Expect to be able to walk to Cuba on the tops of derricks in a few years. Maybe. If you can shove your way past the throng of Cubans that'll be running the other way...
I wouldn't actually want to nuke anyone. That was more or less absurdity. Understood. But if China really did do something hostile over the trade imbalance it could escalate into war so it bears some discussion.
Russia wouldn't be able to afford the fuel necessary Huh? Have you read anything at all about the Russia starting up all of its old Soviet-era air force exercises? Heres's one example and you can Google for more (BBC had a good story on this a couple of months ago, this is just the first one Google news brought up). Not exactly the sort of thing a country with no fuel reserves would be doing...
more or less irrelevant in today's global economy Russia's now one of the world's biggest energy producers/exporters. Europe buys a lot of energy from them these days. And much of what Russia doesn't produce, it controls, since many of the pipelines to Europe run through the former soviet block.
Plenty of Russians live in such poverty and in ruins, it looks like they were just recently bombed. Please don't mistake a lack of civilian comfort for national poverty. They're still running an economy that's very similar to what they had in the Soviet days. Back then in many cities the power would go out at 11PM. It wasn't that the plant shut down, it's just that the electricity was all diverted to munitions plants because they were an economic priority. Today resources are being diverted into the exploitation of strategic resources (like energy).
Oh, and keeping the Soviet-style economy in mind, Russia wouldn't have to "buy" anything to sustain a war effort. They'd simply order their people to build it - and that would work because the Russian mentality is nothing like ours is here. For one thing ultra-patriotic nationalism is normal and encouraged in Russia, rather than a silly notion as it is here. For another, not much time has passed since the bad old days when you did as you were told or you simply vanished in the night. People remember that too, and they have no illusions about their leaders not resorting to that kind of pressure in a time of war.
and when it comes time to pay them back we just nuke 'em. Good luck with that. China's favorite new ally is Russia, and unless your government has managed to secretly produce hundreds of thousands of new nukes, mounted them on shiny new rockets, built the magic space shield, and dug bunkers under all the cities, the Russians would beat you hands down in a nuclear exchange. Given that their population is spread out and not as reliant on a power grid and the internet as Americans are a fair number of them might not even notice a war had taken place.
As for the odds that the US government has done any such thing in secret...well I wouldn't bet on it.
I think there's a really important point here that we're missing. Now that AT&T has admitted that they have the ability to filter content, and have plans to implement it in the future, what's to stop them and other ISPs from taking it a step further and filtering out "immoral" content such as pornography, or even to head even farther down the slippery slope and enter into the political game? Net neutrality is a huge issue on more than one front. Mainly the legal system. If they did that they could be sued. Unless congress passes a law that sanctions the filtering. In that case it all depends on whether such a law wouldn't be thrown out as unconstitutional.
But considering how much weight the US Constitution has these days...well, let's get it over with:
I for one welcome our new Great Firewall of America-building overlords.
And mod parent up. If there's one thing history should have taught us by now is that when a powerful body has the ability to do something...sooner or later they do it.
It is brilliant for gaming. It's actually almost perfectly fitted to the runtime profile of most games: lots of highly parallellizable math, lots of memcpys, and a bit of general purpose glue to hold it all together.
The problem is that it's harder to develop for than a normal multi-processor system and game developers like to whine about that sort of thing whenever possible. Give Sony some time to put out some nice SDK tools (they've already got an amazing profiler for it) and the whining will stop.
Sort of. Each core can run two threads at the same time (but both threads share the same cache, if I'm not mistaken) so it's somewhere between a hyper-threaded triple-core processor and 3 dual-core processors.
Your DayCare comment makes no sense The comment makes perfect sense. It refers to the fact that public education in our society has almost nothing to do with education and everything to do with giving parents a place to park their kids while they go off to work.
If it were really about education then AP courses would be available everywhere. Also, the regular courses would be harder and students would graduate high school knowing the things we teach in first year university. It's not impossible - in fact it's how it's been done for years in Europe (though I hear Europe's been dumbing down as well), and Japan.
Instead we have a system (the majority of teachers, principals, school boards, regulatory agencies, etc) that doesn't give a shit what the students do so long as they sit still, play nice, and don't cause too much trouble. If that's not a day care I don't know what is.
Overall I agree, society should stand up for right and wrong, but this isn't the way to do it at all. Not letting kids buy games because they're failing is like attacking gays because straight people are divorcing in record numbers - it's shooting way off target at an only vaguely related "problem".
Take a look at all the claims Alexander Litvinenko made against the Russian government. He's written books about his claims. He's been on TV interviews stating his claims. As crazy as the stuff he said sounds, you have to admit it makes for some good headlines: "Former KGB agent says Russian Government the Devil!" All in all I'd say that's pretty public.
So what happened to him? Someone simply waited till he dropped out of the headlines and then gave him one of the most interesting deaths money can buy.
You want to piss off a foreign government and pretend the media can protect you...be my guest, just warn me ahead of time so I can be somewhere else when the bizarre accident that nobody witnessed takes place.
I worked at Staples during my first year of college. No commission. Also no peace if you don't sell an extended warranty on at least 25% of eligible products. Managers were absolutely horrible to anyone that didn't meet the goals. I usually met mine, mainly selling it on $60 mice and keyboards by telling people that if they bought the $5 warranty they could replace it in-store for free any time during the next 5 years, which was actually true back then (and isn't now). But still, it sucked balls to be the one guy that got yelled at because I happened to miss a target...
...Which is why I moved to the office furniture department, which management didn't give a damn about so nobody bothered me about not selling the "Furniture Protection Plan". That and so I could "test" the chairs every now and then.
Did I miss something in the article, because all I read is "GPLv3 code can exist in the same universe as non-GPLv3 code provided there are clear boundaries." Which just begs one to add "In other news, some still consider water to be wet."
Seriously though, as far as I understand the article's intent it simply proposes using a hypervisor to isolate closed/locked code from GPLv3, providing the same type of boundary dynamic linking gives between (possibly closed/locked) OS libraries and any GPL application - except at a lower level.
My understanding is that it requires significant changes to the driver model and that they couldn't back-port the changes to XP.
Then again the DX10 equivalent OpenGL extensions all work (or will work) on XP (or so I've been promised by NV's reps at GDC) so that's probably only part of the issue (the other part being the Vista push).
Re:And for those wondering what PCI refers to
on
PCI Compliance
·
· Score: 1
From the summary, I thought it was some kind of PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) bus level security (i.e. encrypted electrical transport), for DRM! Same here. And when I first read "Visa" I read it "Vista" and had to stop and reread the sentence when I hit "MasterCard" (after the "WTF is MS doing with the credit card companies, I should stop reading right now and post something" moment of/.-style outrage).
Another advantage to a sales tax over an income tax is that if a person is thrifty then that person can invest the money he'd otherwise loose to taxes and earn a return on it (thus stimulating the economy at large).
You do not borrow anything when you purchase foreign goods in exchange for cash. There is no agreement to pay anything back later. Right. Similarly there is no agreement that the foreigner has to keep taking your dollars in exchange for their tangible goods. They take the dollars now because they're hoping that the trade deficit will reverse itself in the future and they'll be able to spend those dollars on tangible goods of their own. But if the trend continues long enough that confidence will fade. And they won't wait forever, either - inflation is eating away at the value of those dollars they can't spend right away, it's not like they'll sit around until the billions you gave them in exchange for boat loads of goods won't buy so much as a stick of gum.
What happens to the US when oil producers decide they aren't interested in your dollars any more? I mean, sure, you could threaten them with war but that might seem a bit imperialistic (that nasty word just won't go away, will it?) and they might band together against you. How, exactly, do you propose to fight Russia, China, and the middle east all at once? Who will ally with you? Europe buys most of its oil from the Russians...
I'd love to see China put some serious fiscal hurt on us... If you're thinking is that some fiscal hurt would probably strengthen the USA's domestic economy, then I agree - though one should be careful with the word some. A slow increase in foreign labor costs which leads to a gradual return of industry to the USA would be a good thing. But what you're proposing is, at best, suicide.
China holds enough US debt to, in very real terms, make the US dollar worth less than the paper it's printed on. This would pretty much instantaneously destroy America's ability to buy from anyone. How much of that precious oil of yours do you produce domestically, anyway? Can you really imagine living in the USA when shipping costs alone drive the price of food well above what most people can afford to pay? Don't forget that less trade means fewer jobs too - so even more people are going to starve.
If you're thinking of some sort of revolution - let me assure, the kind with masses of half-starved citizens rioting in the streets is the bad kind. Go study the French Revolution and count the number of people that lost their heads - yes, you too could be like them!
And don't think the rest of the world would pitch in to help you out. Ignoring the fact that the USA's pissed a large portion of the world off you still face the issue that the end of US trade would lead to severe recessions in most other industrialized nations as well - foreigners would be too busy saving themselves to help you.
The only countries to really benefit from US collapse, really, are Russia and China - the former because Europe would give them whatever they ask for in exchange for cheap oil, and the latter because their Asian neighbors would do the same.
And that's all assuming World War III doesn't break out at some point in all the chaos.
...as we'd deserve every bit of it. Then again, maybe you're just suicidal, after all.
But do yourself a favor and drop the illusion of this helping the rest of the world or being righteous in any way. We're talking about a minimum of 10 years of worldwide recession here - that's a lot of starving people. If you want to help the rest of the world out, get rid of the trade deficit and produce something that all those foreigners holding onto US dollars can buy. The US crumbling into pieces doesn't help anyone.
I'm sure the MPAA is working on a draft war declaration as we speak. Don't forget the matching propaganda campaign, with thrillers like: Saving Private Ryan's Copyright, James Bond: Dr. No...Not Iraq - Bomb Antigua, and We're Out Of Bourne Books But Here's Matt Damon Asking You To Please Bomb Antigua Anyway...
On the plus side, with this sort of motivation behind Hollywood they might turn out to be good movies.
So if there less benign aspects of the new bacteria, and it gets loose in the wild Eh? As far as I understand it we've taken one kind of already existing bacteria and turned it into another kind of already existing bacteria. There really isn't any new kind of bacteria here.
So you're saying World War I and II didn't work? The USA's involvement in WWI was a reaction to an attack on America's trading partners. Pushing the Germans back was a success. Post-war Europe was a failure because the reparations imposed on Germany resulted in WWII - not that this is the USA's fault, America had achieved its stated goals at that point.
As for WWII, America didn't do much more than sell guns to the Allies until after the Japanese attack and the German declaration of war. Let's not confuse self-defense with "being good people" and "policing the world" because the two are really quite unrelated.
As for Kosovo - I'm amazed that everyone's already forgotten that both the Serbs and the Albanians hold a grudge against us over that (the Serbs because we fought them and the Albanians because we won't sponsor their revenge). It may not be a majority of either group that hates us, but this is a region where small, motivated, minorities have always and will always rule. History has not ended in the Balkans, I assure you (nor has it ended here - but that's another issue).
Speaking of people hating us over Kosovo, have we also forgotten Russia threatening to attack if NATO didn't pull out of the region? Or the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy and the amount of rage that generated in China?
As for Darfur I don't care how bad it is we could and probably would make it worse - for evidence see Iraq, which went from totalitarian oppression to a very bloody civil war (yes, the civil war is worse than Saddam was, both for the Iraqis and for us).
That is why the U.S. is involved in so many countries because our economy depends on growth. If companies with public share holders weren't required to make the most profit then we could probably find something sustainable within our own borders. Until the underlying greed is vanquished this will never happen. Here, let me fix that: Until the government grows some balls and reigns in the underlying greed that's destroying the domestic economy and undermining our security this will never happen. Of course we could predicate that with: Until people stop supporting the export of our major industries to China and force our government and corporations to act like responsible adults with an interest in their own country...
Isolationism didn't work for us before, I don't think anything has changed that would make me thing is would work now. Picking our battles more intelligently would be a better move in my opinion. I couldn't agree more. I have no problem maintaining a large military and using against our enemies. I certainly have no problem stopping future Hitlers. What I have a problem with is the tendency to confuse every tin-pot tyrant with Hitler and go to war on "moral" grounds. This is a terrible waste of human life and resources.
But it's not just staying out of wars we have no real interest in (beyond the feel-good notion of "helping" people) - it's also winning wars by crushing our opposition and then getting the hell out of there. Trying to beat freedom, democracy, free markets, good will towards man, peace on earth, and whatever other insane philosophy we like to think is true into people that hate (make that really hate) each other doesn't work and we'd be much better off if our leaders understood that.
Of course, until people stop turning every national election into a referendum on irrelevant issues (like which candidate is a nicer person) this will never happen.
People realized their houses (which may have been completely paid off) were worth many thousands more than they had paid for them...effective interest rate on 2nd mortgages on their homes were much less than the usurious rates charged on credit cards...
Mortgages substituting credit cards, OK I can buy that. What I don't buy is the notion that taking a mortgage out on your house against it's peak value makes any sense at all in terms of somehow magically converting it into even more assets. The only way to do that (which I know of) is to sell the house at the higher value and then not buy it (or another one) back until the value drops. The only way this makes sense is if all these people used their new-found cash to earn more money, which isn't what's happening.
The underlying fact is still that people are using credit they shouldn't have to buy things that they really can't afford. And they're trusting the stock market to (somehow) perpetually defer repayment on those loans. I don't see easy mortgates as the cause here. From my point of view they exist because the banks are trying to cash in on the high demand for easy credit.
Now this has recently led to a "repricing" (nice euphemism there!) of credit risk, which has caused a bunch of hedge funds to close...
Exactly what I was talking about. Banks are realizing that a large amount of credit is in the hands of people that have no business having credit. The problem is that a lot of that money's found its way into actual investment.
Adam remortgages his house and invests in a company. Bob remortgages his house and blows it on lottery tickets. The bank forcloses on Bob and dumps the house on the market for less than it's worth (because the bank doesn't want to hold onto such a small non-liquid asset) which lowers the value of Adam's house. The bank then raises its interest rates slightly because they're afraid of giving credit to people like Bob in the future. Bob now stops spending as much (because he no longer has credit) which lowers the proffits of the company Adam invested in. It gets slightly harder for Adam to pay his mortgage.
When the Bobs siginificantly outnumber the Adams (as I believe they do now) the Adams end up in trouble. And so do the companies that all the Adams invested in.
...However, there has been no massive exit from the stock markets.
Yet. The crash in 1929 was also preceeded by a series of downturns followed by rapid recoveries. And in the end most people didn't voluntarily leave the markets - a large amount of credit was called in and people had to sell, and when stock prices dropped due to the first wave of sell-offs more creditors got nervous and they called in their loans (etc).
IMHO the problem these days isn't so much the risk of a stock market collapse, but rather the risk of the doller dropping to the point where we can't even afford to import the massive amount of goods we consume. Any weakening of the domestic economy could do that. So could other factors (see below).
Um, Russia, Argentina and Weimar Germany all experienced massive increases in credit and money supply in the 1920's, and subsequent hyperinflation but none started any "random" wars. Nor did they start "exporting" jobs to lower cost jurisdictions; in fact, they generally erected tariff barriers to maintain domestic employment (as did the US, Britain, and France). Global free trade is a relatively new phenomenon.
First off 1920s Russia was a Communist state. The New Economic Plan was capitalist-ish (but not really) and I don't think we can analyze that particular case as though it were actually a market economy.
As for Weimar Germany not starting any wars I think you're forgetting something. Of course, by the time WWII broke out Germany was nothing like it had been at the start of the 1920s but despite the fact that the Nazis ran on an anti-everything platform economics still played a huge (if not central) part
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I know it would probably be some amount of Euros or Yen but that's just so much funnier...
Oh, and keeping the Soviet-style economy in mind, Russia wouldn't have to "buy" anything to sustain a war effort. They'd simply order their people to build it - and that would work because the Russian mentality is nothing like ours is here. For one thing ultra-patriotic nationalism is normal and encouraged in Russia, rather than a silly notion as it is here. For another, not much time has passed since the bad old days when you did as you were told or you simply vanished in the night. People remember that too, and they have no illusions about their leaders not resorting to that kind of pressure in a time of war.
As for the odds that the US government has done any such thing in secret...well I wouldn't bet on it.
But considering how much weight the US Constitution has these days...well, let's get it over with:
I for one welcome our new Great Firewall of America-building overlords.
And mod parent up. If there's one thing history should have taught us by now is that when a powerful body has the ability to do something...sooner or later they do it.
It is brilliant for gaming. It's actually almost perfectly fitted to the runtime profile of most games: lots of highly parallellizable math, lots of memcpys, and a bit of general purpose glue to hold it all together.
The problem is that it's harder to develop for than a normal multi-processor system and game developers like to whine about that sort of thing whenever possible. Give Sony some time to put out some nice SDK tools (they've already got an amazing profiler for it) and the whining will stop.
Then we could be both satisfied and dissatisfied at the same time.
Which is good because we'd get the satisfaction that he's in the box, but we don't know that he's dead so we can still ridicule him for being a moron.
Sort of. Each core can run two threads at the same time (but both threads share the same cache, if I'm not mistaken) so it's somewhere between a hyper-threaded triple-core processor and 3 dual-core processors.
If it were really about education then AP courses would be available everywhere. Also, the regular courses would be harder and students would graduate high school knowing the things we teach in first year university. It's not impossible - in fact it's how it's been done for years in Europe (though I hear Europe's been dumbing down as well), and Japan.
Instead we have a system (the majority of teachers, principals, school boards, regulatory agencies, etc) that doesn't give a shit what the students do so long as they sit still, play nice, and don't cause too much trouble. If that's not a day care I don't know what is.
Overall I agree, society should stand up for right and wrong, but this isn't the way to do it at all. Not letting kids buy games because they're failing is like attacking gays because straight people are divorcing in record numbers - it's shooting way off target at an only vaguely related "problem".
The goggles! They do...hey, wait...that's kinda cool!
Take a look at all the claims Alexander Litvinenko made against the Russian government. He's written books about his claims. He's been on TV interviews stating his claims. As crazy as the stuff he said sounds, you have to admit it makes for some good headlines: "Former KGB agent says Russian Government the Devil!" All in all I'd say that's pretty public.
So what happened to him? Someone simply waited till he dropped out of the headlines and then gave him one of the most interesting deaths money can buy.
You want to piss off a foreign government and pretend the media can protect you...be my guest, just warn me ahead of time so I can be somewhere else when the bizarre accident that nobody witnessed takes place.
I worked at Staples during my first year of college. No commission. Also no peace if you don't sell an extended warranty on at least 25% of eligible products. Managers were absolutely horrible to anyone that didn't meet the goals. I usually met mine, mainly selling it on $60 mice and keyboards by telling people that if they bought the $5 warranty they could replace it in-store for free any time during the next 5 years, which was actually true back then (and isn't now). But still, it sucked balls to be the one guy that got yelled at because I happened to miss a target...
Did I miss something in the article, because all I read is "GPLv3 code can exist in the same universe as non-GPLv3 code provided there are clear boundaries." Which just begs one to add "In other news, some still consider water to be wet."
Seriously though, as far as I understand the article's intent it simply proposes using a hypervisor to isolate closed/locked code from GPLv3, providing the same type of boundary dynamic linking gives between (possibly closed/locked) OS libraries and any GPL application - except at a lower level.
My understanding is that it requires significant changes to the driver model and that they couldn't back-port the changes to XP. Then again the DX10 equivalent OpenGL extensions all work (or will work) on XP (or so I've been promised by NV's reps at GDC) so that's probably only part of the issue (the other part being the Vista push).
Another advantage to a sales tax over an income tax is that if a person is thrifty then that person can invest the money he'd otherwise loose to taxes and earn a return on it (thus stimulating the economy at large).
Shh! We're avoiding Anti-US feelings abroad by lying low, remember?!!
What happens to the US when oil producers decide they aren't interested in your dollars any more? I mean, sure, you could threaten them with war but that might seem a bit imperialistic (that nasty word just won't go away, will it?) and they might band together against you. How, exactly, do you propose to fight Russia, China, and the middle east all at once? Who will ally with you? Europe buys most of its oil from the Russians...
China holds enough US debt to, in very real terms, make the US dollar worth less than the paper it's printed on. This would pretty much instantaneously destroy America's ability to buy from anyone. How much of that precious oil of yours do you produce domestically, anyway? Can you really imagine living in the USA when shipping costs alone drive the price of food well above what most people can afford to pay? Don't forget that less trade means fewer jobs too - so even more people are going to starve.
If you're thinking of some sort of revolution - let me assure, the kind with masses of half-starved citizens rioting in the streets is the bad kind. Go study the French Revolution and count the number of people that lost their heads - yes, you too could be like them!
And don't think the rest of the world would pitch in to help you out. Ignoring the fact that the USA's pissed a large portion of the world off you still face the issue that the end of US trade would lead to severe recessions in most other industrialized nations as well - foreigners would be too busy saving themselves to help you.
The only countries to really benefit from US collapse, really, are Russia and China - the former because Europe would give them whatever they ask for in exchange for cheap oil, and the latter because their Asian neighbors would do the same.
And that's all assuming World War III doesn't break out at some point in all the chaos.
...as we'd deserve every bit of it. Then again, maybe you're just suicidal, after all.But do yourself a favor and drop the illusion of this helping the rest of the world or being righteous in any way. We're talking about a minimum of 10 years of worldwide recession here - that's a lot of starving people. If you want to help the rest of the world out, get rid of the trade deficit and produce something that all those foreigners holding onto US dollars can buy. The US crumbling into pieces doesn't help anyone.
On the plus side, with this sort of motivation behind Hollywood they might turn out to be good movies.
I for one welcome our new formerly-M.-mycoides-but-now-M.-capricolum overlords.
As for WWII, America didn't do much more than sell guns to the Allies until after the Japanese attack and the German declaration of war. Let's not confuse self-defense with "being good people" and "policing the world" because the two are really quite unrelated.
As for Kosovo - I'm amazed that everyone's already forgotten that both the Serbs and the Albanians hold a grudge against us over that (the Serbs because we fought them and the Albanians because we won't sponsor their revenge). It may not be a majority of either group that hates us, but this is a region where small, motivated, minorities have always and will always rule. History has not ended in the Balkans, I assure you (nor has it ended here - but that's another issue).
Speaking of people hating us over Kosovo, have we also forgotten Russia threatening to attack if NATO didn't pull out of the region? Or the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy and the amount of rage that generated in China?
As for Darfur I don't care how bad it is we could and probably would make it worse - for evidence see Iraq, which went from totalitarian oppression to a very bloody civil war (yes, the civil war is worse than Saddam was, both for the Iraqis and for us). That is why the U.S. is involved in so many countries because our economy depends on growth. If companies with public share holders weren't required to make the most profit then we could probably find something sustainable within our own borders. Until the underlying greed is vanquished this will never happen. Here, let me fix that: Until the government grows some balls and reigns in the underlying greed that's destroying the domestic economy and undermining our security this will never happen. Of course we could predicate that with: Until people stop supporting the export of our major industries to China and force our government and corporations to act like responsible adults with an interest in their own country... Isolationism didn't work for us before, I don't think anything has changed that would make me thing is would work now. Picking our battles more intelligently would be a better move in my opinion. I couldn't agree more. I have no problem maintaining a large military and using against our enemies. I certainly have no problem stopping future Hitlers. What I have a problem with is the tendency to confuse every tin-pot tyrant with Hitler and go to war on "moral" grounds. This is a terrible waste of human life and resources.
But it's not just staying out of wars we have no real interest in (beyond the feel-good notion of "helping" people) - it's also winning wars by crushing our opposition and then getting the hell out of there. Trying to beat freedom, democracy, free markets, good will towards man, peace on earth, and whatever other insane philosophy we like to think is true into people that hate (make that really hate) each other doesn't work and we'd be much better off if our leaders understood that.
Of course, until people stop turning every national election into a referendum on irrelevant issues (like which candidate is a nicer person) this will never happen.
http://www.xkcd.com/207/
People realized their houses (which may have been completely paid off) were worth many thousands more than they had paid for them...effective interest rate on 2nd mortgages on their homes were much less than the usurious rates charged on credit cards...
Mortgages substituting credit cards, OK I can buy that. What I don't buy is the notion that taking a mortgage out on your house against it's peak value makes any sense at all in terms of somehow magically converting it into even more assets. The only way to do that (which I know of) is to sell the house at the higher value and then not buy it (or another one) back until the value drops. The only way this makes sense is if all these people used their new-found cash to earn more money, which isn't what's happening.
The underlying fact is still that people are using credit they shouldn't have to buy things that they really can't afford. And they're trusting the stock market to (somehow) perpetually defer repayment on those loans. I don't see easy mortgates as the cause here. From my point of view they exist because the banks are trying to cash in on the high demand for easy credit.
Now this has recently led to a "repricing" (nice euphemism there!) of credit risk, which has caused a bunch of hedge funds to close...
Exactly what I was talking about. Banks are realizing that a large amount of credit is in the hands of people that have no business having credit. The problem is that a lot of that money's found its way into actual investment.
Adam remortgages his house and invests in a company. Bob remortgages his house and blows it on lottery tickets. The bank forcloses on Bob and dumps the house on the market for less than it's worth (because the bank doesn't want to hold onto such a small non-liquid asset) which lowers the value of Adam's house. The bank then raises its interest rates slightly because they're afraid of giving credit to people like Bob in the future. Bob now stops spending as much (because he no longer has credit) which lowers the proffits of the company Adam invested in. It gets slightly harder for Adam to pay his mortgage.
When the Bobs siginificantly outnumber the Adams (as I believe they do now) the Adams end up in trouble. And so do the companies that all the Adams invested in.
...However, there has been no massive exit from the stock markets.
Yet. The crash in 1929 was also preceeded by a series of downturns followed by rapid recoveries. And in the end most people didn't voluntarily leave the markets - a large amount of credit was called in and people had to sell, and when stock prices dropped due to the first wave of sell-offs more creditors got nervous and they called in their loans (etc).
IMHO the problem these days isn't so much the risk of a stock market collapse, but rather the risk of the doller dropping to the point where we can't even afford to import the massive amount of goods we consume. Any weakening of the domestic economy could do that. So could other factors (see below).
Um, Russia, Argentina and Weimar Germany all experienced massive increases in credit and money supply in the 1920's, and subsequent hyperinflation but none started any "random" wars. Nor did they start "exporting" jobs to lower cost jurisdictions; in fact, they generally erected tariff barriers to maintain domestic employment (as did the US, Britain, and France). Global free trade is a relatively new phenomenon.
First off 1920s Russia was a Communist state. The New Economic Plan was capitalist-ish (but not really) and I don't think we can analyze that particular case as though it were actually a market economy.
As for Weimar Germany not starting any wars I think you're forgetting something. Of course, by the time WWII broke out Germany was nothing like it had been at the start of the 1920s but despite the fact that the Nazis ran on an anti-everything platform economics still played a huge (if not central) part