Slashdot Mirror
Nothing To Fear But Fearlessness Itself?
theodp writes "In a post last August, Robert X. Cringely voiced fears that Goldman Sachs and others were not so much evil as 'clueless about the implications of their work,' leaving it up to the government to fix any mess they leave behind. 'But what if government runs out of options,' worried Cringely. 'Our economic policy doesn't imagine it, nor does our foreign policy, because superpowers don't acknowledge weakness.' And now his fears are echoed in a WSJ opinion piece by Peggy Noonan titled 'We're Governed by Callous Children.' She writes, 'We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists — they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.' With apologies to FDR, do we have nothing to fear but fearlessness itself?"
...to really see it in action. The state legislature approval rating was approaching single digits last I heard.
Do you think a single one of those scumbags give a gnat's fart about it?
They don't have to- not with district boundaries drawn like fractals and the vast majority of you voting the Party line.
Basically, the thesis of this piece is the same thing the right wing has been pushing since Reagan's time: government can't work. Nothing that comes out of government can ever be good. We might as well just give up.
Maybe she's right, but history isn't on her side. So this sounds more like sour grapes: Peggy has no hope, because her people have no relevance, and she doesn't like who's in power. So she hopes we will listen to her and lose hope as well, because that way nobody will have hope. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the independents, not the geeks. In that nihilistic world, her folks can waltz in and take over the government and keep pouring our tax dollars into their pockets the way they did under Reagan and both Bushes. Government doesn't work. Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton and Xe.
If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated. Yet in this case, we have companies (and hence employees) that are "too big|valuable|important too fail" so they get bailed out.
If I did this at my company (I manage a large mainframe storage environment at a recognizable financial institution on WallStreet), say by blowing away a ton of customer data, I can guarantee I would be walked to the door before the end of the day.
People in peer departments of mine (like those than manage the networks, server admins etc) that have no input to the investment direction of this company's holdings, have lost bonuses, haven't been able to purchase equipment and staff has been cut. We had nothing to do with this bullsh!t, and yet us like the rest of American's are having to suffer while the MBAs reap in the dollars that the Federal Gov't is handing out.
I wish I could get a $200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage. Maybe I'll go power off the z10 and see if Obama will bail out my unemployed ass.
We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods.
Easier said than done. If you do, people stop giving loans, which is the most straightforward way of making money from money. That means no new small businesses, no student loans, no mortgages.
Right now, one of the most interesting ideas in improving life in poor countries is precisely to introduce making money from money. Small loans, with interest, help create vital services. The interest helps fund the continuation as some projects fail.
Capitalism is not the automatic win that the "laissez-faire" crowd presents it as; the problems are real and do not fix themselves (at least not without harming vast numbers of innocent people in the process). But neither is it the automatic evil socialists imagine it to be.
Okay, so in pretty Peggy's view anything that government does by way of governing won't work. (Didn't she write Reagan's line, "Government is the problem"?) Since Democrats to some extent believe government can be, and should be, effective - well, we should just give up on this. We should become disheartened as Democrats. If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?" Pretty clearly it's the shrinking demographic which still identifies as Republican: prevalently old, white, and living in the Deep South - people who last liked government when it was run by Jefferson Davis.
Well, I'm middle aged, white, and live in New England. I'm hopeful. The way through looks obvious, and I see an administration with a fairly good vision of it - even if they're not going nearly far enough in regulating Peggy's friends on the street her Journal's named after. It's so brightly obvious, it's almost blinding. It's based on government, businesses, and individuals each doing our part. Yes, government should not go too far in controlling businesses; but in return businesses have to back way off, as they've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government. Why do people like Peggy never worry when businesses control government too much?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The "top" people in both government and business are spoiled children. From Bill Gates to GW Bush, they had everything handed to them, and when things got tough, their parents bailed them out. In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US, it has never been about merit. It's always been about money, and now we can see what that has bred.
We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers, but it's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor. Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale. It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity. It's mind blowing to see the same attitude applied to C level executives who think they are entitled to year over year growth, and bonuses, regardless of how bad things really are.
And things are bad. The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year. None of them think they did anything wrong, and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is. When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats, who have no concept of the consequences of failure, is a stupid idea? Doesn't look like they've learned it this time. Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.
Silence is Foo!
Psychopaths have the desire to reach leadership positions because that way, they can gain the most profit for themselves (not just monetary profit), and they also have the best tools to reach leadership positions, by manipulating others - something psychopaths excel at.
Psychopathic executives will not blink to destroy their own company, a whole industry, or cause food poisoning, water and air pollution, lower the standard of living of hundreds of millions - as long as they have profit out of it. Wake up, guys, with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet, corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The real problem, is that there is no simple answer. Only a complex one.
Is capitalism or socialism the answer? Yes.
Yes, because BOTH are the answer, at the same time.
Allow me to try to explain this, before you explode.
There are things government does well and things private individuals do well, but they are NOT restricted each to a field.
This means that private individuals should be free to engage in business, but not without any controls and limitations. And government should be allowed to interfere if it serves society as a whole better.
You had a little while ago the laughable story about the US press. You saw several posts commenting that either a state run media or a company run media are the only alternatives.
How idiotic, everyone knows that in Europe, BOTH exists, besides each other, fighting each other tooth and nail. THAT is how you get progress. If you think a state run media alone can be independent, you are insane, although not nearly as insane as the idea that company run media will be independent. Fox News is company owned. Case closed.
The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual and that this balance can NEVER be achieved, you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth. Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or doesn't swing back.
The problem is that you can't get elected with this policy. You need to pick a side and that means in the US that the pendulum can be pulled to far of the center. That is what happened with the credit crisis, to many administrations, from both sides, who did not excersise the control of the state on the financial institutions.
We need to get away from the idea that their is ONE ideology that is the answer. Uncontrolled financial markets are clearly not the answer but neither is total control. What you need to have is the right control at the right time but that can't be achieved, so you need to accept the situation that sometimes there is a bit to much control and sometimes to little without going to extremes.
This middle path is NOT taking the road of least resistance, on the contrary, you will face opposition from all sides, but it is the only one that has been proven to work.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Bullshit.
We have exactly three types of politicians: the ones who inherited money (didn't lift a fucking finger to earn it), the lawyers (the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things), and the racist fucks who get donations everytime they say something stupid (see also: Robert "KKK" Byrd, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc).
Ok, we have that one guy over there who isn't, but he's a used car salesman. Would you trust a used car salesman either?
Oh, and California? What a perfect example. The Granola State (home of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes) deserves what they got for electing who they elected.
That's callous and unreasonable. (1) We haven't had any good alternatives in a long time. (2) Everyone is too caught up on the lesser-of-two-evils mentality brought about by our first-past-the-post method of election (I'd be surprised if you lived somewhere different in this regards). Combine that with gerrymandering, and congress stagnates. (3) California is said to have the 5th largest economy in the world. Our government hurts our economy (without question) which ripples throughout the rest of the states. (4) The country as a whole has a tendency to follow California's lead. This doesn't predict the future, but it's worrisome. (5) Only the federal government is more beholden to a plethora of special interest groups, making real action nearly impossible to mobilize. (6) Not every Californian voted for these idiots. You're blaming a lot of innocent people. Yes, I've voted for third party candidates before. (I'd support an actual third party if any of them reflected my political views.)
I'm not asking for an apology. Just be careful who you lump in with the "Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes".
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The education system (run by the left wing for the past 30 years)
As I'm not living in the US, could you expand on that a bit? Not living in the US anymore, the only time I hear about political fighting in the schools is when religions zealots complain about not teaching their world view(creationism/ID) as fact. That, and not forcing everyone to adhere to their own religious practices in school. Neither of those sound very left/right to me, more sanity vs. disturbed.
Here is an example ... my son won't eat honey because it 'exploits' bees. I explained to him then that he had better stop eating many fruits, because the fruits are also pollinated by those same exploited bees. He simply grabbed onto an idea without really looking at what 'exploited' really means because it suited his purpose, not eating honey.
This is a really stupid example. Fruit is not the product of a bee's labor. They are out there pollinating plants, so that they can make their own food. Which is then "stolen" by a beekeeper. This is very different from what humans do when they eat fruit, even though bees are often tangentially related to that process.
Here's what "exploit" means:
1.To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2.To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See synonyms at manipulate.
3.To advertise; promote
Which of these do you think your kid meant? Obviously, number two. You seem to think number one is the ONLY definition that matters. You said as much when you insinuated that your kid "latched on" to an idea without even understanding what the words meant. Your son has an ethical issue with stealing food from animals. There is no contradiction between that and still wanting to eat the products animals help produce but do not consume.
In short, your kid is right. And you are wrong. And an insincere debater, at best.
I think she was talking about the Wall Street bankers and stock brokers who disproportionately come from wealthy families, go to prep schools, get degrees from ivy league schools and then go work at Goldman Sachs, Citi and JP Morgan. They also end being treasury secretaries, on the Federal Reserve and New York Fed (which is the body that actually runs Wall Street though its more like Wall Street runs it) and the President's economic advisors.
If you remember the resignation letter of Andrew Lahde after making a killing of the ivy leaguers and quitting rich:
"The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America."
The U.S. Senate also tends to be a rich kids club and is also the place that tends to do the most looking out for the rich, since one senator can often block legislation in the public interest to the benefit of special interest. John McCain for instance wasn't really rich enough so once he got out of Vietnam he dumped the wife that had stood by him while he was a POW and married a more attractive women who happened to be an heir to a sizable fortune of an Arizona beer distributor, and who were politically connected enough in Arizon to get him elected to the Senate.
And of course the Bush clan are the epitome of the stereotype though they've only been a part of America's new aristocracy for about a century.
One reason Carter, Clinton and Obama were so skewered in the White House is the rich WASP/Jewish aristocracy considers them to be poor trash and not worthy of running their piggy bank. Clinton and Obama in particular had stellar educations but were born to poverty so aren't acceptable by "the establishment".
@de_machina
No. In capitalism, the aristocrats -- the owners of capital -- are left free to make their own choices, and succeed by them, or be rescued by their cronies. The working classes -- including the professionals, all the folks who actual do productive work rather then skim off the top -- are left to scurry around in the footsteps of the giants, trying not to get crushed.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This is the conservative view on every topic of import: the status quo is the best system possible. (That the capitalist his or her self enjoys some privilege under the status quo is, of course, merely co-incidental.) "I can't imagine any system better than our slave plantations. It's always been this way and people don't change."
"I can't imagine any system better than keeping women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. It's always been this way and people don't change."
"I can't imagine any system better the segregation. It's always been this way and people don't change."
This is always the heart of the conservative view -- at least, that of mainstream American conservatism, of the sort that stands athwart history yelling "Stop!". It's always wrong, and always gets bowled over.
I suggest Tim Kreider's essay on the subject:
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Right; because there's no difference between someone who supports a family on $50k per year with no inheritance and someone who:
a) is supported their whole life and gets $millions in inheritance/giveaways
or
b) gets a job that pays $hundreds of thousands per year (or millions) because of who they/their parents know
All of those people have equal opportunity to invest, by which I mean be owners of the expensive things necessary to get work done rather than the people actually doing work.
I'm not saying people who start with no money can't succeed, or people who start with money are guaranteed to succeed. I'm saying people with a healthy start (or ludicrously easy start) discount just how many times they can fail without consequences, and how much easier it is to succeed, in comparison to people with a middling or disadvantaged start.
The WSJ article is highly un-balanced. While it talks repeatedly about the "sins" of too much government, it barely mentioned the role that deregulation played in the current mess.
Here's an exmaple:
The implication made is that they left mostly because of taxes. However, they never justify that with a reason-for-leaving survey, etc. They simply run with that assumption. The WSJ does this often, as do most Murdock-own publications.
Table-ized A.I.
I mean, you don't need Einstein to tell you than when you offload real risk from the lending institution to investors, that the lenders and their middle-men will make crater-loads of money, while people that buy the products that they off-load the risk to have no real idea of its trustworthiness. The fact that investment banks that then sold off these packages while at the same time making exotic and wildly speculative bets against (or on) them completely destabilized the international financial system.
If you want to blame the Community Reinvestment Act or other similar legislation to kickstart lending to low-income areas, you are free to, but to convince others you better have some real evidence to back it up.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
You're right in the fact that in a certain sense it is a good idea, and outsourcing to quality people(and as much as I've wished in the past it wasn't so, there are some damned good and highly qualified IT folks in India) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The problem with the American version of outsourcing is that it's very short sighted, like a lot of US policy government or otherwise.
Outsourcing is immensely profitable because you can buy goods at foreign prices and sell them to Americans at American prices. The problem with this is that as you lower employment in the US and move money overseas, there is less of it in the US to support US prices. Eventually the standard of living in the countries you outsourced to will rise increasing your outsourced costs, and the standard of living in the US will lower decreasing your revenues.
There's certainly something to be said for the idea that averaging out the world standard of living, but it's not a particularly great long term strategy for the US market. Particularly not luxury markets which may be cut out entirely if standard of living drops sufficiently.
That said, the United States economy is probably irrevocably fucked anyway at this point. The national debt skyrocketed out of control under Bush(even worse than it was under Reagan), and though I believe that most of the changes are necessary there's really no money left for any of Obama's plans to fix anything(isn't it funny that Reagan and the Dubya who are supposed to be from the party of small government are responsible for the vast majority of US debt?). The dollar is no longer considered safe and will likely continue dropping against nearly all major foreign currencies(possibly excluding the GBP which is also screwed). Most importantly, the US has done almost nothing to change any of the factors which got it into the position it is currently in. There has been no change in attitude towards sustainable economic policies(and I'm talking finance not environment here), or towards any of the economic stabilizers like workers rights and protection from unfair termination(you'd be amazed what having the vast majority of your population fairly confident they're not going to be randomly fired can to for keeping your economy a bit more stable). The US has been digging a hole under itself for a long time now, and it is about to fall in. It's going to be a long fall, and it may not be possible anymore to prevent it.
Personally this doesn't particularly please me for all that I live in another country now. I see a lot of people who want to see the US get its comeuppance, but I'm not sure how thrilled I am with the prospect of a world in which the primary super power is China. The US has made and continues to make an awful lot of mistakes, and it may be that the only way for us to learn from those mistakes is to face the consequences, but at the same time a large proportion of the western world depends on the US for military security. Even without that, while US foreign policy is often short sighted and misguided, it is largely well intentioned and I still hope that it isn't too late to prevent the coming fall.
You're right, I don't care about Indians or Chinese, nor do I think we ought to be supporting their welfare unless they want to become the 51st and 52nd states.
China you can argue is a country that is going to at least make good on the money we give it, an investment there is an investment in someone's future. However it stands for pretty much the exact opposite ideals that we stand for in the USA (and that Europeans generally want to believe in). They haven't met a civil liberty that they wouldn't trample. Their commitment to communism equals only their commitment to capitalism: the people may suffer as long as the status quo marches on. India? Replace evil ideals with poverty and corruption. Investing there is like flushing money down the toilet. How does that help anyone?
So in the process of impoverishing that American, you're also hurting his country, and also hurting the ideals that enable the free world to be free. You don't have to like America, but you would be a complete moron to not understand that the free world is safe, as long as we're here doing whatever we do. It doesn't matter if we're fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought in Iraq, or if we're late to show for world wars you do happen to care about, the key point is top to bottom we do value what we have and we will help protect it, as long as we have the resources and know how to do so. That doesn't mean that a few very short sighted people will not sell us out to make a quick buck, and then wake up one day wondering why the villagers are lined up outside their castle with pitchforks and torches.
It doesn't matter if you end up with a cheaper power tool if you lose the jobs required to pay for it, or you lose the edge on technology required to build more and better tools. Talking about "unskilled factory jobs" moving offshore was 30 years ago, we're losing science and engineering jobs at record rates. The only thing we're keeping are service jobs and managerial jobs, none of which is going to keep us in a position of power for very long. I don't know how many managers it takes to invent a light bulb, but I suspect it will get lost in committee before we find an answer.