Nothing To Fear But Fearlessness Itself? 660
theodp writes "In a post last August, Robert X. Cringely voiced fears that Goldman Sachs and others were not so much evil as 'clueless about the implications of their work,' leaving it up to the government to fix any mess they leave behind. 'But what if government runs out of options,' worried Cringely. 'Our economic policy doesn't imagine it, nor does our foreign policy, because superpowers don't acknowledge weakness.' And now his fears are echoed in a WSJ opinion piece by Peggy Noonan titled 'We're Governed by Callous Children.' She writes, 'We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists — they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.' With apologies to FDR, do we have nothing to fear but fearlessness itself?"
atlas yawned (Score:4, Interesting)
Listen to Peggy Noonan ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think not.
If she said the Sun was shining outside, I would grab my umbrella and raincoat and worry about flash floods.
Conservative political piece (Score:2, Interesting)
This seems to be part of a rather wide ranging campaign on the part of the conservatives to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the current government. The previous administration was clearly in over its head. This one seems to have a clue...
Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatments (Score:5, Interesting)
Should prayers be covered? [chicagotribune.com]: "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:Come to California... (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org]
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."
only the peons are clueless (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.
Re:Come to California... (Score:3, 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.
Re:Money for Something (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.
Re:Money for Something (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.
Bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:atlas yawned (Score:5, 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:Then maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I'm pretty sure we won't solve the problems by allowing criminals into the banks.
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.
OK, that one's is a problem.
Re:It's simply the consequence of corporate psycho (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:She's without hope, so we must be? (Score:3, 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.
Structural solutions here: basic income, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)
"""
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:
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 [whywork.org] 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 [yahoo.com] while our best [chrismercogliano.com] educators [holtgws.com] say compulsory [wikipedia.org] school [archive.org] as we know it should [youtube.com] disappear [johntaylorgatto.com] entirely [greenmoneyjournal.com].
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
Re:Come to California... (Score:2, Interesting)
A job at Amway may not be great, but at least it's a job. Better than Michigan's current condition of joblessness. Oh well. Eventually the people there will get smart, like I did, and leave. I was in MI for one year and although it was a nice little city, I decided there was no future there.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:4, 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.
Re:voting them out? (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:Money for Something (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?
Re:/facepalm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem (Score:4, 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:Come to California... (Score:4, 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 [typepad.com]
Re:/facepalm (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] — 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.
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.
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.
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...
thirty-thousand.org (Score:4, Interesting)
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/ [thirty-thousand.org]
Cheers,
Re:WSJ full of Right-Wing Mantra (Score:3, 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).
Other alternatives: basic income; making work fun (Score:3, Interesting)
A "basic income" or making work fun are other alternatives.
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [basicincome.org]
Bob Black talks about "the abolition of work" here:
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org]
"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. "
Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16 [conceptualguerilla.com]
"""
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/ [beyondajob...covery.org]