Hulver's site || I'm clearly in the wrong line of work.

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

I'm clearly in the wrong line of work.

By codemonkey uk (Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:35:14 AM EST) (all tags)

When banks make bad decisions the tax-payer has to bail them out. When games developers make bad decisions they go bust.

Do not be fooled by the banking lobbies propaganda, regurgitated wholesale by government representatives. This is not a one off event, it's a feature of the banking system that won't be fixed as long as it goes unpunished.

Do not think your investments have been saved. They are taking with one hand, and keeping with the other. How long till you draw on your investment? Long enough for it's value to "recover" (recover from what, keep in mind wealth is relative). Can these stocks + shares recover before another collapse (average time between catastrophic banking failures is less than 10 years, and there is no reason the believe that the banks won't do worse next time).

This bill is nothing more than a naked redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

< "From Yurakucho to Hibiya Park Beer Festival" | Yesterday was not the best >

Google

Hit Counter

93 Husi users have viewed this.

Comment Controls

I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Be afraid by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:01:41 AM EST

Closer to home, there's an petition for an EU equivalent.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. Trust among financial institutions is disappearing; fear may spread. Last week’s US experience showed that saving one bank at a time won’t work. A systemic response is needed and in Europe this means an EU-led initiative to recapitalise the banking sector.

Blame the Irish by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:04:08 AM EST

They interfered, now everyone else has to.

[ Parent ]

I think that's a red herring by R Mutt (4.00 / 2) #4 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:27:31 AM EST

No government's going to let a bunch of ordinary depositors lose their savings anyway.

What interested me was this: the nationalized Northern Rock has had to suspend new accounts because they don't want to take over too much of the market.

Now the alleged ong-term problem with the credit crunch is that normal businesses and people are going to be unable to borrow money for mortgages and business expansion.

So how about this as a solution. Abandon that rule and expand Northern Rock as a nationalized superbank, providing credit directly to normal folk.

That doesn't necessarily mean the taxpayer pays: we can see from this that savings are pouring in anyway, and that money can be re-lent out. Even if the taxpayer does pay, at least the money's going directly where it's needed, not to the shareholder profits.

Currently the immediately problem is supposedly the LIBOR spread. The commercial banks are all going "Boo hoo, sob sob, we just don't have any confidence, so we're forced to borrow from the goverment at 2% and lend at 7% giving us an enormous profit margin on a small, economy-hurting amount of business".

With competition from Northern Rock, I suspect they'll suddenly regain their confidence and start lowering the spread...

[ Parent ]

Which is also why by Phage (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:33:59 AM EST

buying the equity would have been better. All upsides are transferred back to the state. However - does anyone really think that they can have an economy without banks ?

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

An ecomony without banks, no. by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:40:23 AM EST

An economy without banks who make too many bad loans, yes.

We don't need banks to lend more money than people can pay back. We need banks who look after the money that is deposited, and who use that money to back good businesses and take well considered risks on viable businesses ventures.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Well by Phage (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:08:41 AM EST

Too late for those wishes. What do you propose now ? The vicious cycle is turning, and unless there is action, of more than the nose/face variety, even the more conservative banks will fall. This will lead to economic recession, job losses, stagnating sales, blackouts ets etc. Personally I don't want to sit in the dark. No...I don't work for a bank.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Says who? by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #16 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:26:29 AM EST

Says the people who want your money to prop up their gambling debts. Says the economic "experts" who already got it wrong repeatedly, year on year, decade on decade.

They tell you there will be a doom & gloom scenario if you don't give them money so they can loan it back to you, with interest. And you believe them? Why? Why do you think they are right, when they have such a solid history for being wrong?

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

here's a question by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #17 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:47:07 AM EST

Would the overheads of the international finance markets be so high, that if you replaced the people with automated dice rolling, the losses and gains would remain within tolerance?

[ Parent ]

IIRC Nassim Taleb by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:58:52 AM EST

Has already shown that some simple random trading systems are actually more stable economically than the human experts, avoiding these catastrophic crashes, and thus resulting in better returns over the long term. The disadvantage? Worse short term profits.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

that can't quite be his result by gzt (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST

I haven't read all of his works, but there's really no mechanism for random trading to avoid downturns.

[ Parent ]

yes downturns by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM EST

But not the same catastrophic nose-dives. I'm only part way into the Black Swan, that data on random-trading was part of an article online of his I read a few weeks ago, and I may have misremembered or misinterpreted it, but I can't find it to double check my facts. :(

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: then again, you may be right by gzt (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:35:25 PM EST

I mean, to fail spectacularly in the last month, you have to pick a bunch of specific stocks. Picking randomly, you get something that behaves like the S&P500, which dropped substantially, but not spectacularly. But the way I read the original comment, it seemed to imply that picking randomly would earn less than the S&P500 when it rises but not fall as much as it if it should fall. That, to me, seems like nonsense.

[ Parent ]

Because by Phage (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:00:27 AM EST

Investment is gambling. Cut out the gambling, no investment.

The rest of your post is made up of assertions.

Bankers =/ Economists (or politicians)
Interest is the reward for taking on risk.
It will be a doom and gloom scenario. What's the alternative ?

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

What risk? by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:13:01 AM EST

Why do the banks get the rewards (interest) if they do not take on the risk? A bail out just removes their risk and gives it to the people.

So banks get the rewards, and we take the risk.

How is that fair and equitable?

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

So... by Phage (2.00 / 0) #29 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM EST

Buy shares in the banks. In your terms it's a risk-free path to wealth.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Errr... no. by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:01:37 AM EST

It's only risk free if you believe that the bailouts will continue indefinitely, which I do not.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

So banks get the rewards by Phage (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:13:38 AM EST

Is what you said.

Not true in 99% of cases. It's the sheer scale of this meltdown that requires action for the last 1%. Or we all face the consequence. I can see that this thread isn't going anywhere. Time to go.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

You don't have to leave... by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:05:08 PM EST

I really am interested in a wide variety of opinions on this. I'm not pretending to be an expert. I have an opinion, yes, but it is subject to change as new information arrives.

What I want to know is, regarding this doom-and-gloom scenario you assert. What evidence is there, what reason is there to believe that the results of this very expensive bail out will be better than the alternatives?

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

<sneaks shyly back into the clearing> by Phage (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST

There are no guarantees.
In fact I would have bought shares in the banks to re-capitalise them, and then reap any upsides.

the fact is that something must be done to restore confidence in banks and markets. The fact that it may largely be symbolic makes no diff at all.

It's just the naked anger, fear and envy that I see so much of I find so disturbing. It's OK to abuse the bankers because they're not like us 'normal' people. They don't work in a 'real' business etc etc.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

banking is a real, and important job by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST

Which is why it is so important that it is done properly, and my main concern with the bail out is not the cost, but that it does nothing that I can see to address the systematic failure of the system.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: Ah by Phage (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:22:48 PM EST

It's like anything.
As soon as you make a set of rules, some smart bugger will find a loophole to exploit. The history of market regulation and accounting standards is one of an arms race, fuelled by corporate collapses and frauds.
Essentially, a few people found a way to get rich. Other people either chose not to see it, were ignorant of it, or joined the gravy train. This created the bubble. I'm not sure that we can prevent a bubble happening again.
We may be able to prevent another credit bubble, but some smart arse will think another way...

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Doom, gloom and alternatives by R Mutt (4.00 / 3) #24 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:19:53 AM EST

I don't think it's clear that the "do nothing" option is riskier than the "bailout" option.

"Do nothing" certainly risks some kind of recession: as credit dries up, it will be harder for businesses to borrow for investment, and harder for consumers to get mortgages to buy homes.

However, the market will eventually recover. And in the meantime, "real" businesses can still raise money with bond issues and stock sales.

The thing is, as far as I can see, nobody has any kind of model that can predict this kind of disequilibrium situation. Especially since "confidence" is such a big factor.

It could be a prolonged, severe depression. Or it could turn around next week. Nobody knows.

Meanwhile, the bailout carries its own risks.

Moral hazard may mean we have a similar crisis a few years later, since the institutions know they can be bailed out
It's being sold as a temporary loan since the bad assets will retain their value. That may never happen
The extra money may create inflation
The bailout may exacerbate the problem, as all the lenders buy the new-issued treasury bills instead of lending to "real" businesses
The bailout may be insufficiently large

Again, because this is a disequilibrium situation, nobody knows what the effects of the bailout will be.

It seems to be basically impossible to quantify the risks of either option. I've been following the econoblogs on this, and it's striking how few numbers there are in the debate.

So given that we have no idea how to quantify the risks of either option, why go for the one that costs $700 billion?

[ Parent ]

Bog knows where that number came from. by Phage (2.00 / 0) #28 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST

But I have to take issues with this.

"real" businesses can still raise money with bond issues and stock sales.

What is a 'real' business ? Bonds include premiums and an interest calculation to reflect their risk. If there is no confidence, this market will also dry up. Equities ? With no confidence who's going to buy them ?

There is no 'real' busines. Do you mean manufacturing and primary producers ? There is no investment without risk, even for manufacturers and miners. In fact, especially for them. Financial markets exist so as to enable the minimisation of risk.

Grasping this is fundamental to understanding what's going on. Using phrases such as 'real' business' are emotive, and lacking in rigor.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

: Real means anything not financial sector by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #46 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST

Not a bank, not a hedge fund.
As in the way we're always being told that we need to bail out the financial sector or the "real economy" will start to suffer.
The banks are apparently reluctant to lend to each other because they think they're all about to go bust. Bonds and shares allow non-banks: individuals and "real" companies, to exchange money with each other.
Example. Savers are running scared because they think the banks are all going bust. McDonalds is having trouble borrowing money to upgrade its equipment. If McDonalds issues bonds or shares: I, a saver, can buy them. McDonalds gets its investment capital, I get to put my savings somewhere I'm likely to get a long-term reward. No banks involved.
Now, banks are useful middlemen. But markets are pretty good at finding ways to match buyers and sellers. With less lending by banks, with a certain time and to a certain extent, other means of capitalizing companies will increase.
codemonkey_uk is pretty accurate when he points out that there is a steady succession of bank failures and taxpayer bailouts. Is the usefulness of these middlemen really worth the price of these endless bailouts?

[ Parent ]

You can certainly have AN economy without banks by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #15 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:18:55 AM EST

Just not necessarily the most effective one.

Apparently Islamic banking is coping with the credit crunch a lot better, since their lending always has to be tied to real assets. Maybe it's time to introduce Sharia law for bankers...

[ Parent ]

even the interbank stuff? by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:34:12 AM EST

That's the one that makes people nervous.

[ Parent ]

: No... by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:57:23 AM EST

As we've been endlessly told, the problem with the credit crisis its that it's going to affect the credit supply to the Wider Economy. So stick to providing credit for that.

[ Parent ]

Good idea by gpig (4.00 / 1) #7 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:38:18 AM EST

but unfortunately I suspect the EU would (ironically) regard this as anticompetitive and shut it down.
---
(, ,') -- eep
"This option is deprecated, as it is conceptually flawed." -- man psql
[ Parent ]

Well by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:55:25 AM EST

I think any kind of major Eurobailout is going to have to get past competition law somehow, or require it to be changed.

[ Parent ]

: True by gpig (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:02:47 AM EST

At least there's some hope that here the bailout will be of the equity-buying variety, rather than the US one which looks an awful lot like free money for banks.
(On the other hand, the EU has already created a carbon credit scheme which looks an awful lot like free money for power companies, so I'm not holding my breath).
---
(, ,') -- eep
"This option is deprecated, as it is conceptually flawed." -- man psql
[ Parent ]

'once-in-a-lifetime crisis' by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:19:52 AM EST

It's a lie. I talk about it in this comment in ucblockhead's diary. I'm not an expert on this, but a little digging will show you the banks fuck up like this fairly frequently, and there is nothing, not one iota of evidence, not one mechanism or assurance, that it can not or will not happen again.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

One problem I have with it by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:45:44 AM EST

Is it's not even certain it'll help the situation. The money could just disappear into a black hole. There are much more reliable ways to help an economy if you're going to spend that sort of money.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

: if I had the time... by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:50:16 AM EST

I'd spend some time with google and the search terms: "rationalisations gambling addiction concord fallacy".

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

If a game developer goes bust by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #19 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:47:36 AM EST

It's sad for the employees and the creditors. When a large international bank crashes, everything to do with finance is completely screwed due to all the positions that the bank holds with other financial institutions let alone with its own depositors.

Hence banks are more regulated than game developers but obviously not enough as we can see at the present. Thing is the FSA, the regulator in the UK, was a light touch and the US has multiple overlapping regulators so a lot of this risky crap was missed.

So? by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:11:10 AM EST

Their fate is somehow more special? I don't buy it. More specifically, I don't by the idea that giving them tax payers money will make the situation better. It is a house of cards, yes, and lots of people living in that house of cards are affected by it's collapse, yes, but it's still a house of cards, and piling more cards onto it doesn't change that at all.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

well by bobdole (2.00 / 0) #54 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:19:51 AM EST

I guess if the game industry would let it self be regulated by the same tight (well in most of Europe anyway) regulations that govern the banking.biz we could start talking about bailing out failing game developers.

However I guess that regulating the gaming industry would not help in making it profitable, but it would probably make it more risk averse, by regulations. In turn leading to fewer brilliant games, but a lot more of the boring, but safe games (oooh another solitaire!).

-- The revolution will not be televised.
[ Parent ]

reply by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #55 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:33:06 AM EST

As a whole, the games industry is already very risk averse, and developers with original games ideas really struggle to get funding.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

actually by bobdole (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:36:36 AM EST

I just read that the Norwegian government is sponsoring the Norwegian game industry with just over £1M in the coming national budget, and the Norwegian film institute is matching the funds.
Over here it's become a trend that the government has realised that the gaming industry actually produces both smart minds and has spin-offs into other areas of science....

-- The revolution will not be televised.
[ Parent ]

And Canada... by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:49:52 AM EST

Yeah, Canada are pushing to become the Hollywood / Silicon Valley of Games, with tax incentives, as well:

Ontario's Ministry of Economic Development and Trade has set aside $1.15 billion to fund digital media, game and tech companies who create jobs, use "green" manufacturing processes and who move or create a location in the province.

Ontario claims the "most generous R&D tax credits of any G7 country," promising overall savings up to 60 percent, and says its incentive programs to attract digital media companies aim to help the province in "dominating the world when it comes to creating video games."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20439

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: but isn't it by bobdole (2.00 / 0) #58 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:58:49 AM EST

Wonder what we are going to do with all these state funded games... Wouldn't it be easier to just nationalise¹ a few big game developers and then reap the profits directly?

[1] seems popular to nationalise stuff these days...

-- The revolution will not be televised.
[ Parent ]

The Entire Debt of Africa Is Only $350 Billion by gpig (4.00 / 1) #21 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:03:12 AM EST

Fantastic article on Worldchanging:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008797.html

---
(, ,') -- eep
"This option is deprecated, as it is conceptually flawed." -- man psql

: Oh, but we can't possibly forgive their debt by gzt (4.00 / 1) #34 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST

It would wreak havoc on our economy.

[ Parent ]

On the radio yesterday, while I was driving home, by greyrat (4.00 / 2) #25 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:39:08 AM EST

some gummit fucker (I've got to find it on the web somewhere) was explaining on NPR how it's not a bailout:

"The Merkin taxpayers are buying investments! This is a good thing! The gummit has the time and expertise to untangle these investments and find the profitable paper and return that value to the taxpayer. We could very well see a profit out of this in a few years"

Time? Expertise? Investment? Profit?

My face turned red (I presume) and I shrieked at the top of my lungs to my fellow commuters in their cages: "We'll be welcomed as liberators! The streets will be full of flowers and sweets! The war and recovery will be entirely funded by oil revenue!"

Another verse of the SAME FUCKING SONG!!!

Are Merkins really that stupid? Apparently so...
Are

I saw this the other day and it made me laugh ... by me0w (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:49:47 AM EST

Click here!

"There's really only one sexually related thing I'm good at: Producing incredibly volumous amounts of spooge on a regular basis." - ni

He forgot... by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 2) #27 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST

116 Large Hadron Colliders.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Or by Herring (4.00 / 1) #47 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST

One really fucking massive hadron collider. And some beer.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

: heh by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #48 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:51:01 PM EST

Not heineken.

[ Parent ]

kill corporate indemnity and corporate personship by lm (4.00 / 1) #31 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST

The real solution is twofold. First, remove indemnity for corporate officers and shareholders so that they face the true risks associated with the consequences of their actions. Second, revoke the legal fiction of corporate personhood.

Without these two things, shareholders will never pay attention to corporate governance to the extent that they should and society at large foots the real risks that only shareholders should be facing. That a corporation can go into bankruptcy and its creditors are unable to go after the assets of the shareholders means that shareholders get all of the upside of risky behavior but their downside is limited to their initial investment.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

So buy some shares by Phage (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST

Or is there something you're missing ?

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

yeah, money by lm (4.00 / 1) #35 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM EST

But that's besides the point. What is good for the individual investor (having someone else subsume the actual risks of investment) isn't good for the general public (who get saddled with the risks but none of the profit).

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

There is no reward without risk by Phage (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM EST

Risks can be shared, off-set and otherwise minimised, but cannot be removed.

The point is that there will always be risk. We require it. Your statement that you get none of the profit is only true becuase you do not buy shares.

The lack of ability to participate in markets through insufficient wealth is now causing everyone to take the 'moral' high ground where none exists.

(it could be argued that we all participate indirectly, but that's for another time)

We all want to be able point the finger and lay blame, when it's not that simple, we all benefited in the short term. The fact that we did so blindly, lead by the wallet to bigger houses and plasma TVs is rather beside the point.

These arguments smack of envy, misapprehension and fear. Pogrom anyone ?

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

that's a piss poor argument by lm (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST

First it assumes that everyone has the means to buy shares. Second it distributes the risks of those that buy shares aggressively to those who would rather buy shares conservatively (or not at all) yet does not offer those that decline to buy high risk shares any of the upside of having done so.

Lastly, my point isn't necessarily that this is unjust (although I do think that a good argument can be made for that) so much as regardless of whether the government bails out the banks this time the same thing is going to keep happening because the system as it stands is prone to that behavior.

I don't see any envy, misapprehension or fear in that criticism. That's like saying that someone who doesn't want to redistribute profits on the basis of the inversion of the two above points has an argument that smacks of greed, misapprehension and selfishness. It's a bollocks move to make in a discussion.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

: Not shares by Phage (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST

Markets.
You have a house. You may have a pension of some sort, you may have savings. These are all investments.
See my reply to Codemonkey for your other points. Yes it will happen agin - guaranteed.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

oh please by dev trash (4.00 / 1) #49 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:39:37 PM EST

The poor would have just pissed it away on Bud Lite.

--
Click

No no no. Bud Lime by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #50 Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:07:04 PM EST

The sweet taste of Bud Lite with the subtle taste of natural lime flavor. Bud Lime. The choice of Steven Colbert.

[ Parent ]

: Bud Lime by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #51 Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 08:08:22 PM EST

I first saw their 'Summer' commercials a week before Labor Day.

--
Click
[ Parent ]

You say that like it's a bad thing by lm (2.00 / 0) #52 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST

The more poor people buy Bud Lite, the workers Bud hires to make Bud Lite. Those workers, in turn piss away their salaries on Bud Lite, making it necessary to hire more workers to make more Bud Lite ...

Oh, and in between pissing away their money on Bud Lite, they also buy TVs and dinners at McDonalds, etc. So giving money to the poor is a great way to put money into the economy.

As opposed to giving it to the rich who invest most of it in investment vehicles they don't really understand but which their personal financial manager thinks is the next new, big thing.

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 have a feeling by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:25:00 PM EST

You like when windows are broken.

--
Click
[ Parent ]

I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: