Look Alikes!!

In the tradition of the local press - has anyone noticed how similar these two money speculators look?
Apart from their physical similarity both worked for failed money market "merchant bankers' and both made fortunes from a shared driving force - greed and a desire to gamble on speculation and rumour.
But then it is a matter of trust isn't it???

Riverboat gamblers, money traders and other key speculative behaviours

What are the similarities between riverboat gamblers, money traders and other speculators? There aren't any - just degrees of "acceptability" based on who employs you. Essentially all these men do is gamble on the possibility of making a profit from the turn of a card, the roll of a die or the chance that the other guy will blink first. Each of them is concentrating on making a profit from an illusion of skill.

Michael Cullen is drawing no long bow when he points out that it was the actions of men, in the same profession as John Key once was, whose gambling caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.

For anyone who understands the use of analogy and of examples when arguing a case Cullen's comments make perfect sense and provide a solid logical progression to an inevitable conclusion. For the benefit of the media and other commentators it runs like so:

1) Merrill Lynch was a financial institution that had made its reputation from speculation on the futures markets and currency trading which are simply sophisticated forms of riverboat gambling.
2) The money traders employed by Merrill Lynch are highly paid gamblers who use other people's money to take bets on the possible value of commodities and currencies that might eventuate as a result of a rumour, a possibility of a storm, flood, pestilence or the failure of a sports team to win a crucial test match.
3) John Key's reputation is not based on his political acumen but on his gambling ability and instincts developed while employed as a currency gambler by Merrill Lynch.
4) As a high stakes currency gambler Mr Key was successful - but only while the house of cards built up on successive levels of speculation remained standing.
5) Once the house of speculation collapsed the reputation of the currency and commodity gamblers must be called to question just as the security of the finance houses like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch must be called to question and account.
Therefore: Given that John Key is still, at heart and reputation, a money trader (gambler / speculator) and has had well publicised ties to the firm of Merrill Lynch which collapsed because of the poor judgment of the currency and commodity gamblers employed there then it must follow that questions about Mr Key's ability to take control of a country's economy must be called into question.
However, the spin doctors, the Herald agenda driven reporters who appear to lack an understanding of the nuances and subtleties of language and logic have all leapt to the illogical conclusion that John Key was the cause of the collapse of Merrill Lynch. ( Would that were true - it would really make some earlier gambling trades that went sour on individual traders look like small bikkies.)
What people should recognise is that no one is saying that Key caused the collapse of Merrill Lynch but one does begin to doubt the ability of a currency gambler to make sound economic judgments.
This is not negative campaigning. This is not personality attack. This is not dirty politics as the Crosby Textor script would have it. This is legitimate questioning of the perception that Mr Key has the ability to make sound judgements based on the evidence that other currency gamblers obviously have none as they caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.
The conclusion then becomes obvious.

Of Cabbages & Kings & other matters of import.

While one does not normally support Winston Peters the events of the past few weeks reveal one thing - Winston has a problem - a very 21st century problem - that judgements are now made on perceptions rather than hard, substantive evidence.

While, for sometime, Winston has managed to bluff and bluster to position himself as the "people's champion" for didn't he stand up to Muldoon and, on a matter of principle, resign the National Party to stand for Tauranga to demonstrate the electorate's support for that principle he is now being tried by a jury of his"peers" and the media on an issue of principle.

Would you trust the country to these men?
The National Party shadow cabinet discussing what to do with Winston.

Unfortunately for Winston the substantive issue - Did he or did he not have to declare the donation of $100,000 that went into his legal fighting fund - has become "Did he or did he not know about the donation being solicited and paid into his lawyer's trust account?"

For his peers and the media it is easier to pillory Winston on the latter issue because he chose to grandstand a series of denials of knowledge of such largesse being extended to him. In such a manner the substantive issue isobscured and lost.

One is lead to conclude that the issue of should the $100,000 be declared will not be decided by the media or by the jury of Winston's peers because, in the public perception, the outcome has already been decided - guilt by association and a decision by John Key not to deal with Winston in the event of a close call in November.

For John Key is attempting to build up aperception of being a decisive, principled and strong individual as opposed to a person who takes a more measured, calmer, more rational approach to decision making.

To do this he and hisadvisers have adopted the "chicken licken" approach to political debate... to shout that the sky has fallen despite all evidence to the contrary on the basisthat given a loud enough shout the echo will become the evidence.

Of course John Key is familiar with such a strategy as that is precisely how the money speculators in organisations like Merrill Lynch operate in order to drive the speculation on the money or commodities they're gambling on up or down in speculative value and thusgain profit for themselves or companies they work for.

These decisions are not based on sound judgement from substantive evidence. It isjudgement based on perception, on image, on the loudest shout, on a chimera which, once accepted by others in the market, can cause a collapse of the whole artifical construct the money speculator (gambler) has built up. One only has to lok at the collapse of companies like Merrill Lynch ( a past employer of John Key ) to witness the fallacy of speculation on perception.

All of which leaves the N.Z. voter with two important questions " shouldn't we expect more from the N.Z. media when reporting and recording events than we are presently getting?" and "can we, as a nation, afford to allow ourselves to be governed by one whose judgements and reputation are made on perception and image rather than hard, substantive evidence?"