Nothing To Fear But Fearlessness Itself?

Come to California... by Quiet_Desperation · 2009-11-01 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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.

Re:Come to California... by Afforess · 2009-11-01 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, Come to Michigan.

We've been in our own self-made depression for over a decade.

--
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
Re:Come to California... by Quiet_Desperation · 2009-11-01 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

And intellect gives way to mindless sloganeering. Congratulations. You are part of the problem.
Re:Come to California... by alen · 2009-11-01 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

and how many of them will get re-elected? everyone hates incumbents except when its the one who's representing you. I've lived in the US since 1981 and the last time I remember that people voted out incumbents was the Republican Revolution in 1994. 2 years into Bill Clinton's presidency, a tax increase and the defeat of hillarycare
Re:Come to California... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-01 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow, way to miss the point. The "mediocrity" you speak of is caused by "disinfranchised callous children" in government: which simply states that they may have "knowledge" of capitalism, but they do not "know" it. They have never experienced failure in their lives and therefor don't grasp the ways of capitalism.
Re:Come to California... by ScrewMaster · 2009-11-01 06:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

...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.
All I can say is, the Founders got a lot of things right. Including the fact that sometimes leaders squeeze the citizen to the point where he feels he doesn't have options. The Founders tried to enshrine the ability to eliminate such leadership by any means necessary, when necessary, into the core of our legal system. The only remaining question is ... at what point do we have to replace them the hard way? Apparently just voting them out doesn't have very much of an effect anymore.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Come to California... by GeckoAddict · 2009-11-01 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

the vast majority of you voting the Party line.
I think that's the real cause of a lot of problems with our elected officials.
Re:Come to California... by blahplusplus · 2009-11-01 06:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Apparently just voting them out doesn't have very much of an effect anymore."
Oswald spengler wrote about this a while ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West
Go down to "Democracy, media and money"
"Spengler's analysis of democratic systems argues that even the use of one's own constitutional rights requires money, and that voting can only really work as designed in the absence of organized leadership working on the election process. As soon as the election process becomes organized by political leaders, to the extent that money allows, the vote ceases to be truly significant. It is no more than a recorded opinion of the masses on the organizations of government over which they possess no positive influence whatsoever."
Re:Come to California... by commodore64_love · 2009-11-01 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

You should have elected the Republican. He was a businessman who, even in Michigan's power economy, managed to succeed and had plans to use his contacts to bring more business to Michigan, so everyone could get jobs.
Instead you re-elected Granholm, who had done nothing her first four years and hasn't done anything the second four years. She's just perpetuated the "do nothing and government will take care of you like a big daddy" welfare state. She's encouraged sloth not industriousness.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Come to California... by commodore64_love · 2009-11-01 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's because the politicians encourage everyone to vote.
That's because the politicians know most people have no clue - they just pick the name they recognize.
Most of the time the name they recognize is the incumbent - "Hmmmm. Bush or Kerry. I never heard of Kerry, so I'll just pick Bush."
What we should be doing is encouraging people Not to vote, unless they feel very strongly about the person. It would weed-out those "I don't know who I'm gonna vote for" persons who really have no clue.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Come to California... by SerpentMage · 2009-11-01 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

No the fault is with the people themselves!
Is America a democracy, yes or no? Do Americans not vote who will represent themselves yes or no?
The issue here is that politicians have learned that it is easier to get people to agree to a hot button issue like abortion and distract them from the issues that matter. People themselves are faulted here! The politicians are only doing what they need to get re-elected.
Sarah Palin is an excellent example of a nitwit politician who knows how to play the hot button issues. She is smarter than most people give her credit for.
If people actually paid attention to the issues and stopped voting on emotions then politicians might change.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Come to California... by Wildclaw · 2009-11-01 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

People who always vote for the same party. It is simple really. People go on about how votes for third parties doesn't count. But that is a pure lie.
The only vote that doesn't count is the vote that always stay the same, the predictable vote. Because no one has to make an effort to gain that vote. It is simply free.
Re:Come to California... by amRadioHed · 2009-11-01 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, the real problem is our voting system which encourages this lousy bi-partisan system.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Come to California... by commodore64_love · 2009-11-01 09:14 · Score: 5, Informative

It's funny how that didn't happen in the 1800s. We had all kinds of parties in Congress, like the Anti Masonic, Nullifier, Whig, Conservative, Law and Order, American, Free Soil, Greenback, Labor, Populist, Liberal Republican, and so on.
Today's Congress has none of them. Not one. What's changed? The Lie. "Don't vote third party," is the lie. Third parties won seats in Congress in the past and most-certainly can win seats today.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Come to California... by NewToNix · 2009-11-01 10:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Is America a democracy, yes or no? Do Americans not vote who will represent themselves yes or no?
America is a Republic. So No to the first question.
In the second question you seem to miss the Electoral College in both fact and concept. The President is elected by a group that may vote as they please (not necessarily as they were expected to vote by those that elected them). This non direct coupling applies to all levels of government --once elected they may chose to do things much differently then you believed they would when you voted for them. So a yes as to vote, but at best a maybe on 'does who I voted for actually do as I expected him/her to, once in office' --the implied part of the second question.
These sort of yes/no questions are rarely productive, except to frame the answer in a way the questioner wants.
Example: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no. --either way you answer you confess to being a wife beater.
For most people political issues ARE emotional issues. This is possibly regrettable, but one should learn to deal with reality, if you want to change that reality into your own personal version.

Sarah Palin is an excellent example of a nitwit politician who knows how to play the hot button issues. She is smarter than most people give her credit for.
If Sarah Palin is both a nitwit, and smarter then most people, then is she not of above average intelligence and therefore as qualified as anyone (and apparently more qualified then most) to have an opine? Just asking --it's rhetorical --and intentionally side steps Palin's actual value or lack thereof.
Re:Come to California... by mi · 2009-11-01 11:11 · Score: 3, Informative

And here is the 1999 New York Times article matter-of-factly reporting on Fannie Mae easing credit to aid mortgage lending:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Come to California... by TheRaven64 · 2009-11-01 11:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's changed?
The number of voters represented by each congressman.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Come to California... by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-11-01 11:43 · Score: 3, Informative

There was a reduction of the national debt during the 90s-era Republican Congress (1997, 98 and 99 to be specific).
And who controlled congress during the Bush spending spree before the Democrats took over congress? Who controlled congress during the reductions in deficit in the 50s-80s? It's right here. The Democrats controlled both branches of congress right up until Reagan took the presidency and the Republicans took the senate. You can't have it both ways: you can't blame the president when it was Bush in the white house and then blame the Republicans in congress when it was Clinton who was president.

But, since you trotted out the same argument you always hear, here is the data that shows that on average, the deficit is reduced under democratic control of congress as well as under democratic presidents. The correlation just isn't as strong. The bottom line is that, statistically, Democratic party governments do a better job at reducing the deficit!

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Re:Come to California... by hedwards · 2009-11-01 12:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Because it did. This was the inevitable result of upping the FDIC insurance to an unwarranted 100k back in the early 80s, Greenspan's incompetent policy of being easy in good times and even easier in terrible times. Combined with tax rates on short term investments which are and were far too low to discourage irresponsible short term trading.

Not to mention policies in place which coddle and encourage incompetent business practices to flourish without the need to worry about failing.

Or in other words, if you look at all those things, it's not really too hard to see where business was having it's say. I'm not sure how anybody could seriously suggest that it's anybody else but leaders of industry that were pushing the hardest for those ill conceived ideas to be put into practice and throwing a hissy fit if the Fed even hinted that interest rates might go back where they belong.
Re:Come to California... by blahplusplus · 2009-11-01 12:06 · Score: 5, Informative

"How is it that, with such easy access to information, people still think the crash had anything to do with business? "
More right wing lies.
As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
In Slate, Daniel Gross, senior editor of Newsweek, lays out the right wing mantra on the financial crisis:
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641
On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.
The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
* * * * * * * *
The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glo
Re:Come to California... by macshit · 2009-11-01 12:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sarah Palin is an excellent example of a nitwit politician who knows how to play the hot button issues. She is smarter than most people give her credit for.
If Sarah Palin is both a nitwit, and smarter then most people, then is she not of above average intelligence and therefore as qualified as anyone (and apparently more qualified then most) to have an opine? Just asking --it's rhetorical --and intentionally side steps Palin's actual value or lack thereof.
He didn't say Palin is "smarter than most people", he said she's "smarter than most people give her credit for".
In other words, if most people think Palin is a complete moron, with the intelligence of a particularly dim bacterium, but she's actually as smart as a special-needs fruit-fly, then although she may be really stupid, she's still smarter than people think she is.
Given most people's low opinion of Palin's intelligence, this wouldn't be surprising...

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Come to California... by blahplusplus · 2009-11-01 13:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Try RTFA you are clearly misinformed.
"There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

Money for Something by hachete · 2009-11-01 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. As a socialist, I applaud takeovers; they always lose money. As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.

--
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious

Re:Money for Something by jfengel · 2009-11-01 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Money for Something by maxwell+demon · 2009-11-01 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Capitalism is not the automatic win that the "laissez-faire" crowd presents it as
The "win" is not in the end result being to everyone's liking. The "win" is in the fact that everyone is left free to make his own choices and succeed or fail by them.
The problem is that one person's choice may cause other people fail. This is the point which usually is forgotten.
There are some choices which harm other people very directly, like just taking their money away (also known as stealing). Those obvious ways of succeeding on the cost of others are forbidden, and for good reasons. However, as soon as the connection isn't as direct, it often isn't any more forbidden to harm others for your own profit.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Money for Something by css-hack · 2009-11-01 07:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

But we have a problem when the stability of the entire economic system relies on the stability of the debt/equity/commodities 'markets'.
We have a problem because the behaviour of the market is really the behaviour of millions of people around the world speculating on the future value of things (some better informed, others less so, none with a clear picture of the whole).
Them's as play the market for profit are gambling, and that's well accepted. But in this system, even those that choose not to gamble can be adversely affected by market fluctuations. eg1: When the market crashes, opportunities to do real work diminish, because everyone's afraid to spend. eg2: Without making interest, somehow the money you save for retirement will be worth almost nothing by the time you need it. eg3: The price of steel/oil/corn/housing/something-you-make-or-use fluctuates. All based on someone else's speculation.
You surely do succeed and fail by your own choices in the capitalist system, but so do you succeed and fail by your own choices in a game like poker. A good player will probably come out ahead. Probably.
Re:Money for Something by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-01 08:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

The "win" is in the fact that everyone is left free to make his own choices and succeed or fail by them.
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
Re:Money for Something by poopdeville · 2009-11-01 08:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't be an idiot. Everybody with a bank account is an "owner of capital."

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:Money for Something by wurp · 2009-11-01 09:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Money for Something by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-01 09:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Everybody with a bank account is an "owner of capital."
Only in the same sense that anyone who walks in an "athlete".
We live in a society where a small class of aristocrats -- the top of the L-curve -- control the economic resources.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Money for Something by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-11-01 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't be an idiot. Everybody with a bank account is an "owner of capital."
And laws against vagrancy are completely egalitarian - the millionaire is no more permitted to sleep on the street than is the poorest pauper.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Money for Something by poopdeville · 2009-11-01 10:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right; because there's no difference between someone who supports a family on $50k per year with no inheritance and someone who: blah blah blah
The point is, the middle class owns the vast majority of American capital. All savings is investment. This is a trivial accounting identity.
Your ideology isn't going to change that. Whining about the "owners of capital", when they're you and your friends and your family and neighbors is not productive. Calling the largest segment of the American population an "aristocracy" is utterly foolish.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:Money for Something by poopdeville · 2009-11-01 10:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

The vast majority of American capital is owned by the middle class. This, of course, is why a Wall Street crash is hard on retirees, and not really anybody else.
Nobody controls "economic resources" except the forces of supply and demand. Least of all, Wall Street, which is what I presume you are trying to get at. If Wall Street could control supply and demand, we would never have any economic troubles. The whole melt down was caused by a demand shock when banks started failing.
Presumably, you are whining that only a small minority of people are responsible for very large investments. But nothing is stopping you from joining them. All you need is a solid business plan, and they will loan you three times your current net worth, in order to pursue your idea. All they ask is that they get a cut, for their trouble. Heck, if you have good management experience and a solid business plan but not much capital, they'll finance your entire operation.
All it takes is the initiative to do it. Why should trillions of dollars just sit in bank accounts, doing nothing, when they can be put to work for the good of many, or even all? Because a few lucky/evil/etc people struck it rich?

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:Money for Something by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-02 03:41 · Score: 4, Informative

The vast majority of American capital is owned by the middle class.
No. First, the top 5 percent own more than half -- i.e., the majority -- of all wealth. Second, most of those stocks in middle-class retirement funds are not owned by those middle-class people, they're owned by the Wall Street financial services corporations, and so are controlled by the boards of those corporations. The account holders are customers, not owners.

Nobody controls "economic resources" except the forces of supply and demand.
Uh, no. The resources used for economic production -- land, natural resources, factories, money, ideas (copyrights and patents) -- all are privately owned and controlled.

Presumably, you are whining that only a small minority of people are responsible for very large investments. But nothing is stopping you from joining them.
I'm not "whining" about anything, I'm pointing out that a system of centralized power is good for those who have the power, and not for the rest of us.
But several things are stopping me from being ultra-rich. First, I cannot afford to waste my time collecting dollars: I have little desire to be rich. (Prosperous, yes, of course.) But more than that, as a person of strong ethical character I see few ways to accumulate large amounts of wealth that don't involve unethical behavior. Finally, to become rich in our society it's pretty much necessary to start that way -- the U.S. has very poor intergenerational class mobility.

All they ask is that they get a cut, for their trouble.
What trouble? They provide no labor. They take some risk of not getting their money back, but so do people at the blackjack table. We don't consider them virtuous.
And they take more than a cut: in our capitalist system, the majority of the value created by labor is skimmed off by the investment class.
The U.S. GDP is about $14 trillion. Our workforce is about 150 million people. The average American worker creates about $93,000 worth of value a year. Do they receive a salary that reflects that? Nope. Most of that amount goes to interest, dividends, and rents paid to various investors, people who didn't do the work but reap the benefit -- and most of it goes to the aristocracy.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by mellon · 2009-11-01 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by wizardforce · 2009-11-01 06:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government when they've just been victimized by the last one. Massive corporate welfare, war and rampant waste. Bush was one of the greatest examples of government gone wrong and people actually believe that more of that is a good thing. These corporations are using the power of government to rob the people. Bush wasn't anti-government. After all, his administration passed the patriot act, instituted torture, started two wars, began a massive trillion dollar bank bailout, increased spending more than LBJ... What did he do exactly that makes people believe that he in any way represented the view that "government doesn't work." If anything, it's one of the examples of government that doesn't serve the people by violating rights and through sheer incompetence.

--
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by wizardforce · 2009-11-01 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think you'll find that the people who actually make the decisions are decidedly not strictly anti-government types. They're whatever benefits me at the moment types and if weaker government furthers that then they'll push for it and if stronger government furthers their goals, they'll push for that. Everyone to some extent is the same way, they try to further their own interests in the ways that they can. The problem comes when the two major power groups feed off of one another and screw the populace. The lesson here is that concentrated power in both its major forms is generally dangerous.

--
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by maxwell+demon · 2009-11-01 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government when they've just been victimized by the last one.
What is it that most people seem to be only able to hold extreme views? Government handling everything and government handling nothing is both equally bad. There are things better handled by government, and there are things better not handled by government. If government handles things it shouldn't, it's bad. If government doesn't handle things it should, it's equally bad.
Now in many cases deciding whether it is better handled by government or not isn't easy. But the world just is complicated, live with it. Extreme positions are simply wrong.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by wizardforce · 2009-11-01 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is that the current president has shown no signs of reversing damage that the last administration had done and is starting to add more things which may or may not be bad on top of that. I don't consider opposition to the government expansion that Bush did to be an extreme position. Nor criticism of state spending habits when the maintenance of bridges and roads take a back seat to everything else. Bush exploited the power given to him through government; he was a warning sign that something is very wrong with the system.

--
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by russotto · 2009-11-01 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

But the dial we're most concerned about is the competence dial. We want to turn that dial up.
When we're already in the situation of tyranny tempered by incompetence, the last thing I want is more competence.
Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by poopdeville · 2009-11-01 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're better off with a competent government. After all, the military is already quite competent. If another civil war broke out, the military would already oppress us quite competently. So we've got the problems of competence with none of the benefits.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece by icebrain · 2009-11-01 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd suspect this blind loyalty is due to two things.
First, a lot of people seem to be raised and indoctrinated with a particular viewpoint even as young children. From a young age, they're told repeatedly how bad the "other guys" are, and told what they need to believe in. Rather than develop their own views based on experience and reason, they're basically told "here's what you're supposed to think, now justify it".
Second are the people who develop their own opinion on one issue, find the party/group that supports it, and then blindly supports the rest of those views without even looking at them.
Frankly, I'm sick of all the partisan bullshit in this country. We have representatives being lambasted for representing the views of their constituents instead of marching the party line. We have people expressing virulent hatred for people of the "other party" when they can't even give a reasonable explanation of an issue to begin with--all they know is the filmmaker/talk-radio host/community organizer/pastor told them it's bad, and by $deity, that's what they're going to believe.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.

Why are they still employed? by HockeyPuck · 2009-11-01 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Why are they still employed? by debrain · 2009-11-01 15:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
It has been observed that companies that are "too big to fail" will, instead of attempting to remedy or avoid their calamity, ensure their own disaster on the basis that the have a guaranteed bail-out. This perverse incentive is one form of the moral hazard.
In essence, being too big to fail has become a form of (unpaid for/externalized) insurance against failure because you can rely on the taxpayer to bail you out. The likelihood (and amount) of a bailout increases with the magnitude of your failure.

atlas yawned by JackSpratts · 2009-11-01 06:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

i don't buy noonan's premise. most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization. it's true that the profoundly destitute among us, the homeless, the institutionalized etc rarely make it past the intention to run but this recurring conservative refrain that the country is held hostage by an arrogant and privileged elite (by definition "liberal") is nothing more than a constant whine from a group of philosophically bankrupt extremists who don't have the intellectual firepower to understand why we're not all in thrall to alissa rosenbaum and her fifty year old adolescent fairy tales.

Re:atlas yawned by Moryath · 2009-11-01 07:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Re:atlas yawned by Quothz · 2009-11-01 07:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

i don't buy noonan's premise. most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization.
Every presidential nominee since 1988 has graduated from either Harvard or Yale. More than 25% of the 108th Congress was from the Ivy League. Twenty percent of Congress attended private schools before college. Fifteen current Representatives attended community colleges. No Senators did so.
The average Senator has more than $15,000,000 in disclosed assets; the average Representative, more than $5,000,000; in fairness, the wealthiest in Congress have hundreds of millions, while the poorest have millions in liabilities. (Most also have considerable assets they aren't required to report, such as private home values.) A few Reps come from backgrounds of poverty, and quite a few more are from blue-collar families. All current Senators, as far as I can tell reasonably quickly, have backgrounds of upper-middle-class or higher.
I'm sure state and local politicians have more diverse backgrounds, but at the federal level there's unquestionably a tendency toward lifelong wealth and privilege.
Re:atlas yawned by amRadioHed · 2009-11-01 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things
Kind of like programmers right? Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:atlas yawned by demachina · 2009-11-01 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:atlas yawned by k8to · 2009-11-01 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

At the local politics level, what you say is often true. Local politics are often the most useful, anyway.
However, at the national level, this is almost never true. National politics are popoulated nearly entirely by the priveledged old boys club.

--
-josh
Re:atlas yawned by demachina · 2009-11-01 09:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Another interesting article today about Goldman Sach's role in the subprime mortgage fiasco. A former Goldman exec has a tell all book out coming out "The 88 Biggest Lies on Wall Street". You have to take him with a grain of salt because he is probably a scumbag and has just turned to profiteering through his tell all book but I like this money quote:
"It's not just unethical," Talbott said of the chain of profiting subprime players extending from real estate appraisers to Wall Street. "It's totally criminal."
It is entertaining to see one of Goldman's own turn on them, it doesn't happen often.
From mortgage brokers, to appraisers, rating agencies and the big Wall Street banks that securitized all that sub prime garbage as AAA rated bonds, chances are EVERY one involved knew exactly what they were doing, that it was criminal, and it would eventually collapse. They were just pocketing as much money as they could as quickly as they could so they could cash out before the house of cards fell. It was massive organized crime and it was basically the largest Ponzi scheme in histroy, much bigger than Madoff and noone seems to be going to jail for it. Maybe EVERY is a little harsh, it appears some people at Merril Lynch, Citigroup and AIG had absolutely no idea the hole they were digging for themselves and their company though chances are they all still cashed out rich before their companies imploded. I wager Goldman knew exactly what they were doing, and in particular had billions in hedges through AIG to cover them if those bonds went to crap. Unfortunately AIG had hundreds of billions of those derivative contracts and absolutely no capital to cover them so if the government hadn't bailed out AIG, and funneled billions to Goldman Sachs through AIG with no strings attached Goldman would have ended in bankruptcy. Fortunately for Goldman a former Goldman CEO was treasury secretary when the shit hit the fan so he could steer billions to Goldman at tax payer expense to keep them afloat.

--
@de_machina

V for Vendetta by Gothmolly · 2009-11-01 06:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatments by theodp · 2009-11-01 06:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Should prayers be covered?: "As the health care battle moved forward last week, Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science church official, hurriedly delivered bundles of letters to Senate offices promoting a little-noticed proposal in the legislation requiring insurers to consider covering the church's prayer treatments just as they do other medical expenses. Critics say the proposal would essentially put Christian Science prayer treatments on the same footing as science-based medical care by prohibiting discrimination against "religious and spiritual health care."

Re:News for nerds? by Austerity+Empowers · 2009-11-01 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good idea. They don't see the danger, and they don't worry about the implications. Money is money.

It's news that affects nerds at least.

Re:News for nerds? by symbolset · 2009-11-01 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stuff that matters.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

only the peons are clueless by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-01 07:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure the guys at the top realize that taking trillions from the government is going to have some effect. But why should they care? In the short term they have little to lose and much to gain. In the long term it might not be the best course of action, but they can't stop because if one rich thief stops pillaging the country then another one will just take his place right? The only way this will change is if the thieves start being held accountable. For instance, if the lower classes get pissed off enough to start torching mansions. So far, Americans are too fat, dumb, and happy to rein in the ruling class.

She's without hope, so we must be? by wytcld · 2009-11-01 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.

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

Re:She's without hope, so we must be? by 10101001+10101001 · 2009-11-01 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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'?"
This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform. It starts out, "Yes, we have a health care problem." Then it becomes, "Yes, we (ie, government) need to do something about it." Then, "Oh no, we can't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem; they're the source of the health care problem!" What does that mean? Well, the only "solution" then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.
As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails. Unfortunately, sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources. When it's non-critical (ie, not health, the elderly, the poor), government very probably shouldn't become involved. But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous. Cutting taxes doesn't solve the problem. Nor, really, does this mandatory health insurance. The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation, just like nearly every other governmental project. But, I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.
PS - Yes, Obama's doing the same thing from the other angle. The whole "health insurance subsidy" is clearly a pragmatic (ie, political) attempt to obtain Republican support. Since that's not going to fly anyways, why half-ass it? A major problem with the health care system, anyways, is that it's been so cobbled together there's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud. Real reform means real unification, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:She's without hope, so we must be? by mindbrane · 2009-11-01 08:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
In principle, I agree, but practically I think we're up against more intractable, fundamental problems requiring much effort and time to resolve. Historically there's endless material available to quote addressing the incompetence of government, greed and the lust for power, and, IMHO, it's profoundly based in our natures, but we're also up against a new storyline that's changing the way we think, evaluate and solve our problems. Humanism began, IIRC, in renaissance Italy, in a city state (Florence?) that wanted an education programme that would produce informed citizens able to competently participate in government of the city state. From Humanism to the Enlightenment the west developed a classically based education system that borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman sources. From the Enlightenment ideas came that informed our modern democracies; but modern science, also birthed during the enlightenment, has currently given us a fundamental shift in context and values that seems to have generated a sophist, relativists set of values challenging the historical, classical values inherent in Humanism and democracy.
In a way I'm becoming an apologist for the living generations because I've begun to think we are facing old problems with new values and new solution sets that will require considerable time and effort to implement within the tested structures of modern democracies. Modern science and it's findings are becoming a backbone for much of the policies of modern democracies but there are some serious repercussions. Modern science, inadvertently, challenges historical religious beliefs and to many seems to put in the place of religious morals a relativistic set of values that foster sophistry wherein morals and principles are replaced by political clout, statistics and media spin. Science in tandem with the principles of modern democracies have to address problems the marriage of science and democracy have in large part engendered.
Anthropology speaks of 3 generations as a window of sorts through which history can be viewed. 3 generations, spanning 90 years, allows for an immediacy and intimacy of contact between the generations that permits, for want of a better word, an empathy that might give greater insight and resolution to current problems. Currently the Boomers, those born in the 80's and their off spring are facing problems that require science and it's findings be given much weight but are also faced with a spectre of relativism that engenders less of the kind of individual responsibility the old value system carried with it.

--
ideopath @ play
Re:She's without hope, so we must be? by demachina · 2009-11-01 08:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the more basic reasons "governing wont work" is that politicians and regulators are easily captured by special interests who have the money, the time, the connections and the motivation to manipulate the government. A few million well placed lobbying dollars and campaign contributions can yield multi-billion dollar windfalls at the expense of the American people.
You kind of have to wonder why the conservative Republicans complain so much about big government because for at least the last 10 years, and really a lot longer than that, they have been the most adept at exploiting it for their own gain. Only reason they are complaining about lately is they aren't in power as of 2006/2008. The potency of their vitriol against big government only spikes when they aren't in power. When they are in power they tend to be more OK with it, and their complaining about is empty rhetoric which acts as cover while they are looting it.
I often shudder to think what this country would be like if the Libertarians won and everything was completely deregulated. Chances are the foxes would devour all the chickens. But, when you see how our government actually works, especially lately, the Libertarians actually have a point. Much of the pillaging and devastation is being aided, abetted or actually initiated by politicians and regulators who have been captured by special interest, so they give legal cover to the pillaging, and trillions of dollars are transferred from unlucky powerless groups to lucky powerful ones. For example, senior citizens are completely looting younger working people to get 20, 30 and 40 years of Medicare and Social Security though they actually paid very little in to the system. Oayroll taxes were jacked up from nothing to 12.5% in the early 80s so most seniors didn't pay anything in but are taking huge sums out.
It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President. They get no tax shelters, no government backed loan programs and most importantly NO bailouts when they screw up and should fail. The absolute worst thing done in the last couple years was the complete destruction of moral hazard which is the most crucial foundation of Capitalism. If you know that if you fail the government will bail you out you don't have free market capitalism any more, you have state capitalism(i.e. Fascism) which is what I think we have now.
Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism but I have reached a point that I would like to see the government get the hell out of it and let them sink or swim on their own. It couldn't be any worst than what we have now.
Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion there is NO political/economic philosophy that actually works in practice. Every one devolves in to some small group acquiring all the wealth and power and screwing it out of everyone else. In some systems its party members and bureaucrats, in others it politicians, and in others its bankers and CEO's. As Shakespeare thoroughly outlines a long time ago, we are a species with vicious tendencies that spiral completely out of control in the people who aspire to power and wealth and there seems to be no way to stop those people.

--
@de_machina
Re:She's without hope, so we must be? by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-01 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative

If government weren't so in control of everything, you wouldn't have to worry about businesses controlling governement.
Well then relax, because government isn't nearly in control of everything. Big business prevails.
Look at the numbers. ExxonMobil reported 2008 revenues of nearly $373 billion and a profit of almost $41 billion. The EPA's 2010 budget is $10.5 billion.
If the EPA devoted itself entirely to policing this one oil company, ExxonMobil could outspend it three to one -- and still turn a profit!
It's not just multi-nationals. United Health projects profit of $5 billion this year. Four states total budget is less than this.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Threaten to stop the wheel of the world? by brian0918 · 2009-11-01 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."

Who is John Galt?

Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world? by Atlantis-Rising · 2009-11-01 08:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Sibling poster is fairly accurate. John Gault is an idiotic caricature created by someone with zero understanding of economics or human nature.

--
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world? by inviolet · 2009-11-01 09:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Sibling poster is fairly accurate. John Gault is an idiotic caricature created by someone with zero understanding of economics or human nature.
I was going to reply with something along the lines of "You could not have read _Atlas Shrugged_ if you are willing to make that statement publicly -- or if you did read it, it was with a passion to NOT understand it."...
...but then you misspelled his name ('Galt'), and so I knew you were talking out of your ass. May the next life you lead be a slightly less dishonest one.
(Oh, and *plonk*)

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world? by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-01 10:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Now we're paying far more in taxes than we ever have
No, we are not, not in constant dollars per capita. I suggest you stop getting your tax information from the teabaggers.
Federal income tax burden is near its lowest level in three decades: the average American family pays about 9% of its income in income taxes. The peak was 12% in 1981. Meanwhile state and local tax burden per capita hasn't changed much, and is now slightly lower then its peak.
And Americans are, compared to almost every other industrialized nation, under-taxed. The only countries with comparable standards of living with lower tax burdens are Japan and Switzerland. (Nations with low defense spending that don't try to run empires...)

and we're trillions of dollars in debt.
Because conservatives have created the myth that taxes are too high, and so we cut taxes on the aristocracy -- shifting the burden to those who work for a living. Restore those taxes, end the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can start climbing out of the hole that decades of Republican borrow-and-spend policies have given us.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Why should we be surprised by Beowulfs_Ghost · 2009-11-01 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:Why should we be surprised by nomadic · 2009-11-01 07:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.

Honestly, no, I don't think it's ridiculous for someone in the modern era, in a first world country, to expect health care in perpetuity.
Re:Why should we be surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-01 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative

It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.
Well, no. When it is part of a signed contract negotiated by GM management and part of the total compensation offered to the workers, it is perfectly reasonable to expect GM to live up to the obligations GM agreed to.
The problems of GM have been long in the making. The fundamental problem for GM is that they aren't making much money selling cars.
GM needs to improve its margins, get costs under control, and make their cars more desirable to the customer. Government assistance isn't going to magically make that happen.
Re:Why should we be surprised by nomadic · 2009-11-01 09:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who in God's name do you expect to provide you with this health care? In exchange for what? Where do you expect to find the resources to keep billions of worthless drooling incapacitated elderly people alive indefinitely?

Are you on some sort of highly potent, neurologically destructive crack cocaine? "Indefinitely"? The average lifespan in the first world average something under 80. Considering a retirement age of 65, that's about 15 years average of medical care. The "worthless" (what are you, a sociopath?) "incapacitated" elderly people will make up a minor percentage of that group. Of course, those that need the most expensive care will likely die sooner than 80, on average.

Oh, did you want an actual answer as to who is going to provide this care? The answer is you. And then, when you get old, someone else will pay for yours. See how this works out? No, you probably don't. Don't like it, do you? Nobody cares.
Re:Why should we be surprised by smoker2 · 2009-11-01 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are all spoiled children. You only have to look at any topic on this site and read the inane, immature comments, backed up by schoolyard logic, and very little fact. If the govt. does something wrong it's always the other sides fault, if energy gets expensive it's somebody elses fault, if the planet gets fucked it's somebody elses fault. I have yet to see anybody here admit the slightest guilt in any action your govt. takes whether it's at home or abroad.

Whenever the govt. takes forward looking action you drag it down, if they don't take action you drag them down. You refuse to spend any money but expect everything done for you, you don't want immigration but you want ever cheaper services, you want high paying jobs but you also want home grown industry (who want to pay less and profit more). Then there is this messianic longing for the world "the founders" intended despite the fact that the world is a very different place from 200 years ago. Back then there was a whole continent to conquer and environmentalism was non-existent, you could kill all the animals and rape the land. But you've had to find out the hard way that you can't keep that up for ever. And you still haven't learned. Now when your resources get low you take from another country, and pretend you're liberating them. The funds you promise to spend to help their democracy rebuild end up in your own pockets, and then your bankers sell fraudulent stocks and get rewarded by the worlds taxpayers. You complain about not being able to get loans and start new companies, but if you really wanted to start a company you don't need a loan - fucking save the money yourself ! Oh, but then the risk would be all yours, we can't have that. Playground politics, playground economics, and playground foreign policy. Grow up.

Back when the "founders" wrote their document, people actually got off their asses and did something to better their lives. You lot won't get off your ass to change the tv channel. You're the Peoples Front of Judea.
Re:Why should we be surprised by dcam · 2009-11-01 13:04 · Score: 2, Informative

It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.
Indeed. We should extend this to all people who are unable to financially contribute to society. Let's start with the mentally disabled. I seem to recall that there was a plan to do this some time ago.
Try to think these things through, fascist. Libertarianism seems attractive when you are relatively self sufficient. That state may change through no fault of your own.

--
meh
Re:Why should we be surprised by sjames · 2009-11-01 16:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Those at the top expect MUCH MUCH more than the lower and middle class. The lower and middle class expect a safety net where they can always eat, always have a place for them and their families to live and always get necessary healthcare.
Those at the top expect to always make more in a single year than most make in a lifetime. They expect to always have 2 nice houses and to never ever have to think about what anything costs. They expect to be able to fail repeatedly and feel no pain. They expect to be able to do such a crappy job that the company is poised to go down in flames and not only keep their job until ready to quit, but to get a big fat bonus as well. Often a bonus large enough to support a middle class family for a decade or more.
It's easy to spew economic platitudes like "you win some, you lose some", to treat mass layoffs like they're a gift from heaven, and to proclaim universal healthcare and welfare to be foolish luxuries when you're in a position to never in your lifetime ever wonder how you'll pay the mortgage, buy food, or afford life saving medical care.

It's simply the consequence of corporate psychopat by blind+biker · 2009-11-01 07:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 "problem" by SmallFurryCreature · 2009-11-01 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

California by gd2shoe · 2009-11-01 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:California by CharlyFoxtrot · 2009-11-01 08:17 · Score: 5, Informative

I've recently read on another forum that California is also hampered by a large negative balance of payment between it and the federal government
"Last year, Californians sent nearly $20 billion more to Washington in federal taxes than the state received back in federal spending. The state’s 1998 deficit of $19.4 billion marked the largest such imbalance for any single state in the history of the nation, eclipsing the previous record of $14.3 billion, set also by California in 1997"
So it seems California is bankrolling the federal level even while going bankrupt itself.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:California by coaxial · 2009-11-01 12:28 · Score: 2, Informative

That's how it always is with the Blue states. The biggest anti-government Red states always get the most money back from the federal government, Red states can't function without federal spending.
Oh and do I need to mention Alaska's "Communist Wealth Reallocation Scheme"?
Re:California by fyngyrz · 2009-11-01 17:28 · Score: 2, Informative

it was given away by extremely clueless management that didn't realise they were managing their companies into oblivion and setting up their own competition.

No sir, it was given away by unions and legislated pay levels that priced US workers out of employment that was affordable by the companies in an environment where outsourcing was inexpensive and easily developed. People can pretend forever that an assembly line job is worth $20/hour, but it simply isn't and all that happened by that insistence of excessive worth is that folks in other countries now have a chance to prove it isn't so, which they are happily doing.
The only unions left that continue to extort provide local services such as electrical wiring, plumbing and so forth, because these jobs physically cannot be outsourced. There are only two ways we can get the lost jobs back.
First, we can take lower wages, lose the expectation that we are owed "a good living" because... well, just because. That will make all kinds of employees from line workers to tech support script followers hirable again, though it's a long road uphill to rebuild industry even so. It still leaves room for new value creators such as engineers of all kinds, techs who can actually do more than follow a script, programmers, architects, doctors and so on. If the companies can operate in-country and make as good a living at it as they can out-country, they will operate in-country. If they can't - and this is what the idiot unions can't seem to wrap their heads around - they won't.
Alternatively, we can go the protectionist route, close our borders to products manufactured and services provided from outside them, and earn the (further) ill will of the entire world - but this would rebuild our manufacturing base is record time. Nasty, but effective. All kinds of international repercussions await, but then again, this is the country that went to war with both Afghanistan and Iraq for no reason, continues to meddle in the middle east to extremes, particularly with regard to Israel and oil resources... and the enmity that earns us doesn't seem to bother anyone in Washington, so... it's a politically viable path.
The second way, your trip to Wham-a-lart or the car dealer will cost you a lot more. The first way, it won't. I'd think that bit of economic truth would tell people what it is we should do, but...
Right now, even stuff that comes out of Silicon Valley, as you put it, is really often coming from China, etc., and we're just making a profit off the sales end, with a few people legitimately doing design and writing software here. For instance, the iPod and Mac are quintessentially American products, right? Yeah. Made in China. That's what my iPod and Mac both say on their chassis.
I don't know what the solution has to be, or if we'll wake up soon enough to even make use of one, but I do know that management isn't really the problem. It's labor costs; and it's been labor costs for decades as the disease of entitlement took hold in the hearts of our citizens. It's management's job to keep the company on a positive balance sheet. When employee demands make that impossible, the employees have become the problem.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by johnlcallaway · 2009-11-01 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

The media is a reflection of the population itself. It gives what the population wants. Most people won't take the understand one issue, let alone several.

Which is why we are not a democracy, I'd bet that 75% of the population have not done any real reading on any single topic beyond what appears on the front page of their newspaper or in emails their like-minded friends send.

Unfortunately, the population can't really distinguish a leader from an orator like Obama. And many think that being famous gives someone insight into political wisdom. So we get mindless rantings and half-truths from the left and right, and most of the population follow it blindly depending on their own personal beliefs. When people with 'new ideas' like Ron Paul show up, the frustrated run to their half-baked ideas without any real analysis either.

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.

And that, my friends, is really what goes on. Most people latch onto ideas that prove the point of view they already have, and won't take the time to examine any opposing opinion. When presented with such opinions, they shut down or simply state 'you just a liberal/conservative sheep spouting talking points'.

--
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.

Re:News for nerds? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-11-01 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

This article is the definitive proof that nerds are being governed by brash jocks with tunnel vision. I'd say this qualifies as a classic Slashdot article.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Sociopaths and children of Sociopaths by SimBuddha · 2009-11-01 07:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

It took me a long time to figure out why things are going to hell. Then I read http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html and it all made sense. Sociopaths seek power and winning without conscience and this is why banking and wall street leaders are where they are, because they've changed the system of laws to favor themselves. Like terminators, they don't feel remorse or care if their actions hurt other people. These people are now a large proportion of our international corporate leadership. Until our system collapses, they will stay in power, even though they are the reason for our suffering and downfall as a nation. Not sure what there is to do about the situation except have people come to recognize sociopaths for what they are, broken people who should never be allowed to hold power. From the web site the 12 clues to recognizing a sociopath HOW TO KNOW The big question is, of course, how can you know whether someone is a sociopath or not? It is a difficult question and even experts on the subject can be fooled. If you suspect that someone close to you is a sociopath, I suggest you read both of the books I mentioned and think hard about it. Compare that person to the other people in your life. Ask yourself these questions: 1. Do you often feel used by the person? 2. Have you often felt that he (or she) doesn't care about you? 3. Does he lie and deceive you? 4. Does he tend to make contradictory statements? 5. Does he tend to take from you and not give back much? 6. Does he often appeal to pity? Does he seem to try to make you feel sorry for him? 7. Does he try to make you feel guilty? 8. Do you sometimes feel he is taking advantage of your good nature? 9. Does he seem easily bored and need constant stimulation? 10. Does he use a lot of flattery? Does he interact with you in a way that makes you feel flattered even if he says nothing overtly complimentary? 11. Does he make you feel worried? Does he do it obviously or more cleverly and sneakily? 12. Does he give you the impression you owe him? 13. Does he chronically fail to take responsibility for harming others? Does he blame everyone and everything but himself? Tags: evil, Hitler, anti-christ, sociopath,

Re:Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U. by pete6677 · 2009-11-01 07:49 · Score: 2

The real purpose of cap and trade has nothing to do with the environment. It is all about transferring wealth from first world nations to the third world, and allowing financial markets to reap huge profits in the process. Otherwise, why would this idea get so much corporate support?

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by teg · 2009-11-01 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Then maybe... by maxwell+demon · 2009-11-01 07:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

In order to get one of those top bankers jobs you need to have:
- Perfect credit rating

In other words, you have to be able to handle money well. Seems like a good thing for someone whose job it is to handle other people's money.

- Clean criminal record

I'm pretty sure we won't solve the problems by allowing criminals into the banks.

- At least a degree (although a masters is more realistic)

I'd hope that they don't demand just any degree, but specifically a degree in economy. After all, you should have a clue about what you are doing.

- Private school and or brand university

OK, that one's is a problem.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Crazy pairing of articles by ganv · 2009-11-01 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Cringely article is an interesting take on the way technology enables the destabilization of our economic system. But the Noonan article is just whining about these young-uns who never had a difficult life. With the logical conclusion that we should lower taxes!?? Slash-dot is better off not linking to any of these opinion pieces, but whoever linked to the content free post by Noonan should be banned from putting up articles on slash-dot.

Re:It's simply the consequence of corporate psycho by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-01 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Geez, sounds like you too, are a fan of the book, "Snakes in Suits" (All about psychopaths in business, government, etc.) Highly recommended.
(Mind you, it's too late now to prevent their collosal destruction of the world economy...but perhaps enough of them can be recognized and thrown out before they continue screwing over the world...

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-01 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Cringley !Economics by k8to · 2009-11-01 08:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Some trading is parasitic on investing. There are those who have higher rate market access than you and just profit take on every transaction you try to make. That's not really serving anyone.

But a lot of trading activity is not so impressively unhelpful.

--
-josh

Structural solutions here: basic income, etc. by Paul+Fernhout · 2009-11-01 08:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Many solutions are listed here: "Why limited demand means joblessness (and what to do about it)"
"""

These are some ways to deal with increasing joblessness, even if our economy recovers for those who still have jobs or money, which will be explored in more depth over time:

temporary measures like unemployment insurance and retraining funds, and when those fail, letting people live with relatives who still have jobs or be homeless (the USA now has one million homeless schoolchildren, an amount that has doubled in the last two years);
government public works like in the 1930s (infrastructure, arts, research, medicine, etc.);
a basic income for everyone, essentially Social Security and Medicaid for all with no means testing;
improved local subsistence like with 3D printing and organic gardening;
a p2p gift economy (like Wikipedia and Debian GNU/Linux);
a shorter work week (like tried in France);
rethinking work to be more fun so it is done as play;
alternative currencies or other forms of exchange like barter or more formal rationing;
increasing advertising to entice people into more debt (one cause of the current economic crisis as the debt bubble burst);
intentionally producing shoddy merchandise or things with planned obsolescence, perhaps encouraged by promoting faddism in the culture;
more prisons (employs guards and keeps people out of the labor pool);
more schooling (employs guards/teachers and keeps people out of the labor pool) while suppressing true education; and
more war (employs guards/soldiers, blows up and wastes abundance, and kills or disables workers to keep them out of the labor pool).

Likely we will see a mix of all those in the future, and in fact, a mix of all those is what we have now (not that the last five options of advertising, faddism, schooling, prison, and war are recommended, even as our society currently relies on them heavily to destroy abundance and create guarding jobs). This web site will go into the details of all this over time. That list is defining the landscape of a jobless recovery, showing connections between things that dont usually seem connected. Like for example, why President Obama just suggested the school year should be longer while our best educators say compulsory school as we know it should disappear entirely.

The important thing to remember is that joblessness is not necessarily a bad thing. It means people have more time for family, friends, hobbies, and volunteerism. What is bad about formal un

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Re:Socialism and capitalism both suck. by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-01 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

So far, and I think for the rest of the time humanity exists, capitalism is the best economic system we are capable of having.

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:

I've thought before that the most fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is not over issues of individual freedom vs. authority or progress vs. traditional values, but imagination. Conservatives don't have any. The status quo seems only inevitable and right to them, the natural order of things, and anyone who protests it is an impractical dreamer who should get a job or a malcontent who needs to be medicated. They're incapable of seeing their own historical moment as in any way anomalous or provisional; as Montag's colleagues assure him in Farenheit 451, "Believe me, houses have always been fireproof. Firemen have always burned books." They believe that they deserve their own lives; they can't imagine having been born as someone else. (Empathy, and by extension compassion, is a function of imagination.) They can't imagine what it would be like to be poor, or black, or gay, because, well, they're not, and they suspect that these unfortunate conditions are those people's own faults, a consequence of some moral failing or dereliction. (I always secretly felt this way about old people until I noticed I was aging as well.) Likewise people living in other cultures with different beliefs and customs; they're simply ignorant, deprived of the advantages of Jesus and Wal-Mart. Francis Fukyama, in a book with the straight-line title The End of History, argues that capitalist liberal democracy is the final culmination of all social progress, apparently unable to imagine a more perfect system than the one epitomized by Donald Trump and Kenneth Lay.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Re:News for nerds? by h4rm0ny · 2009-11-01 09:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

They don't believe it does affect them. If they have money, then that money can be relocated, so they don't care whether the software company they own is in the USA or in India or wherever. And if some of the owning class still choose to live in the USA, then that's fine for them too because their wealth disparity will be all the greater.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:They're not clueless, they just don't give a fu by poopdeville · 2009-11-01 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not going to discuss the bailouts, but this isn't as good a point as you think. Assuming you end up losing (even a little less than) a billion if you get tails, that's actually a good bet from a financial perspective. The expected value of the bet is greater than 0. Make this bet a thousand times and you will most likely end up ahead.

You "just" need a lot of cash flow to make it work in you favor, in the long term. This is how casinos operate, for example.

I do work in a related field (I am a "research analyst"). The whole point is to make bets that are beneficial to you. Because if you're placing lots of bets, statistically speaking under some modest assumptions, some will win and some will lose. And if you're making bets beneficial to you, you will win more from winning than you will lose from losing. On the one hand, this requires a certain amount of "risk tolerance" or even callous fearlessness about money and risk.

People often conflate this educated risk tolerance with something sinister. It's not.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.

Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-01 09:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

> These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good idea

It arguably *is* a good idea. If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA, then yes, it harms that one in the USA, but it helps *three* in India. I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American, so there's a net gain of two people finding good jobs. If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world, then you might reach a different conclusion.

It's also better even for the rest of the USA. I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $50. The made-in-USA equivalent cost over $200. So yes, it harms the few people making those tools in the USA, but not only does it help the person in China making them, it means that far more people in the USA can afford the tool at all. It increases the standard of living of all the people who were not involved in producing that tool in the USA, *and* it increases the standard of living of the people in China who did produce it.

So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed. Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.

Re:News for nerds? by AB3A · 2009-11-01 09:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Exactly! Our bosses are people who have never experienced anything but the need to consume. We emphasize sports and music over learning. We reward people who spend outrageous time looking good with ridiculous contracts to read the news. We spend obnoxious money on marketeers who don't even know what they're selling.

I'm saddened. We discourage engineers and technical workers from executive level positions. And we do so to our detriment. There was a time when engineers were prized in such positions. However, for some reason the Philosophy and English teachers declared us techies illiterate. I'd be laughing my ass off if they weren't so dogmatically obnoxious about it. Today, we have ignorant marketeers, corrupt accountants and lawyers running companies. And they don't know what their companies even do for a living.

No wonder we're in trouble.

--
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!

More nonsense, ad nauseum by sgt_doom · 2009-11-01 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government..."

People aren't push for MORE government, wizardfarce, but for honest and legal government.

The prob today is the Corporate Fascist State, i.e., the banksters have taken control of the government. To paraphrase Prof. Taleb from a year or so ago, during the Great Depression there was pushback, but in the present, the sheeple have allowed the banksters to take over. I guess Americans were smarter back then. Certainly, today we the sheeple require a kick-ass president on the level of a Teddy Roosevelt....instead we have ourselves a Yeltsin!

Re:voting them out? by misexistentialist · 2009-11-01 09:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Encumbents are re-elected at enormous rates

Because they are paid by voters to run for office, and that's all they do. Most incumbents themselves never actually defeated an incumbent, but have rather lain in wait for a vacancy (see Obama). Which brings us to the insight that we need term limits, 2 term max across the board.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-11-01 10:00 · Score: 4, Informative

what do mean by "social conservative"?

As the context is discussion of the Republican Party, I mean the American definition of "social conservative". Mostly the "religious nuts" you mention: anti-feminist, pro-death-penalty, against the teaching of evolution, against sex education in the schools, against legal recognition of same-sex marriages, supporting censorship of "indecent" material, and usually in favor of state establishment of religion as long as it's Christianity. The old "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition" would be the exemplars.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra by Tablizer · 2009-11-01 10:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:

This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City.

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.

Re:WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra by FreeUser · 2009-11-01 22:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

And yet the most saavy investors in the country still pay the money to read it. They wouldn't read it if it lost them money.
Sure they would. And do. Or have you forgotten 2008 already?
You may argue that reading the Wall Street Journal didn't cause them to lose trillions, and you'd be right insofar as it wasn't the sole cause, but clearly the myth that less regulation is better, that a Republican-controlled congress and Republican brow-beaten president (Clinton) repealing Glass-Stiegl was a good idea, and that the spoiled children running our banks could do no wrong (and should therefor have no oversight) created the conditions that allowed for such a crisis to arise in the first place. As an often informative publication, but one laced through and through with this poisonous and obviously false idealogy, the Wall Street Journal and similar publications have indeed influenced people and policy, and as a result "cost them money."
Yet still they read it, which just goes to show that the wealthy are as susceptable to putting idealogy ahead of their own good as the poor and middle class fools who still fight national healthcare tooth and nail while facing bankrupcy as a direct result of that lack of healthcare. The WSJ can say government bad/regulation bad/business good despite mounting losses and blatent evidence to the contrary, and wealthy idealogues will stick by it and lose millions more, just as working poor conservatives can say no to national health and tell themselves America's system is "the best in the world", despite the fact that it is 37th in the world by every objective measure of results (longevity, child mortality, per capita health statistics, you name it), and in distant last place when you consider only the developed world. Sure, it's better than sub-Saharan Africa, but only Americans find that impressive (and I say this with emberressment, as an American).
But will these facts change people's minds, even those who need the reforms most? Not likely, just as the fools who tanked the financial system won't change their minds or stop reading the WSJ, no matter how obviously misguided their idealogy is, or how many billions it costs them (and the rest of us, who suffer first, and more).

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

/facepalm by iserlohn · 2009-11-01 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:/facepalm by mi · 2009-11-01 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

I mean, you don't need Einstein to tell you than when you offload real risk from the lending institution to investors
The first and foremost such "investors" were Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac — then-quasi (and now fully) government owned corporations, pressured by the government to lower the requirements on the mortgages that could be off-loaded to them by the private banks.
That pressure to buy ever-riskier loans was what caused these "investors" to allow the banks sell ever-riskier mortgages. The Democrats were doing it "help the poor" of course — in their attempts to make the poor richer, they made the rich poorer...

you want to blame the Community Reinvestment Act or other similar legislation to kickstart lending to low-income areas
What we blame — with figures, dates, and names — are the misguided attempts by the government to "do good" (such as "kickstarting" something for the "low income"). It never works, and it always makes things worse. That it is also anti-Constitutional bothers some of as as well...

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:/facepalm by dbIII · 2009-11-01 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I watched the whole stupid spectacle live as it happened, a decade long train wreck accelerated by poor governance as any remaining checks and balances were removed in the years after Clinton. Utter loonies on the take controlled the Republican party and took it far from what it used to be and approached the kleptocracy that you could see in Russia a few years ago. When the people in control are up to their necks in the corruption and do not care about the consequences you get a crash, and the entire world financial press saw it coming years in advance.
Re:/facepalm by similar_name · 2009-11-01 13:03 · Score: 4, Informative

This crisis could have been prevented in 2005, via Republican-led
If only Republicans had controlled Congress and the White House in 2005.
Re:/facepalm by mi · 2009-11-01 14:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Really? Pressure to lend to low-income people caused financial institutions to repackage this debt as dubious collateralized debt obligations?
Yes. On the one hand, the law allowed ACORN and other pressure-groups to force banks to give mortgages to people, who didn't qualify for them. On the other hand, the pressure on the Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) forced them to lower the requirements on the mortgages, which they would buy from the banks. It is no surprise, that the Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac were the first to experience major problems — long before the rest of the market.
And what the banks could not sell to the government-controlled (if not outright owned) FMs, they did try to sell to others in various forms.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are definitely a cause, but as to the cause? You're dreaming.
The bottom line is this — if the government (and government-allied pressure groups) didn't try to arm-twist the banks into giving mortgages to people not qualified to receive them, none of this would've happened. It was a wrong thing to do in the first place, and how exactly it damaged the economy is rather secondary.

[...] with pretty much everyone to blame, across the board
When a partisan states, that "we are all to blame", he is admitting, that the bulk of the responsibility is on his side... I'll accept that.

Blaming a worldwide financial crisis on poor people? What a crock of shit.
That's a nice strawman you got there. Wow! No, the politicians I'm blaming are all very well off. It is not the poor, whom I blame, but the attempts to help them: "oh, if only they could get a mortgage, they'd be fine". No, they wouldn't be — in a Capitalist economy home loans bring profit — banks want to give them to everyone already, so if there is someone, who can't get it, the problem is not with the bank, but with that someone: "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required". No shit...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:/facepalm by pnuema · 2009-11-02 07:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The first and foremost such "investors" were Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac -- then-quasi (and now fully) government owned corporations, pressured by the government to lower the requirements on the mortgages that could be off-loaded to them by the private banks. That pressure to buy ever-riskier loans was what caused these "investors" to allow the banks sell ever-riskier mortgages. The Democrats were doing it "help the poor" of course -- in their attempts to make the poor richer, they made the rich poorer..
This is a classic case of blaming the victim. It tells a very narrow part of the story, designed to draw attention away from the real problem - the Bush tax cuts.
During the Bush years, taxes were cut so much on the wealthy a flood of new capital entered the market. The return on T-bills was terrible due to the massive interest rate cuts. All of this capital was desperately seeking a haven with decent returns. Investment banks looked around and saw the mortgage market, which had consistently been rock solid due to the lending practices of the banks. Default rates were less than 2%. They started selling CDOs to pick up the slack in the T-bill market. This put enormous pressure on banks to make more loans, which caused them to loosen their borrowing standards. The existence of Fannie and Freddie were really irrelevant - it wasn't Fannie and Freddie buying the mortgages, it was other banks putting together CDOs to sell them to investment banks.
But nice try blaming the Democrats for trying to help the less fortunate. Too bad we're not buying it anymore.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by commodore64_love · 2009-11-01 11:11 · Score: 2, Informative

>>>Actually almost all the spending of the last 30 years was done by the idiots reagan and bush jr.

I don't accept your premise. First-off why only limit the last 30 years? Because you know we only had one Democrat during that time (Clinton) and he inherited a booming economy. Let's look at the last 100 years, so we can include the big spenders like Woodrow Wilson who forced us into a war the American people did not want, FDR who spent money like crazy (and imprisoned farmers who were simply trying to grow corn/feed their families), plus Kenndery and LBJ and Carter.

And finally Barak Obama who is going to increase our national debt from $130,000 per home to $200,000 by the end of second term (2016). Even Reagan never spent like that.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:News for nerds? by cayenne8 · 2009-11-01 11:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

"I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American"

Not if your an American....not if you are a US citizen and wanting a home and to feed your family. At that point...you don't give a flying fuck about giving your job to 2 people abroad.

It is one thing to give and care about others in the world, but, rarely is someone altruistic enough to do so at the expense of their quality of life.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:News for nerds? by Erikderzweite · 2009-11-01 12:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

You have a wrong definition of nerds. Nerds like to solve problems, preferably technical ones. There are many low-cost cool nerdy things (like those smartphone-based virtual reality goggles).

If there is little money to begin with, either the toys gets cheaper or there will be a different set of toys available for the nerds to tinker.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by Quiet_Desperation · 2009-11-01 12:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Those are pretty isolated cases. Remember the media rules: they go after the loony stuff. And yes, that's not just the USA media. I have family all over Europe, so I know it's the same over there. The pro-creation side is generally aligned with the right wing, though.

Most teachers I had were pretty liberal, but students (and kids in general) tend to be rebellious, so the schools don't exactly turn out legions of the indoctrinated. That's why I laugh at folks who say the schools are trying to politically indoctrinate kids. They either never went to school or they're totally senile and don't remember.

I had a college Political Science prof who was a card carrying Marxist. On day one he said to always question authority, so I questioned him every single class. :-) He gave me an A, so I give him props for standing behind his philosophy. I promised him if he ever got into power I'd personally lead the rebellion against him. He said he'd hold me to that. ;-) Good times.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by Z34107 · 2009-11-01 12:56 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Congress writes a budget, the President approves or vetoes it.

Google confirms it - "Who writes the Federal budget?" is a good query.

--
DATABASE WOW WOW

Re:News for nerds? by Eskarel · 2009-11-01 12:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:News for nerds? by Eskarel · 2009-11-01 13:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

A lot of techies are for all intents and purposes illiterate, at least when it comes to any form of communication which the general populace can understand.

That's not to say that style over substance isn't a bad idea, but I've met very very few techies over the years who would make even remotely good managers, let alone high level executives in any company which wasn't 100% technically based.

It's not necessarily important for engineers to be in executive level positions. A lot of them would make a complete hash of it the same way that having a lot of people who are currently executives wouldn't work either. What is important is for executives to hear and to value the opinions and knowledge of engineers, programmers, etc where it is applicable to the health of the overall business. The problem is that by the time any technical advice has passed through half a dozen middle managers to finally reach someone who can actually do anything with it, it's become so garbled that it doesn't make any sense, even if they were going to listen to it.

That said, it's not just management's fault either. I know a lot of tech people who think they know how a business should be run, who haven't any sort of clue whatsoever. I've seen a lot of people who think that IT should drive the direction of the business as opposed to the business driving the direction of IT. IT is, for the most part, a service industry, and we all forget that more often than we should.

Re:News for nerds? by Austerity+Empowers · 2009-11-01 14:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

thirty-thousand.org by zooblethorpe · 2009-11-01 14:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

What's changed?
The number of voters represented by each congressman.

Seriously, have a look. A fascinating take on how the basic structure of our no-longer-so-representational government has changed over the years, watering down the significance of any single member of the electorate.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by HiThere · 2009-11-01 14:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a reasonable reason for limiting it to the last 30-40 years. Both the Republican and Democrat parties before that time period had much different agendas than the ones they do now.

OTOH, your argument that this biases the figures against the Republicans is also valid.

To me the variation between individual presidents seems larger than the variation between the parties in how they spend money. E.g., Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Johnson (and, to a lesser extent, Kennedy) spent money on developing the social infrastructure. Many spent significantly on wars with unclear purposes and no clear beneficial result (and many undesireable results). Note that I carefully phrased that to exclude Roosevelt, and that this *was* intentional. I have not been satisfied with the justifications used for ANY major military conflict since WWII. (I wasn't very aware of the Korean conflict, but that's one that I'm not aware of the justification for how we participated.)

I am definitely not what people call a pacifist, but I also dislike being treacherously lead into violent actions. E.g., the whole Viet Nam war's justification appears invalid. It occurred because we refused to accept the decisions of an international conference, and it turned people who could have been our allies against us. And for no reason that was ever made clear. And note that this was a big part of Johnson's expenses. There are others to which the same analysis applies. We incurred expenses for wars initiated by our dishonorable behavior. (Sometimes it was only our own expenses that were do to our dishonorable behavior, and the wars would have happened anyway, sometimes without our dishonorable actions the wars wouldn't have happened.)

N.B.: I'm *not* claiming that we have acted more dishonorably than most countries do. Instead I'm claiming that our dishonorable behavior has been very expensive, has cost us allies, and hasn't produced much in the way of publicly observable gains. Some have claimed that these wars are for the benefit of private interests, but I'm not certain. Clearly there are private interests that benefit, but it's not clear that they are effectively initiating the dishonorable actions, rather than just taking "low hanging fruit".

If you make your decisions on the basis of Democrat vs. Republican, you are making your decisions on a false basis. The only consistent difference that I've noticed between them is that the Democrats are more interested in having people like them, and the Republicans are less interested in that. They both seem to have the same goals, and largely the same methods.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:News for nerds? by bzipitidoo · 2009-11-01 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, rest easy on that worry. The US is not fucked. The article is a typical doom and gloom polemic that simply isn't true. Good not to be blind to such possibilities, but it isn't going to happen. Yes, many of the so-called captains of industry have their lofty positions through nepotism and inheritance, not merit, and that's bad for everyone. George W. Bush is the archetype of that sort of thing. He couldn't run a business worth a damn, not the several oil ventures he tried, not the Texas Rangers, and certainly not the US. He was elected by people just like him, who managed to convince enough of the rest of us that they did know how to run a large organization. And they got what they wanted, a country run by the Man, for the Man, and it was terrible. The article is quite right about all that.

But that's not America. They really don't have the control of America the mainstream media seems to think they do. The Bush presidency would have been a much bigger disaster if that were so. Iraq was in a sense Bush's biggest oil venture ever. But America is not a ship that when steered towards a reef will blindly bull onto the rocks. Plenty of us see that stability in oil rich countries is not a long term solution to our energy needs, and while the Bush government was wasting effort and resources on Iraq, many people inside and out of America were continuing work on real solutions. "Drill, baby, drill" did not win the election this time. Yeah, so we're currently in the Great Recession. The fools were going to blow their wealth sooner or later anyway, and the media was going to have a field day about it. They sure can't handle money, but many of us here can, we just aren't into that like we are into technology and science, or we'd all be a lot richer, on paper anyway. We understand there's more to life than money, and that money does not measure all forms of wealth. I am speaking as one of the 80% of the employees who just had our positions with a small company cut way back 2 days ago, thanks to inept management and delusions meeting reality. We all saw this coming, and none of us were so stupid as to keep on partying like the paychecks were never going to stop.

A few kids can still pop up from anywhere with the next big disruptive technology and throw all the captains' unimaginative, plodding, pedestrian planning into a black hole. And, Peak Oil? Bring it on! Life can get pretty boring, you understand. Chinese might think "may you live in interesting times" is a curse, but we like a little excitement. The biggest impediment to working out new transportation and energy systems isn't technological ineptitude however much you might read about how the US isn't educating enough scientists and engineers, it's that the status quo is still very comfortable. China putting a man on the Moon would be wonderful, as that would almost certainly lead to US attempts to rise to the challenge by perhaps something like a visit to Mars. Pay no attention to any wailing about how cleaning up our act will destroy our economy, as was often hysterically said about the Kyoto protocols. Might destroy some existing business models, why else do you think there's screaming about it? We're plenty inventive enough to work out these and other problems, and they really aren't impossible.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by johnlcallaway · 2009-11-01 14:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Orchards hire bee keepers or keep bees themselves to pollinate the orchards. It is a very common practice even among organic orchards to do this. And since there is no label on an apple to say whether or not it is 'naturally' pollinated, by eating store bought apples, even from an organic store, one perpetuates the exploitation of bees.

The argument that honey isn't vegan because bees are killed in the process has some merit. But again, eating that organic apple may have been possible because some bee keeper was hired to pollinate the orchard, and he sold the honey. Someone who eats the apple but doesn't eat honey is being a hypocrite unless they have verified that the apple was pollinated 100% naturally from non-exploited sources.

That's not true of all fruits. Date palms, for instance, are male and female. There are no natural pollinators of dates as they are wind pollinated, so it is common practice to hand pick the pollen sheaths from the male plant, extract the pollen, and apply them by hand again to the female plants. The female flowers are then covered with a large sack to keep insects and animals from eating the dates, and to keep the ripe dates from falling to the ground and being ruined.

Of course, eating dates perpetuates the exploitation of low skilled workers by the bourgeois upper class. So if one cares about one's fellow human beings, I guess they need to only get dates from collective farms where all workers carry an equal share.

If one truly wants to not exploit bees, they need to do further homework to determine which growers do not use bees, or which fruits are pollinated without them. THAT was the point of the discussion with my son. Don't take a valid point and misuse it to suit ones on purpose. Understand it and apply it without prejudice.

--
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.

i'm uncomfortable with this idea by circletimessquare · 2009-11-01 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

#1. we're all psychopathic to some degree or another

#2. it excuses criminals. rather than start with idea of a human who has erred, you start with the idea there's something special about someone that has made them a criminal. no: good people go bad, and bad people go good, and whatever someone's flaws, you talk about their criminal acts, not this supposed otherworldly quality about them that means they are forever more this cartoonish stereotype of behavior. it also ignore st eh fact that YOU can commit these crimes, which you can, under the right conditions. you put your guard down

#3. it perpetuates this stupid idea of a magical "other", some sort of special class of people who can have superhuman powers of turning off their empathy and lording over us. its an "us" versus "them" situation, and its the same old retarded thinking from throughout history. it also makes you think you can't succeed, because only a psychopath can truly run a business

this is the truth: you can do any of the crimes you see snakes in suits do. snakes in suits are as flawed as you and me. there's nothing special about them, except the crimes they've committed, which they should be prosecuted on that basis and that basis alone. not this quasi-cartoonish idea of a "psychopath"

the word has become a massively overused mental shorthand for "bogeyman" and does not retain its narrow psychological definition. therefore, it as useless as any other overused synonym people use for bogeyman, like "socialist" or "terrorist"

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:i'm uncomfortable with this idea by blind+biker · 2009-11-01 19:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Whether you're comfortable with a scientifically proven, many many times confirmed fact, is, you will certainly agree, irrelevant. In fact, all of your points are irrelevant, because it just happens that there are people who are born with this, seemingly neurological defect.
As for you saying that

we're all psychopathic to some degree or another
, I imagine that you seem to be, marginally at least, and tend to see everyone in that light. That is definitely your problem. You need to cope with it otherwise, than painting everyone with your brush.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.

Most of you are missing the point by ewe2 · 2009-11-01 15:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not even a specifically American problem. Simply put, our so-called heroic leaders have no idea what to do with their power, a bit of a problem since we have no intention of doing anything to help.

To quote (as I often do) Voltaire's Bastards:

Jefferson put it that men by their constitution were naturally divided into two parts -- those who fear and distrust the people versus those who identify with the people and have confidence in them. Our civilization has increasingly put those who fear and distrust in power over us. Those who have confidence have always argued that consciousness is the key to improvements in the human condition. But power structures have always treated consciousness in the citizenry as a danger which must first be lulled, then channelled towards the inoffensive through the mechanisms of language, mythology and structure.

We are profoundly conformist and authoritarian, the biggest cowards in history. We wait for a disaster so we can fix it, rather than taking preventative measures, all the while hoping someone else will do it for us.

--
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer

Re:News for nerds? by Runaway1956 · 2009-11-01 16:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

"I recently bought a made-in-China power tool for $50. "

Thou art a fool, and probably the son of fools.

If you had bought that $50 dollar tool made-in-India, I would ask you how well the tool worked, and how long it lasted. But, I know how well that $50 made-in-China power tool worked out. It has 1/4 the power of the "comparable" American made tool, and it will last about 1/10 as long.

In short, you are full of shit, because there is no "made-in-China equivalent". Replace China with any of a dozen other nations, then you'll have my interest. Korea, Taiwan, India, Vietnam - there are indeed a lot of Asian markets who are undercutting us on goods that might be comparable. But, it sure as HELL isn't China.

Bought any milk products, lately, from China? Drywall? Children's toys? Clothing?

No wonder you post as Anonymous Coward - you have your head up your ass, or you are being paid by China to astroturf for China.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:News for nerds? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2009-11-01 17:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not necessarily important for engineers to be in executive level positions. A lot of them would make a complete hash of it the same way that having a lot of people who are currently executives wouldn't work either.

A lot of sales and marketing guys make a complete hash of things - look at Fiorina, for instance. The fact that most people wouldn't be good CEOs is no reason to pick them from the ranks of the sales department.

I've seen a lot of people who think that IT should drive the direction of the business as opposed to the business driving the direction of IT.

IT is the part that keeps your desktop running and the lights on in the datacenter. Perhaps you mean software development? Where I work, we are dictated what to build and how, rather than being given goals and expected to achieve them. We have little to no ownership, are treated like cogs, and haven't any budget to spend on tools and support automation. As a result, we spend up to half our time fighting fires.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

Re:News for nerds? by govt-serpent · 2009-11-01 18:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

It arguably *is* a good idea. If you can hire 3 engineers in India for the price of one in the USA, then yes, it harms that one in the USA, but it helps *three* in India. I'm operating from the assumption that an Indian is just as valuable as an American, so there's a net gain of two people finding good jobs. If your premise is that Americans are more important than everyone else in the world, then you might reach a different conclusion."

it is also a good idea to hire Indian or Chinese CEO's and managers. You can hire hire 3 of them for the price of one in the USA. Why outsource only non-CEO's and managers?

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by sqrt(2) · 2009-11-01 22:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Some laws keep out herbal solutions that could replace some pharmaceutical solutions because hundreds of years of anecdotal evidence isn't good enough.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. If there was a natural, effective, SAFE, alternative to any medicine then that's what would get used. Do you think all the pharmaceutical companies spend all that money on R&D just for fun? If there was already a compound that did the job then they could save an enormous amount of money by just manufacturing, marketing, and selling that instead of the synthesized/synthetic solution. Herbs and supplements are "alternative medicine" because they DON'T WORK. When something DOES work it stops being "alternative medicine" and becomes simply medicine.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by sqrt(2) · 2009-11-01 23:08 · Score: 2

You need to get out of the GOP then, because as long as you still wear that label I'm going to count you among the bigots, the homophobes, the religious zealots, the birthers, and every other wing-nut dujour who now speak for the Republican party--and they DO speak for the Republican party, it's not even a matter for debate anymore. The Dems aren't much better in practice, but at least they don't have any of the morally repugnant qualities of the current Republicans (other than graft and corruption, that's universal among the two).

Be an independent, or join a party closer to your actual beliefs. Democrats weren't liberal enough for me so I now vote for the Green Party.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem by gtall · 2009-11-01 23:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, the crash did come on Bush's watch, and his administration was part of the problem and wouldn't face the issue in order to become part of the solution. However, it wasn't entirely Bush's fault. The biggest part of the problem was the American people; they bought houses they couldn't afford, second houses, etc. They voted in anyone promising not to raise their taxes in order to pay for the programs they also demanded. Americans also decided that science and technology were luxuries; that by endorsing an Educational establishment that had no respect for science and technology was somehow a winning formula. The children of the '60's were too good for science and tech, they sent their children to Business School. The result was Business School Product that thought nothing of shipping anything not nailed down out of the U.S.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and Bush's Administration did not nothing to stop the slide, including pissing on science by thinking it could be made to support their policies. In doing so, they made toilet paper out of clear rational thinking; but they also had a lot of help. So much help that it encouraged an America to vote in Obama who never saw a promise he couldn't make. Now we can have some serious deficit spending.

Other alternatives: basic income; making work fun by Paul+Fernhout · 2009-11-02 00:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

A "basic income" or making work fun are other alternatives.
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
Bob Black talks about "the abolition of work" here:
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
"Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue, I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists -- except that I'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes, so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working. "

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide by Paul+Fernhout · 2009-11-02 00:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16
"""
When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words.

"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".

Once you understand the general concept, you will frequently find yourself in debate over specific issues, like healthcare, social security privatization, public school vouchers, the "war on drugs" and of course the war in Iraq. What better way to put your conservative opponent on the defensive than by exposing the true motivation for his position - "cheap labor". Can you really find the "cheap labor" angle in every conservative policy initiative, and every conservative position on any particular issue?

Yes, you can. Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda. In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of "cheap labor". I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor.
"""

Some ideas on what to do about it, because automation only makes this worse:
http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/10/03/why-limited-demand-means-joblessness/

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

we're all schizophrenic, all manic depressive, etc by circletimessquare · 2009-11-02 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

manic depression, schizophrenia, psychopathology, etc., are all aspect of every human being alive. its just that in most people, its below a certain threshold. above that theshold, and you begin to show qualities which put you in a category of illness

but everyone, to some degree, exhibits an ability to dampen their human empathy. if you showed parents the body of their dead child, and one retched on the spot, and the other calmly and grimly left, which is the "normal" person? is the parent who exhibited no physical revulsion a psychopath? we all process these things differently, and you have no objective, only subjective measurement for temporary or permanent empathy deficits

just look at stanley milgram's experiments where he took normal everyday people and got them to shock people to death (in simulation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

just with the excuse of peer pressure and following orders. so what does that mean? psychopathology is widespread?

no, it means "psychopath" is in every single one of us, and can come out under all sorts of conditions. yes, for some, it is easier conditions, but the term psychopathic behavior, in potential, and in our behavior in the past, is an accurate description of something you have done or could do under the right conditions, or me, or anyone reading these words

civilized behavior is a very thin veneer on a bunch of large bipedal monkeys. if the food supply dwindled, you watch how you and your fellow men behave. i think the majority of that behavior you would describe as psychopathic: you have to block out your ability to empathize with the plight of other people suffering if your own survival is threatened. we all can do that. the potential for psychopathic behavior is in all of us

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Slashdot Mirror

Nothing To Fear But Fearlessness Itself?

129 of 660 comments (clear)