after which we make a decision.
The car maker whose vehicle is selected as the best gets the money.
Sells the car.
In this way we can really find out if what vice chairman of GM Bob Lutz is saying is really true:
"GM has to show that its cars are better than competitors’ models.
There is a “monumental chasm” between the public’s perception of GM’s vehicles and the autos in our current lineup, and the “May the Best Car Win” effort aims to change that".
But as long as this special offer is by GM only, it makes no sense to accept it.
How can we compare?
We must remember that GM is a company where desperation is the driving force.
This year their sales are down 35 %.
It is a bankrupt company that only still exists because the US government somehow thinks it is wise to pump money in it.
In May 2009 General Motors Corp. borrowed an additional $4 billion from the Treasury Department, meaning the automaker has accepted $19.4 billion in loans from the U.S. government.
GM started taking government money in December 2008 and said it intended to borrow $2.6 billion more by June 1, 2009 and an additional $9 billion after that.
GM is saying it now expects to need $7.6 billion in loans after June 1.
This is not even all the money that is unable to fill the GM holes.
In addition to the $19.4 billion that GM has directly borrowed from the government, its financial arm, GMAC Financial Services, has received $12.5 billion in aid, plus GM received a $1 billion loan to buy more equity in GMAC.
Will all that money do?
No, fervent and loyal blog readers.
The US government is also setting aside money to cover GM's expected warranty costs as part of a program to assure car buyers that their warranties will be honored regardless of what happens to the automaker.
No wonder GM is able to sell cars that can be returned no questions asked after two months.
GM operates like companies did in the Soviet Union when making profit and high quality products that could compete on the consumer markets was not relevant.
This is brilliantly demonstrated when visiting GM's Chevrolet website.
www.chevrolet.com
One sees 4 cars only and all of them are painted in a very sad grey.
Parked in what looks like a giant refrigerator.
No happiness or attraction is shining from these cars.
It looks more like frozen bodies in a mortuary.
Now, you may not go for looks.
But more for fuel consumption.
Who cares how your car looks when at the pump you can laugh at the guzzlers?
But with a new Chevrolet Malibu there is not much to laugh.
It has a 2.2 liter gasoline engine doing 22 MPG in town and 30 MPG on the highway.
Chevrolet Malibu
A car similar in size is the Peugeot 607 from France.
Equipped with a quiet and ecological friendly diesel engine doing 31.3 MPG in town and 51.4 MPG on the highway.
Peugeot 607
Maybe the thing to do is to go to other car dealer ships like Ford and Toyota and show them the offer GM is making.
This offer to drive the GM car with money back guarantee for two months.
To ask what they are offering as an incentive.
What they will do to stop you to proceed to test a Chevrolet Malibu.
.
There is a lot of turmoil in the USA about health care these days.
Better put, how to pay for health care.
For those who can't afford it now.
It is true of course what Barack Obama said last night in his speech to the politicians.
The United States is supposed to be the most prosperous country in the world while millions and millions are without proper health care because it is too expensive.
What meanwhile many people know is that the United States operates as a society based on the capitalist system.
The most explicit one we can find on earth.
And what many people know but what is rarely said in the USA, is that this system there has major flaws.
It has overdeveloped and has become too extreme.
The solution for the problems with the financing of health care cannot be found within capitalism.
Hence, it is true when certain Americans condemn Obama of introducing socialistic principles.
Those opposing applying socialistic ideas in the USA usually are in a comfortable financial situation and have possibly a little to lose of their wealth when the American society becomes less of a free market where making money no matter how is the current morality.
If an American was able to broaden his or her horizon and study how health care is organized in other countries, they will see that a service in a society like health care should never be given only to the free market.
The government must run a basic health care service, paid for by every citizen through taxes, where profit is not a target.
The private health insurance companies will have heavy competition of the Government service and this is a good thing.
Now, in the USA, private health care insurance companies make billions of profit and that is immoral.
A repeating argument against affordable Government health care in the USA often heard is very ugly.
It goes that once a national health service is instituted, millions of undocumented workers and their families will make use of it.
That will be certainly the case.
And what is against that?
An undocumented worker would not be in the USA if that person was unable to find work and make money.
Hence, an undocumented worker is offered work by the American society that profits enormously of this opportunity.
It pays extremely low wages to the undocumented worker boosting the profit of the company.
While the undocumented worker pays taxes like sales tax.
The opposition to having undocumented workers make use of a national health care service must realize that the only correct solution is to fine employers in such a hefty way that either they only hire documented workers or none at all.
The current situation in the USA with health care is not the only flaw of the American capitalist system.
In fact, fundamentally it is flawed.
Because the American way of capitalism is to exist based on credit.
To borrow and not think how ever it will have to be paid back.
A pure capitalist will first make money somehow and once it is in the pocket spend it in a way that the investment will make new money.
And so on.
Not so an American capitalist.
He spends money that is not his.
This is why the current times are so deceiving.
American politicians announcing that the worst of the economic crises is over and that there is a recovery.
That in a year or two everything will be back to normal.
What they don't say is that the American way of capitalism is being reinstated.
Stimulating the economy by borrowing more money.
Sinking deeper into the swamp.
Take as an example the recent subsidy the US Government offered to car buyers.
A car buyer could get up to $ 2.400 when buying a new more energy efficient car.
But where do those $ 2.400 come from?
They are borrowed by the US Government.
And how are those $ 2.400 going to be repaid?
By the Government charging taxes from their flock.
Hence, in the end, it is no subsidy at all.
The $ 2.400 that was lowering the purchase price of the car, will be taken out of the future income through taxes.
Making the tax payer spend $ 2.400 less from the income.
Dragging the economy down because less money can be spend.
It is this short time solutions of politicians that make them look good now, but that on the longer term is devastating for the people.
In capitalism it is not necessarily a bad idea to stimulate the economy by offering all kinds of financial incentives.
But what if Toyota from Japan sells over 20 % more cars over the last two months and GM sells in that same period 20 % less?
The money made available by the US Government flows to Japan and the American economy is not stimulated whatsoever.
This is happening on the widest scale.
Today it was revealed that the US trade deficit shot up in July tot he highest level in six months.
The trade deficit rose 16.3 % to $ 32 billion.
Imports rose by 4.7 % while exports were only 2.2 %.
This means that when more money is pumped by the Government into the economy, people start buying and spending but most of that money goes abroad.
Not creating jobs in the USA.
The conclusion of many financial experts is that the USA is heading for a second economic crises.
That will be more devastating and dramatic than the one we just had.
There is only one way to avoid this economic catastrophe.
To change the attitude to spend when there is no money in the pocket.
This goes for the Government and for every individual.
Americans must learn to first save money after which spending becomes an option.
It will mean that life will drastically change.
It will become more austere and ascetic compared to now.
Spending will not be a daily activity anymore but a rare exception and a well considered decision.
Although it is clear this is the only solution, at the same time it is a massive illusion.
No way the majority of the American population will accept this concept and give up their extreme consumer's attitude.
So, we will see a new economic collapse in the USA in the years to come.
The dollar losing most of its value.
And the Americans falling into painful poverty.
As an American individual you can protect yourself against this total downturn soon to come.
Start saving money.
And put it in Euros or Yuans.
.
