The following piece was received by his blogger from an anonymous source well known to him. This piece, let the blogger make it quite clear, was not written by him, but by the anonymous contributor, henceforth to be known as "Sock Man".
It’s common knowledge that our dear council (Albany City, WA) can’t afford to fund a tea-party, let alone the shortfall of a fully operational, publicly subsidised, modern, on-a-plate-gifted, entertainment centre.
Why is this? Because on top of some serious long term, systemic financial mismanagement, their investment policy allowed them to put all our eggs in one basket. Sadly, they picked the wrong basket.
They were sucked in by the promise of better than market returns. About half a per cent better that is. Or would have been if they hadn’t had to factor in the capital loss, which turned the return somewhat negative.
And now they’re sitting on a fence waiting, having knocked back offers for the ‘investment’ at a discount of seventy per cent, in the hope that some bumbling, idiot solicitors can negotiate a better settlement with the liquidator of a fallen Wall Street icon.
(Is it strange that only Lehman Brothers was allowed to fall over? I wonder if LB was the only bank that had the majority of its exposed investors sitting away from American soil.)
Have they any idea how fat the liquidators are? Have they any idea how fat the solicitors aim to become? What should we do in such a situation, apart from re-inventing our investment policy – assuming we ever have anything to invest again?
We’d look at who got us into this mess and see that they still have some cash in the bank and sue their arses off or, in this case, their asses: Standard & Poors, Moody’s Investor Services and any other incompetent ratings agency that gave the sewer-scented, over-leveraged mortgage-backed securities a triple-A rating.
They’re the guys who weren’t doing their jobs. They were the guys that allowed the mushroom growth of these smouldering incendiaries. So, it stands to reason, they’re the guys to sue.
- they’re still in business
- they make millions of dollars extorting companies and governments to dole out cost-effective credit ratings
- they’re more than likely liability-insured, albeit by American Insurance Group.
Conclusion: they’re the people to sue. If only for the joy of seeing the sanctimonious bastards squirm.
All in all, I find the council’s inability to invest our reserves and subsequent fence-sitting a little bit on the nose. Just like the socks surrounding that iconic
Have you seen them there? Socks, socks and more socks, dancing in the breeze, like Tibetan prayer flags on a high plateau in the
I even wonder what the fence is there for. To stop us stealing the sand, perhaps? Or is it merely a “Keep Off, It’s Ours” gesture.
Whatever, it’s obvious they’re not going to rush into replacing our lost pub and equally obvious the combined might of City of
Perhaps we need more than socks. Perhaps we, the people, should take it, the fence, down as the Berliners did back in the 80’s, and establish our own freedom over this most splendid of sites and indulge in that noble Australian tradition of squatting. I believe our uninterrupted use for ten years would see them lose possession.
Ownership would then cede to the USB (Urban Sock Bomber). And the sockless of