Bye ACTA, Hello CETA

Great by Cyphase · 2012-07-09 21:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Trade is good.

Right?

--
by Cyphase ( 907627 )

Re:Great by siddesu · 2012-07-09 22:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Trade is good. Using "trade" as an excuse to subvert the democratic process and force via "international agreements" legislation that favors big business is neither good, nor acceptable.
BTW, the summary is wrong, it isn't the EU that is "trying to revive ACTA", it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans -- that is trying to do so. They are, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the needs of big business.
Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-09 23:36 · Score: 4, Informative

BTW, the summary is wrong, it isn't the EU that is "trying to revive ACTA", it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans -- that is trying to do so. They are, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the needs of big business.
The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. So yes, it's the EU. And if it's fair to bash on Americans for actions taken by the US Federal government, it's fair to blame the "little guys" in Europe for the actions taken by the EC.
Re:Great by siddesu · 2012-07-10 00:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can blame anyone you choose, but your reasoning is faulty.
In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government. This is so because of the way EC commissars .... ops, commissioners are appointed to serve, and because of the complex patron-client relationships that exist between the various national political elites that make the appointments, the European Council, the key commissars and the major European "parties".
In this specific instance, the only body of the EU that represents the "little guys" directly, the European Parliament, rejected ACTA very clearly (and under massive grassroots pressure), so you cannot really blame the EU electorate.
What you are witnessing here is a small clique of euro bureaucrats gaming the rules of the EU, trying to subvert the will of this elected body. They are the ones who should bear all the blame.
Re:Great by Teun · 2012-07-10 00:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans
Crap, yes it's the commission that brings up these dofus ideas but they are no more 'unelected' than many EU governments.
These guys don't fall from the sky but are appointed by national governments that are controlled by elected parliaments and their plans have to pass the elected EU parliament, it's up to you to take part in your national and EU elections to control them.
I agree it's rather scandalous they once more try to force such unwanted legislation but have good hopes the various national governments will instruct their commissioner to either take out the sting or stop the whole process, otherwise the EU parliament will bury it as happened with ACTA.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Great by siddesu · 2012-07-10 00:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't disagree, but to me it looks like in the US this is happening because more people find it acceptable, while in the EU it is mostly due to failure of the institutions. Well, or success, depending on where you stand. Incidentally, ACTA passed quite smoothly in Japan because the electorate is absolutely passive and can't be bothered to have an opinion, but now that it has been rejected in the EU, negative attitude has started to appear.
Re:Great by siddesu · 2012-07-10 00:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Aw, come on. The national governments do indeed appoint the candidates, and there are hearing sessions in the EP before the commissars are put forward and the commission is approved, but the process behind these appointments is in no way transparent, compared to, say, electing a national government.
The big countries and the important bureaucrats play complicated games with their clientelle in the smaller countries, there are all kinds of backstage games and agreements, etc. so in the end you get a "government" that is much more responsive to the cabal that runs these negotiations than to anyone else.
Then, there is the sad fact that the Commission is viewed as something remote and inaccessible by the voters in Europe (or at least by the people I know), and there is a lot less public scrutiny directed at them as well.
So, compared to a national government, the EC suffers less oversight, gets less feedback, and consequently feels more powerful.
Re:Great by AngryDeuce · 2012-07-10 01:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

but to me it looks like in the US this is happening because more people find it acceptable
This. For whatever reason, it seems like more and more people are voting against their interests, all because of the promise of some benefit to someone else. Look at the debate over taxes here in the U.S., I've had people that live in a trailer, working at Walmart for $7.15 an hour, flame the shit out of me over my opinion because "the government is taxing them to death". Really? What could the tax burden on someone living at the fucking poverty line even be? Who the fuck are they fighting for?
It's not just taxes, either; the healthcare debate is another perfect example. I had an old friend of mine, whose wife is on social security for a disability (she's "got bad wrists", which reeks of BS anyway), medicaid, and they now collect food stamps since she's pregnant and they both have minimum wage jobs, not to mention the cost of her care related to the pregnancy is completely absorbed by the state...this person ranted all over me about the nanny state and people "expecting handouts". I pointed out what a huge fucking hypocrite he was, and he told me that it was different in his situation because he works and when he makes money later he'll be forced to pay whereas all the people on it now are just lazy and don't want to work. Everyone else, just not him or his wife. Funny how that works...
I don't know when it happened, but a sizable number of people in this country have been convinced that the government they themselves elected is an evil machine hell bent on wiping them out because "that's what government does", but the multi-national corporations that answer to no one, buy off our officials, skirt the taxes the people bitch about having to pay, and all sorts of other antisocial, repugnant bullshit...they're just benevolent overlords doing God's good work.
Re:Great by Gr8Apes · 2012-07-10 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

but to me it looks like in the US this is happening because more people find it acceptable
This. For whatever reason, it seems like more and more people are voting against their interests, all because of the promise of some benefit to someone else. ...
I don't know when it happened, but a sizable number of people in this country have been convinced that the government they themselves elected is an evil machine hell bent on wiping them out ....
First, people appear to be voting against their interests because they are voting for a very specific interest that amounts to crap in the big picture of politics (abortion anyone?).
Second, those latter 2 statements are not necessarily opposing facts. The government they elected is not the one they received, and there's plenty of evidence they're an out of control evil bent on subjugating the populace, or strongly going that way. Heinlein, Huxley or Orwell may have been prescient instead of merely writing dystopian fiction. Heinlein is included because of the social commentary in Starship Troopers.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Great by gorzek · 2012-07-10 01:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can thank Ronald Reagan for much of that sentiment: the idea that the government is incompetent at best, evil at worst. The federal income tax burden on someone making around minimum wage is not just non-existent, it's negative: the Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit available to the poor, meaning they can get back more than they paid (and they often pay next to nothing.)
If they want to whine about something, maybe they should look at the regressive taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor: gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and the like.
Americans benefit in a lot of ways from the various social programs we have. Food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare, TANF, Social Security, etc. etc. The individual who never draws on any of these is a rare creature, indeed, perhaps even mythical. They are there in case you need them. Claims of fraud are generally exaggerated, except in Medicare, which has massive levels of fraud that somehow don't get talked about.
I've noticed that a lot of the "low tax, small government" conservatives are "pre-rich." They think they will be wealthy one day, and the thought of Uncle Sam taking a good chunk of it is horrifying to them. Never mind that if you are pulling down over a quarter million a year, you aren't going to miss a few tens of thousands. Well, maybe you'll have to settle for one Lexus instead of two?
Oddly enough, I make more money than the vast majority of people who spout such rubbish, and I never complain about paying my taxes, even though they are in the five figures per year. I value the services that the government provides to people less fortunate than me, because I value having a functional society and a government that respects and upholds the social contract. What disgusts me is our runaway defense spending--as if killing foreigners is more important than looking after our own people. It's curious how the same people who are against spending money on the poor and sick are nevertheless fine with dropping billions on boondoggle weapons systems and wars in the Middle East. Talk about fucked up priorities.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Great by gorzek · 2012-07-10 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

The idea that hard work == material success is very Calvinist in origin--not a surprise that so many Americans buy into it unthinkingly. Calvinist doctrine and the Protestant work ethic are deeply-ingrained traits of our culture. It's a circular bit of logic born out of a belief in double predestination: God has elected who will go to heaven and who will go to hell; he blesses those who will go to heaven with material success; those people are successful because they worked hard and God rewarded them; therefore, they will go to heaven. This allows its adherents an airtight logic loop: people who are poor are being punished for not working hard enough, and God knew they wouldn't work hard enough to be successful, that's why they aren't among the Elect. The wealthy are so because God ordained them to be, because he knew they would work hard for it.
In this way, both the rich and poor divinely deserve their fates, which are simultaneously determined in advance and the result of free will (in your hard work/lack thereof.)
Most Americans never stop to think about it beyond the level of "hard work == success," but the theological beliefs underpinning it are pervasive.
Naturally, societies not poisoned by this Calvinist bullshit recognize that success and failure are a product of the circumstances of one's birth, upbringing, work habits, education (and access to it), healthcare (and access to it), and just plain dumb luck. How hard you work certainly plays into it, but it is not the sole factor, and often not even the most important factor. That's not an excuse to be a lazy ass, of course, but it's an acknowledgment that reality is not a black-and-white place where the good people are Christians who worked hard and got rich and the bad people are heathens who never did anything with their lives and remained poor.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Great by antientropic · 2012-07-10 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree it's rather scandalous they once more try to force such unwanted legislation but have good hopes the various national governments will instruct their commissioner to either take out the sting or stop the whole process, otherwise the EU parliament will bury it as happened with ACTA.
National governments are not supposed to "instruct" their commissioner since the commissioners (in theory) do not represent member states but the interests of the EU as a whole. They even take an oath of office to that effect ("neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity").
Re:Great by dkleinsc · 2012-07-10 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

You can thank Ronald Reagan for much of that sentiment: the idea that the government is incompetent at best, evil at worst.
My usual view on the GOP: Modern post-Reagan Republicans believe that government can't function well, and while in office do everything they can to ensure that they're right!

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

So... by cheesybagel · 2012-07-09 21:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Can we blame Canada now?

Synonyms by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-07-09 21:29 · Score: 5, Funny

You say, "I don't want to be raped by your dildo," and they respond with, "Well, how about this one? It's a different color!"

Re:Synonyms by Chrisq · 2012-07-09 21:38 · Score: 5, Funny

You say, "I don't want to be raped by your dildo," and they respond with, "Well, how about this one? It's a different color!"
Well they say "the Mounty always gets his man".

Re:Sigh by solidraven · 2012-07-09 21:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, and that might obscure the more worrying issue here. They infringed on the writer of ACTA's rights by copying said clauses!

Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for by captainpanic · 2012-07-09 21:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

How long will this continue to go on?

Hopefully forever. European counties founded the EU because it's better to keep the politicians talking about money than to have them threaten each other and start a war. First it was a union for coal and steel, now it's apparently music and entertainment. Same thing though: it keeps them occupied, and the results are generally a bit less awful than a world war.

The more they talk, the less harm is done.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for by Kjella · 2012-07-09 23:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hopefully forever. European counties founded the EU because it's better to keep the politicians talking about money than to have them threaten each other and start a war.
As long as it was a trade union as trade is mostly good for everyone and create positive dependencies, but what's been happening recently? Hell no. Greeks and the other countries that have been forced to beg for aid feeling they've lost all sovereignty and is being dictated by France and Germany, while the Germans feel they're being blackmailed into covering other people debt and all the old nation lines are flaring red hot again, insults about who's lazy and spoiled and cruel and whatnot. Lately they've ripped open many old wounds and created a lot of new ones and it's far from over.
The politicians want stronger central control but the people doesn't, I fear that the current path they're on is going to take them more in the direction of a Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Roman Empire where there's a lot of states on the outskirts that feel they are getting overrun by a big central government in Brussels. Granted there's a lot less guns involved but there sure is a lot of economic blackmail, which I hardly think is the best foundation for a union. Rushing too fast into a United States of Europe to save the economy may turn out to be rather counterproductive to actually creating a united Europe.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for by CodeBuster · 2012-07-10 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Greeks and the other countries that have been forced to beg for aid feeling they've lost all sovereignty and is being dictated by France and Germany
In a way they already have lost their sovereignty to their creditors. In previous centuries, a profligate Greece would have been invaded by a foreign army bent on enforcing the debt. That doesn't happen anymore in Europe because it's no longer necessary. The European Central Bank and the IMF can very effectively bring Greece to heel as evidenced by the votes in the Greek parliament for continued austerity in order to continue receiving bail out monies from those who have effectively become their political masters. Invasion and occupation are thus no longer necessary to place a country like Greece under foreign control.

Resale rights ??? by DMorritt · 2012-07-09 21:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Resale rights. The EU is demanding that Canada implement a new resale right that would provide artists with a royalty based on any resales of their works (subsequent to the first sale).

Because when you buy a car (or any other second hand goods) through a private classified ad, Ford (etc) get a slice of that too... This is insane!

Re:Resale rights ??? by Phrogman · 2012-07-09 22:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Its Big Media (tm) trying to impose this on the world, in this case through their hired lapdog Canada's PM Steven Harper. Harper will do whatever it takes to pass legislation he wants passed. Usually he does this by inserting it in legislation that has no bearing on the new insertions - recently this meant changes to our criminal code and prison system, revamping the entire fisheries act, attempting to close down environmental groups etc, all inserted in some budget legislation that was because of its nature, not open to general debate. Harper is very close to acting like a dictator in many ways, and he is ramming through his provisions to create the most authoritarian version of Canada in its history, while letting Canadians retain what appears to be freedom.
A large part of this seems to be enacting whatever legislation will best suit the folks who run the US - i.e. Big Media corporations and the Patent trolling folks down south of the border. I would say the insertion of the text of ACTA in another bill is perfectly in keeping with the way Harper acts.

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Resale rights ??? by dkleinsc · 2012-07-10 01:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Usually he does this by inserting it in legislation that has no bearing on the new insertions - recently this meant changes to our criminal code and prison system, revamping the entire fisheries act, attempting to close down environmental groups etc, all inserted in some budget legislation that was because of its nature, not open to general debate.
Wait, that's a new horrible thing in Canada? In the States, that's an extremely common technique called a rider, where the unpopular provision is passed by riding along with something completely unrelated.
A related technique is called the "poison pill", where you add a provision totally unrelated to the main bill to either wreck a good bill or sweeten a bad bill. The idea is to put incumbents in a bad spot by creating a bill that says something like "Motherhood and apple pie are both fantastic, and we should kill 10 kittens a day for fun." If our hapless legislator votes Nay, the ads will say "Senator Buford opposes motherhood and apple pie!" while if he votes Yea, the ads will say "Senator Buford supports killing kittens!" And no, Senator Buford can't defend himself by explaining what really happened, because the voter's attention span is too short.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

This is war by Pecisk · 2012-07-09 21:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

If someone didn't understand, this is war. We have billions industry fighting this who has lot of money to waste on politicians and lobbying, and they won't give up their rights to get easy money without any economical logic. This ain't first, and won't be our last battle, and we should accept this as that. What's good that this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes. More they pushing this, more people see what's their real aims are.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!

Not a surprise by hey_popey · 2012-07-09 21:44 · Score: 5, Informative

It's not like if we weren't warned; some Euro-MPs had announced this: https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Translation_Interview_Marielle_Gallo_ACTA_pcinpact

Re:Not a surprise by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-07-09 22:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can't really decide if that's extremely funny or incredibly scary. Did she actually say that people should have nothing to do with laws? That she'd keep pushing it covertly until it passed, making no compromises? Whoever votes for that woman is a very special kind of idiot.
Re:Not a surprise by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-07-09 22:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

We don't really vote for MEPs. We vote for European political parties, almost all of which are made up of groups of national political parties. So people end up voting for the same party they vote for in their own country, and it's often not the best and brightest who advance to European politics, quite the contrary in fact. It seems that the only "good" politicians who get into europarliament are the onces who need a bit of a break from the busy life of national politics.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Not a surprise by AliasMarlowe · 2012-07-10 02:27 · Score: 3, Informative

We don't really vote for MEPs. We vote for European political parties, almost all of which are made up of groups of national political parties.
If you're in a country which uses the party-list system, that's true enough, and some of those elected due to a favorable placing on the party list would most likely be unelectable as individuals (most of the EU uses this, with some variations). However, if you're in a country which uses the single transferrable vote system, you actually get to vote for your MEP, and only candidates who were individually voted for can be elected (only Ireland, Malta, and Northern Ireland for European elections).

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

And, it will be defeated just like before ... by acidfast7 · 2012-07-09 21:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

because when people don't like something over here, they actively protest. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is being protested for/against, but the apathy I see coming (perhaps, not coming is more accurate) out of North America just flat-out baffles me.

Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists by Rogerborg · 2012-07-09 21:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is the lobbyists 9-5 (well, 11-3 including a 2 hour expenses lunch) job. It's just going to go on and on and on, and they will never stop, ever, regardless of either setback or success. There won't be enough profit or laws or mandatory nagware or State enforcement to satisfy them, because this is what they do. This is all that they do.

While we won the battle on the barricades, they continued the war by creeping in through the sewers. They're in this for the duration, and so we have to be too.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists by Andtalath · 2012-07-09 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as they are on the offense, we are on the defence.
Meaning, even if they don't win, we don't either.
That's why the actual goal is to attack them.

Falkvinge addresses this by G-forze · 2012-07-09 22:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Rick Falkvinge comments. It seems CETA was written sometime in february when ACTA looked like a done deal, so it is natural that it contains the same language. But it is true that we can expect the European commission to try to bring ACTA in through the back door, so we should keep our eyes open.

--
"There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon

Keep your eyes open please, Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-09 22:02 · Score: 5, Informative

The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - 478 to 39.

According to TFA, CETA was drafted in February 2012, months before ACTA's resounding defeat. So presumably CETA will not be allowed to go through as-is, providing that the European Parliament are paying attention. A letter or even just an e-mail to your local MEP could make a big difference, for those who live in Europe.

Still, after US online poker was banned by a rider on the SAFE Port Act, nothing would surprise me in the world of political skullduggery.

Relevant online lecture by ocularsinister · 2012-07-09 22:03 · Score: 5, Informative

I can't help but think that the current series of Reith Lectures presented by the Professor Neil Ferguson is pertinent here.

The lectures are quite long at about an hour each, and there are only three of the final four available so far, but it is worth the taking the time to listen to what he has to say. If you are short of time, skip to the third episode where he explains that the rule of law has become the rule of lawyers and why this is bad for the economy.

I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland by Fixer40000 · 2012-07-09 22:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

You will vote on this referendum again and again until we get the result we want.

At which point you will be stuck with it forever.

Democracy in action.

Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it. by Opportunist · 2012-07-09 23:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just implement the law already. No, seriously. The only thing that will change is that it's cheaper in the end because this will come. Why? Because it has nothing to do with any kind of democratic process anymore. The crap will be reintroduced again and again and again until the people who keep an eye out for it will be distracted by something even worse and then it's in.

Why the fuck do we keep up the democracy show? Hand over the powers to the corporations already, if nothing else it should save us a lot of money for cutting out the middle man that now clutter the various parliaments.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

It never will by oztiks · 2012-07-09 23:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Name your reason, kiddy porn, hacking, illegal downloads, so on and so fourth.

Polticans will think they are doing the world/country justice trying to eliminate one of the above problems, they put forward a policy until its very many faults are examined and it's abandoned.

Another policitican comes along, thinks they are doing the world/country a justice trying to eliminate one of the above problems, except for the last one cause that's still in the news, they put forward a policy until its very many faults are examined and it's abandoned.

Another politician comes along ........

Then it will be revived again by betterunixthanunix · 2012-07-10 00:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Eventually, protesters run out of steam. High-paid lobbyists don't stop. This sort of thing will be revived over and over until the industry gets what it wants. That's how democracy works, right? Keep demanding things until people lose the energy to vote against you.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Then it will be revived again by betterunixthanunix · 2012-07-10 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're missing the point. The lobbyists are never "defeated" -- they keep trying to get what they want, and we need a more permanent solution to that problem. Yes, people eventually run out of energy -- the fact that one protest has remained active in Frankfurt does not mean that people can keep coming out and protesting whenever lobbyists try to attack the Internet.

Look at it this way: we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of protesting ACTA-like treaties, we should be pushing for laws that protect the Internet from such things. We need to slap down the lobbyists and the industries they represent once and for all -- so that we don't have to go out and protest the same laws and treaties every few months. We should be moving our focus on to new issues, not rehashing the same old problems over and over again. Voting no on an individual treaty is putting a band-aid on a broken leg; we need to vote yes on a resolution that rules out all such treaties.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Sigh by betterunixthanunix · 2012-07-10 00:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

https://torrentfreak.com/record-label-infringes-own-copyright-site-pulled-081019/

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Not in this case by oztiks · 2012-07-10 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd challenge that only because a person being a public servant or being in a position of power doesn't necessarily make them a smart person.

I mean let's look at it this way, if I cry poor and I'm big business that suffers because of X and if X has political relevance to a particular political party, I.E Republican is right wing and X helps big business then yes, they believe what they are doing is correct by their views.

As if I'm a farmer and the guy across the road is selling unvaccinated chickens or using illegal aliens as employees and if it was the Democrats in power, I don't know, shutting down that farm would hold political relevance and if there wasn't a policy out there then me getting local congress to deal with the issue would be favorable for their political motivation and easier to leverage.

I'm not all up with the US political structure so if I have it wrong then sorry but you get what I mean.

It's really what's wrong with politics IMHO because I like to see the law / political system very similar to a computer program "if this then that else the other" and because it upholds this static behavior it's why laws that may be ethical and good in one end of town, kills and destroys the other.

If piracy was about real damages and not made up damages because the law allows flashy lawyers to substantiate a lot of bogus costs and damages against piracy or pirates, then we wouldn't have this ethical haze of which your refer too.

If I pirated a video and the RRP of that video was $10 and I was caught doing so and some media company wanted to take me to court over the cost of the stolen goods, then the damage is $10 and I would be liable to pay the media company $10. This doesn't seem work in the favor of the media company because it seems like an awful lot of work for just $10 so then they go after all the substantiated costs and thereabouts, why? because the law let's them, why because of legal precedence established within the civil court system.

We wont touch on criminal implications because that's prolly even more complex but this concept or precedence did hold ethical purpose at one point and therefore was written into law, the backlash being that it can be leveraged unethically at any point.

Same thing which I believe caused the GFC. In 1932 saw a depression, then the world recovered, as a result we wrote laws to prevent it from happening again. Then this legal precedence process repeated itself, undid the knots we imposed on ourselves and presto 2009 and we are back at stage 1 again. Now we are just in bandaid mode, patching the holes thinking that we're smart enough to out patch the problem (back to the software analogy) but the truth is it won't work out that way, sometime at some point the real value of the dollar has to find itself, when it does it's gonna hurt.

41 of 225 comments (clear)