Print Story I shouldn't talk politics
Politics
By ucblockhead (Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST) (all tags)
You know what they say about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.


The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Hold on to the center.


Despite that: I am increasingly wondering if maybe we should just let the bastards fail.  Maybe watching my 401k vanish in a puff of smoke is better than the alternative.



When we look at the difference between this year, and next year, it often seems like things don't change much.  Then I think back to what things were like twenty years ago and realize just how fast things change.  This, of course, brings the realization that things will almost certainly change that much in the next two decades.  This is disconcerting.  We have this notion that everything will stay as it always was, but that's a completely erroneous notion.

On the one hand, we can expect exciting new things to appear.  Very few expected anything like the Internet in 1990, and when I look at the futurist material from the time, it is all much lamer than what we actually got.  But on the other hand, no one expected the Great Depression in 1925, and we got that too.

The best we can say is that, well, most people survived the great depression.  Perhaps a little deprivation is good for the soul.  Maybe that applies on a national level.


Update [2008-10-1 15:20:19 by ucblockhead]: I forgot the gloating: I have scored a "Little Big Planet" beta key. You may bow before my greatness.
< I hit submit when I wanted to hit preview, but it is ok now | Votre attention, citoyens du Londres! >
I shouldn't talk politics | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
When you know what is going to happen by duxup (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:18:15 AM EST
Let me know.  I'd like to get in on that.

____
It's easy for me to say by muchagecko (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
"screw the bastards" because all my investments were lost a few years back.

I'm not sure what I'd think if I still had some money tied up.


"It's the abstract I deal in; software, and donuts." MohammedNiyalSayeed
bailing out the banks would be a mistake, i think by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 3) #3 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM EST
The banks were warned.  This is not the first time they have failed and come running for hand outs.  In the summer of '82 the banking system lost close to all the money it had ever made, in the whole history of banking.  Ten years later, the large banks once again nearly bankrupted itself on the real-estate crash of the early 90s, getting bailed at tax payers expense to the tune of half a trillion dollars.  In 1998 LTCM had to be bailed out to the tune of $3.6 billion by the NY fed reserve.  In September 2006 Amaranth lost $7 billion in the course of a few days.

When bankers make profits, they keep the benefits; when they fail, the taxpayer pays the costs.  And they keep failing.  And they don't learn.

Its a huge scam, and it needs to stop.

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
This is all true by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:04:07 PM EST
The trouble is that if they go down, a lot of the rest of us also end up paying.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
i remain unconvinced by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 2) #5 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
You could fund universal health care for that bill, what exactly does this bail out buy you?  It's a sham.  The "collapse" is some people saying some stuff is worth less now than it was.  It's not 'real' ... it's not day to day goods and trade.  The people who loose are the people who bought into the banking industry lies.  If anyone deserves compensation, its the individuals who lost pensions, not the big companies who lost the customers money on bad bets.

If the US wants to inject $700billion into the economy why not directly to the people who were told to trust the banks, and not the banks who mismanaged the funds?

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Trouble is by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
Most days, people in the US don't have pensions.  They have 401ks.  Those 401ks are money market funds run by investment banks.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
pensions, 40ks, whatever you call them... by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:51:02 PM EST
 The banks promised people a future, told them what to do, and let them down.  Why take money from the people via taxation to give to the banks, to replace the people money lost by the banks?  Just give the people back their money, and let the banks die, to be rebuild a new.  Rewarding failure breads failure.

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Do you fry breaded failure? by R343L (4.00 / 2) #8 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST
And if so, what kind of oil is preferred?

Seriously, I would be fine with some massive taxation but I'm told that's "bad" for the economy even though the US used to have much higher tax rates on the upper income brackets. Somehow all that expansion of the 50s and 60s occurred in the US even with 70%-90% tax rates on the highest incomes. But, apparently, that will also bring the economy to a screeching halt too. So I'm told.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot

[ Parent ]
A bailout doesn't have to reward failure by lm (4.00 / 1) #10 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:50:08 PM EST
There are quite a few ways to bail out the banks that amount to pretty good smack downs of shareholders and corporate executives.

(Not that the bill under consideration does that.)


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I agree, but... by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #11 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:04:24 PM EST
I agree. You are right. But if banking collapses wipe out my 401k, I suffer.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
The bill passed by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:28:37 PM EST
So your investments are "safe" until the banks once again collectively bet on the wrong horse. 

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Just the Senate. by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:31:45 AM EST
It hasn't passed the House yet.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
More to the point by gzt (4.00 / 1) #16 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:03:10 AM EST
If the banking collapses cause your employer's credit lines and revenue streams to dry up, you suffer. And they just might.

[ Parent ]
he works for $BIG_JAPAN_CORP by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:42:34 AM EST
so is probably quite safe

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Yeah by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:07:01 AM EST
Assuming people aren't too broke to play video games.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Video games by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:20:32 AM EST
Video gaming is historically surprisingly resilient to rescission.  As my brother put it:  'All those London bankers sold their porches and dockside penthouses, bought a PS3, and moved back in with mum.'

That is to say, people stop going out when they are hard up, but they still buy games to keep themselves entertained at home.

If that trend holds out in this day of broadband internet and bit-torrent, we will have to wait and see...

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.

[ Parent ]
Yeah by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:25:17 AM EST
Movies are another "recession proof" industry.  Fortunately my company is all over that.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
it's not so much about customers by gzt (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
most businesses rely on credit in some form or fashion to pay for their operations. if nobody is able to extend them credit, it is hard to do business even if you have very healthy sales.

[ Parent ]
even Japanese corps need financing. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
American bank implosions will draw Japanese banks down a bit, making it harder for Japanese corps to get financing, which may make things uncomfortable.

[ Parent ]
They learn all right by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM EST
there is still time before the sucker finally does not pay up.

Wumpus



[ Parent ]
The change thing doesnt bother me so much by LinDze (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST
Its more the assumption that things will get better, or at least stay the same. Personally I think a collapse is much more likely than our survival as a civilization, or even a species. 

And, when we fall, there won't be any (er, enough) fossil fuels to re kickstart advanced civilization. The future seems nasty brutish and short to me.

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei
Personally by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:38:44 PM EST
I think "advanced civilization" would have gone better (though perhaps slower) without fossil fuels. They essentially weren't used much until 1800, and at that point, civilization was fairly well advanced.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I shouldn't talk politics | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback