So people want something done?  That's the way it is generally, right? 

A problem is identified by someone, anyone really, and suddenly something must be done.  What ultimately ends up the cause of any "problem" we find is only our way of interpreting what's taking place before us.  We create the reality and then we express dismay at the reality we've created.  That's not to say there aren't problems in the world, but we are incapable of grasping the whole of any problem. 

Therefore, once we begin to act we've already set other problems into motion.  This does not mean we shouldn't act, it simpy means we should acknowledge every morning when we wake up that our certainty means nothing!

Take for instance the notion of 'an America education.'  President Obama has noticed a problem.  The Washington Post reports,

[T]he president said: "Today's system of 50 different sets of benchmarks for academic success means fourth-grade readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming — and getting the same grade."

He doesn't call it "an American education," but that's what he's talking about.  Obama described this system as:

"[T]rapped in the same stale debates that have paralyzed progress and perpetuated our educational decline.  Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though it can make a difference in the classroom. Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early education, despite compelling evidence of its importance."

President Obama is even calling out parents.  He describes a "relative decline of American education...untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our democracy and unacceptable for our children" taking place in the world and he's trying to do something about it.

Obama is talking about education.  If others engage him in that dialogue things will change.  The problems he faces are problems of attitude and perception.  By this I mean, people who are considered to be intelligent want to live a lifestyle that can only be funded by 7.5% returns minimum.  Their money needs to be increasing in order for them to feel secure.  These people, if asked, will probably support their home country in every endeavor (e.g. 'America should have the best education system.')

'Got to fund the lifestyle though.'  In the end, which becomes more important?  The lifestyle or the education of future generations?  Where does the 7.5% return come from?  Who cares as long as it keeps coming in.  Don't think about it too much because you'll probably just jinx it. 

And who wants to be the jinx?

The overriding impulse becomes 'my money has to be doing something for me.'  It's understandable on a guttural level.  It's agreeable on a guttural level, but it doesn't hold up to argument very well.  When money works for someone they no longer understand working for money.  The Market is made up of money working for people, that after all is the Market, but maybe there's really not as many people with money working for them as we all might like to hope.

Forbes reports Swiss bank UBS released larger than anticipated losses for 2008, and still their stock rose 1.5% a share.  Forbes characterized the European Market response as "So what?" 

It seems with the incredibly large amount of zeroes being thrown around in the world today we must eventually come to understand that the numbers really mean absolutely, positively nothing.  There is no way anything of value could actually be produced for all of the zeroes floating around the world today (or even just in the United States of America for that matter.)

I might suggest the world is a giant Ponzi scheme. 

It keeps working as long as we all believe in it.  That seems to be what JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is advocating.  Bloomberg reports, Dimon "said the U.S. can rescue its banking system by the end of the year if officials start cooperating and stop the 'vilification' of corporate America."

They go on to report Dimon remarking, "When I hear the constant vilification of corporate America, I personally don’t understand it."

I'd guess he doesn't understand because all he wants to do is have everything back the way that it was.  If we all try to believe hard enough, I think he figures we can make it happen (with a lot of your money to support his lifestyle.)  Once his lifestyle is financially sound again then we can return to the hard principled capitalist ideology that somehow still has a glossy shimmer to it even though it will end up being the yoke saddled around your neck while putting the riding crop in Mr. Dimon's hand.

Come on ya'll: Stop bagging on CEO's and their out of touch living standard.