|
it's hard to say yet, jorgelito, don't you think?
seriously if you look at stuff being written from folk not in the united of states, land of monopolitics, the equivalent of yellow corn no. 2, what i am saying about this period is not that out of place---this is the endgame of the run that neoliberalism has had since the early 1980s. like i said, i think this will take some time to shake out, but i think that the situation the americans find themselves in and the power they have to shape their own destiny--this at the system level--will be seriously impacted by the next election, either way. that much i think i know. my assumption is that this mess is politically connected to the us, to neoliberalism--derivatives are in a sense the perfect expression of neo-liberalism in general, selling what fucks you socially as if it made perfect economic sense---so we, i guess, are not only the sucking sound at the center of the global economy, but the whole mess is to some extent associated with us, even if there were lots and lots of players in lots and lots of places---this whole mode that landed us here is cowboy capitalism, think short term, make the big money because tomorrow the Rapture's-a-comin so who gives a shit, only the Minions of Satan will be left--and even if that's not true, i'll have mine. what takes shape is taking shape, it hasn't taken shape. i think that the elections--and by extension the kind of role the americans can play---will impact on it too. i don't think we know much yet because the magnitude of the problem isn't yet known. you can't work out problems structural until you know what the effects are, really--and even though i am sure the neoliberal order is burning, that's a general statement--there's nothing in particular that links it to the current debt implosion beyond--well--deregulation, market fundamentalism, the arbitrary nature of ethics in neoliberal land and....ok so never mind. i think we're watching something kinda huge and interesting happen. but its best not to rely on the american press to tell you about it. =============LATER==================== -----Added 17/9/2008 at 08 : 47 : 50----- Quote:
i don't feel the need to say much about this. |
I realize it is a broad and impossible question, but I figured you had some thoughts about, thank you for responding. I'm hoping we can explore it more.
I agree it is something big, something big will happen, and that the elections will be very prominent. I have no idea really as to what will happen next, but I have a suspicion that we (global) are all inextricably linked. So what ever we or whomever do, all will be affected. But from here to the next phase, can go either way: either a jump to a different system or a modification/reformation of the current one in phases. Regardless of what happens, I would imagine it to be on a large scale. I actually may have to retract my previous contention: It is conceivable and quite possible that the sky indeed, is falling. One way or another we must weather the storm. |
Quote:
Yamaichi Shoken, the Hokkaido Development Bank, the Japan Long Term Investment Bank, & Japan Securities & Trust went under. The JLTIB collapse set off the bankruptcy of Life, Sogo department stores, and Daiichi Hotel. These were all big firms. Needless to say, there were countless others that didn't make the papers. There were lots of buyouts as well, just as in the United States today. IBJ got swallowed up by Daiichi Kangyo, the Bank of Tokyo was bought out by Mitsubishi... Here's the dilemma: if you let the firms go, you eventually find out just what people will pay for say, credit default swaps. It's not likely to be very much. Due to the magic of the market, everyone now has a ballpark figure for other credit default swaps. The assets of a number of other outfits will take a hit and the financial panic will spread. On top of that, people might ask "Hey, why was AIG even doing credit default swaps? Where were the SEC & CFTC?" What if Phil Gramm, McCain's economic "brain", had not been able to sneak that Commodity Futures Modernization Act through Congress in 2000? My apologies for not getting my Japanese financial crisis post up. It disappeared into the aether three times before i gave up. |
Quote:
I remember the President speaking just days (maybe the day) after 9-11. What was one of the first things he told people? Go travel, go shopping, go about your normal lives. I think he even gave a plug in there to Disneyland. The message was clear- keep consuming, keep spending. Not only were people told to keep spending- they were not asked to pay for any of the new expenses related to security or the war(s.) Some people asked what about the costs of these wars? Not to worry, it's not going to cost that much and the oil from Iraq alone will pay for most if it. Just go forth and spend, spend, spend. And people did just that. A lot of people did that by tapping easy to obtain, questionable loans backed by their house. Eventually the bubble burst in the housing market those questionable loans started a financial crisis, not just for individuals or families but finally for the companies that made the loans, or in many cases bought the loans. Recently, within the last two days, I saw some talking head on the TV saying "It's not that bad. I go to the store and I see folks buying a new plasma TV, IPhones and all kinds of stuff. Much of this is all overblown hype." He could be right about spending, I don't go to the stores in the US and I've got no idea what the latest reports are on consumer spending. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of that spending is going on the good ol' Visa or Master Card. It's the American way. People are simply following not only their governments advice but it's example. As for his comment about it all being overblown hype? I think he's dead wrong. We can't spend our way out of this mess, that's just crazy. BTW- not long after his infotainment segment I saw an ad telling me I "could now borrow enough money to get out of debt." Makes as much sense as spending our out way out of debt. I'm not a fan of taxes. I don't even live in the US but I pay not only property taxes there, but my income is generated from the US so I pay not only US taxes but I pay sells tax (which is the main tax here in Mexico) on almost all my purchases. So I'm paying taxes to Oregon, the US, the state of Yucatan and Mexico. I like to spend as little of my income as possible on taxes. But at some point we're going to have to find a way to pay for all this borrowing. As I see it it's a great big shit sandwich and the sooner we start eating the smaller everyones bites going to be. So yes, as I see it, it's a storm. A big storm and we must find a way to weather that storm. I don't think it's going to be pleasant but the sooner we start working to find real solutions the sooner we'll get through it. |
yes tully... I'm a fan of the old FRAM Oil filter commercials...
"You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." if you happen to remember those.... I'd rather pay the least, and that's generally upfront. -----Added 18/9/2008 at 04 : 12 : 43----- early news don't look so good. Quote:
|
Yes, this mornings not look any better. Central banks are pouring cash into the markets everywhere. Where's this cash coming from? The analogy of a Vegas Casino is interesting to me. I was looking around yesterday trying to find who owns the "chips" that are flooding back into the "pits." All too often, in regards to the US, that answer is from Asia and the Middle East.
Someone on another thread was talking about how Japan went through tough times and one argument was they caused more problems by allowing the government bail out major players in their economy. I have no idea what or how Japan fared. What I do know is the Japanese don't owe everyone else a shit load of money. Their government doesn't and their people don't. It's simply not part of their culture. I spent time their, about six months, every Japanese person I ever met had money in the bank. If they made $100- $10 went in the bank and they lived on that $90 somehow. So I'd imagine if the Japanese government did end up bailing a bunch of private companies out they did it with their own money. We're not doing anything like that. Between Japan and China we owe nearly one trillion dollars. That fact alone sends alarm bells ringing in my head. |
180 billion dollars overnight.
the fed pumped 180 BILLION into the banking system overnight. what does 180 billion anything look like? the scale of this is amazing. i'm making some popcorn, sitting back and enjoying the show. i decided to do a little test and take myself out to dinner last night. people were talking about baseball and their regular lives and such. that asshat lou dobbs was on one of the flatscreen monitors, trying to act decisive. then he went away because it was time to watch baseball. i suspect its like that everywhere. is it? |
you know in Gettysburg they had this lit up soldier thing to help show what about 50,000 people looks like. It was a lot of freaking little lit up soldiers I can tell you!
|
Quote:
Quote:
How much can you pump into it before what you're pumping becomes severely devalued? Enjoy your popcorn, it maybe worth $30-$50 a bowl in the near future. |
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Big players did go bankrupt. And unlike here, people went to jail. In the US they end up as bigwigs on the McCain campaign with $11 million severance packages. Of course, there is nothing we can do about that, nothing we should do about that, and we must not even have bad thoughts about doing anything about it. The "gummint bailouts made things worse" arguments is a product of stereotypes about the Japanese economy, bad reporting, and a distorted Western self-image. Unfortunately, there isn't too much in English that's worth reading about the Japan's lost ten years. What's out there is mostly of the NYT "their problem is that they need to be more like us" vein or neoliberal analyses that say that the slump was caused by insufficient neoliberalism. The eighties were the tail end of the postwar boom in Japan and, happy horseshit aside, a period of continued decline in the US. When Japan agreed to allow the yen to rise against the dollar in 1985, it created losses for Japanese holders of US bonds. These players put their money in the TSE and in commercial property. Banks had already been playing the property market because they were getting a better rate of return their than in primary production. Interest rates were low, so money was available for people to get into the markets. The gov. was trying to sell off the recently privatised national railway's property, and therefore wanted bidding wars. As stocks rose, corporations naturally started issuing more stock. Banks started playing the stock market more. Many borrowed against their land holdings to play the stock market. Stocks trebled in value from 1985 to 1989, and real estate doubled. It was said that the value of all land in Tokyo's 23 wards was worth more than all the land in the US. When the bubble burst, property values couldn't cover stock market losses and vice versa. Banks, corporations, and gov. bonds were downgraded, and foreign borrowing became more expensive. In order to around this, banks had to raise their self-capitalisation rates, which was usually done by cutting off lending. Just where does over-regulation figure in? The Jusen (=S&L) debacle was caused by lack of oversight encouraged by free-marketeers. It didn't help the situation that neoliberal globalisation was becoming the rage during the late eighties and nineties. The opening of agricultural markets drove a lot of farmers out of business and put even more property in play. Offshore production, (which the property bubble encouraged by making expansion in Japan more costly) helped made employment more precarious, and workers were more and more reluctant to spend. Cutbacks in government and corporate welfare schemes -- cheered on by neoliberals, of course, personal responsibility yadda yadda yadda -- made people even tighter with their money. |
that's excellent, cyn....thanks. so overnight between 187-240 billion dollars. so translated into pennies and laid flat, 28 square miles.
pfft. gone. hoovered up. here's a an overview of the story so far. because it came from the washington post, it seems inevitable that it would be riddled with weather imagery. no-one and no institutions and no ideology---no system aspects---no responsibility, no choices: this is a hurricane. a "perfect storm" it's like living in passive voice, being in the states and reading the modes of distancing and naturalization the press continues to engage in. Quote:
by the time you reach the end of this article, you have entered the world of petit bourgeois bromides. fact is that debt---especially consumer debt---has been one of the central mechanisms that capitalism has instituted that has effectively enabled it to buy political stability. it was one of the central features of fordism.....except that it was tied to a very different geography of production than presently obtains, and a very different distribution of political power (think strong trade unions and collective bargaining) it was, and still is, one of the central features of post-fordist or flex-accumulation or "globalizing capitalist" socio-economic organization in the states in that it has enabled a period--now about 30 years long, now ending----of dissociation: 1. it enabled a separation of "lifestyle" as it is structured at the social-imaginary level from any necessary relation to material underpinnings, except to the extent that one enters the debt system and submits to its discipline (e.g. pay what and when)... 2. debt enables the continued operation and expansion of consumption: this disconnect between consumption and the organization of production in any particular space results in a kind of pressure to run prices downward---one mechanism for running prices downward is the exportation of manufacturing, its fragmentation---one of the fundamental processes of "globalizing capitalism" that has unfolded WITHOUT significant opposition in the states because the consumer debt-enabled consumption bubble has become THE space of identity formation and circulation within this (of objects, of "lifestyles" and of the material settings--houses, say---in the context of which one can array one's commodities--and so make the space's one's "own"--for example) has come to provide a sense of continuity. you would have thought that the radical reorganization of production--fragmentation, exportation, etc----would have registered as a PROBLEM--but instead it intrudes on the busywork of Land of Consumption enabled by debt as a punctual thing, an aside, an occaisional problem--witness for example the career of michael moore, who functions for the most part as the old working-class signifier by virtue of the baseball hats, associations with flint and general political line---a signifier amongst others in a consumption-space that has moved way past such quaint categories as simulacrum and become a 360 24/7 wrap-around imaginary world. this seems of a piece with the rise of american style neoliberalism, its politics of distance and dissociation, of imaginary identity rooted in an illusion of nation at a period where nation-states were increasingly irrelevant. one thing amongst many that this catastrophe-show indicates is the impotence of nation-states. but the article, relegating this to the weather, in the end says: return to some petit bourgeois sense of balance and all will in the end be well. but the type of activity that is the reverse of that--debt and the accumulation of objects and the accumulation of debt and the accumulation of objects---has been the centerpiece of the american system---and the exporting of its consequences the central feature of american empire---for 30 years. the chickens are coming home to roost, and i think the article above is interesting until its last paragraphs. in the end, the guy is thinking in terms of individuals about a situation that way outstrips individuals. system thinking is still rare in the states. it's probably an underlying reason for the collapse of the empire,. but we'll see. |
This startling piece points to the central role of excessive leverage - permitted by relatively recent deregulation - in producing the current crisis.
The Big Picture | How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse I think I said 14-to-1 earlier, but it turns out that was terribly conservative. Five broker-dealers - three of which have now gone bust - were given special permission by the SEC to lever up to 30:1 and even 40:1! Hurray for deregulation. For those unfamiliar with leverage: let's say you have a million dollars to allocate. If you are 'gearing' 40 to 1, you would put up that million dollars to borrow 40 million and invest it. This works out magnificently if you win - a 1% return on your 40 million is really a 40% return on your initial cash outlay of 1 million. But if you lose, the losses are also staggeringly large. The idea when doing this is to hedge your plays in a number of ways so that it is unlikely you'll suffer a net loss, but the higher up you gear, the harder it is to pull that off... |
An article in American Prospect provides a good summary of what caused the problem and proposes several reforms:
Quote:
|
What about the decoupling myth and its double-whammy?
Here's something else we should be focusing on: decoupling is a myth, and many people are being wiped out because of it.
The wonderful theory of decoupling states that when stocks rise, bonds fall, and when stocks fall, bonds rise. But this isn't necessarily the case. When you have huge (unregulated) banks dealing with both types of products and they start to fail and come up short, suddenly decoupling becomes a pipe dream—your "defensive portfolio" gets hit and it gets hit hard. No balancing, no deals to be found with dollar-cost averaging in mind. You just take it on the chin. And now you have the rumours about mergers and acquisitions. Great, let's concentrate the problems and put the reins into fewer hands. And this is a double-whammy. The other side of decoupling that is revealing itself as a myth is found when you see Asian and European markets taking severe hits based on what is largely an American problem. Other markets haven't decoupled from Western markets, it appears. Decoupling is a myth and it's because of the current two-tier problem of globalization and deregulation. And what's frightening is that I can only assume that many of these economies have already started to emulate the American mode. Maybe it's time to put a stop to that? This isn't just a financial issue; it's a moral issue. Think of all the financial lives being ruined by what originated as a problem overseas—a problem allowed, nay, empowered by American economic policy. |
Quote:
|
there are a few problems with that, comrade (keep in mind that all this is on the fly, so there are trailing-off points, things which are left dangling etc....)
a. the present--um--"problems" are not simply american--look at how this crisis is spread, look at which institutions are affected---it's involved much of western europe, russia, asian stock markets--the chinese stock market has lost about 70% of its value over the past few months, and the government this morning started buying up shares....traffic in these curious "devices" or "objects" has been transnational---they are an element within the new system of capital flows (new since the 1990s made real-time coupling of markets possible, so since the development of the communications system that allows us to play around here)... b. capital flows exceed the power of any given nation-state to contain. to the extent that these flows are *The* center of globalizing capitalism, it's most elaborate construction project, decoupling is probably impossible. and given the aggression with which this neoliberal order has colonized much of the planet, it seems this is a problem for all kinds of people, in all kinds of places, and not just for the holders of capital and their speculative courtiers. c. if nation-states are incapable of managing this order of crisis, then you'd expect the transnational institutions that have been the enforcers of "market discipline" to be operating here, wouldn't you? where's the imf? what's becoming obvious through the absence of, say, the imf in this context is that "globalization" really is a new form of neo-colonialism, and just as folk are saying, there's one game for the wealthy and the institutions that are symmetrical with that class position and an entirely different one for the rest of us, so it is that there are two types of neoliberalism, one for the metropole and one for everywhere else. this is why i think it correct to think in terms of american empire, though it's a passive-aggressive sort of empire, one that spins out of the older neo-colonial order rather than out of more paleolithic forms of domination. d. absent an institution on the order of the imf--that is a transnational institution (and the imf is not in fact this, but obviously an arm of american policy, an expression of american interests--which is only a surprise if you live in the american media and cultural bubbles), and given that the derivatives marketplace was spread horizontally (transnationally) more than it was spread vertically (not all banks for example played this game), it follows that concentration would be the outcome of this. whether that is allowed to stand is a legislative/legal problem---so far things have been happening in a way that has totally bypassed congress, for example--the "imperial presidency" in it's "state of exception" mode has been lurching from crisis to crisis, acting in an entirely reactive manner, making shit worse when it was supposed to make shit better, etc etc etc....but this isn't over and it's possible that quite deep changes will comes about as the damage done not only by the crises but also by the attempts to limit the damage caused by the crises unfold. this puts nation-states in an odd position. it seems to militate for the formation of transnational regulatory bodies with actual enforcement powers and huge sums of capital. |
Thanks for the outline, rb. I was perhaps too vague. My brain is a bit addled as I'm ridiculously busy these days.... but what I was trying to imply was that world markets are in the situation they are in because of American-born policy and theory. Much of what we see of neoliberalism and globalization found its start in American academia and policy experiments. It appears that over time, other markets have been infected by this. There is too much integration.
Besides the Americans (and Thatcher), who else has spearheaded this mode of economics at this scale? Everyone else simply followed suit. And why not? America's been the largest economy in the world for a long time now. Look at what symbiosis can do to you when things go wrong...when things are structured poorly...and no one person (ie, nation-state) can fix it. |
The Icelandic króna just lost another 2.5% yesterday. It's fallen a total of 32% in the last 6 months alone. Do you know what that means? Say that ktsp and I saved $1000 last year. Now, if we go back to the US and take that money with us, it's going to be worth $68. Now, multiply that several times and guess how we're feeling right now. And we haven't hit bottom yet.
I really don't think most Americans appreciate the fact that EVERYTHING that goes on their country, affects EVERYONE else in the rest of the world... and usually with an even heavier impact. I'm not saying that the Icelandic banks' over-buying of too many European companies (which are all now folding) isn't part of our currency devaluation, but the last few dives in currency value here have all happened after shit went down on Wall Street this year. As in, within 12 hours later. It's phenomenal how much impact it has. I'm really wondering what the bottom of this is going to look like. I was asking ktsp last night as we fell asleep, "Do we REALLY want to go back to the US, given the economy right now?"--he has a perfect good job here, and so far quite a bit of security. I'm wary of what's happening back in WA state, where the jobless rate jumped from 4.something percent a few months ago, to 6.1% as reported yesterday. That's where we'd be moving to. They say that they've added hundreds of jobs in the software industry, which would be his field... but that can't go on forever, with this shit happening. It worries me, on a personal level... and on a global/national level, I can't even fathom what is going on. I can already imagine this being written up in the history books a century from now... it's the beginning of something huge. And yet here we are, in an election where lipstick and farm animals and skin color are deciding factors for people. (and abortion? Are you kidding me? Get a grip, people!!! Take a look at the front page of your newspaper, for god's sake) |
Quote:
Thanks for the informative post. Like I said I really have no idea what happened in Japan. I was there in 83 (three weeks) and again in early 85 (six months.) Navy, young and dumb. I do remember going out to dinner one night with a group of buddies during my first visit and not being real quick with conversion rates was shocked to find out dinner and a couple beers was $100... each. A lot of yen for a sailor in 1983. I remember standing on the street in downtown Tokyo and going over the business card sized conv. table the ship issued us and realizing I'd just spent my months play money on a rather unimpressive dinner and a couple warm beers. We quickly become fond of noodle houses. We also found out the on base McDonald's sold Big Mac's for $3 and the one's in Tokyo ran roughly $9, a meal with fries and drink was well over $15. Other than things being expensive I remember staying with a family that owned a bar. they spoke English pretty well. Mom was a Hiroshima survivor. Very interesting lady. She never charged me for a beer and let me sleep in their spare room, which was about the size of my current closet. She explained to me a great deal regarding the differences between the two cultures. She had, what I considered, I good understanding of the positives and negatives of both. One of the many things she found crazy about the US culture was it spent all it earned. I remember her saying "what happen when it rain?" Since then, over the years, we've had a few storms. I fear those were a little drizzle and light wind compared to what we're dealing with now. Anyway, thanks for the info. I found it interesting. |
I was wanting to ask a question about the "third method" alluded to a few posts ago. From the accompanying illustration it would appear to be spiritual intervention. But I'll not ask; I wouldn't want to be seen as tedious.
|
Quote:
|
Can we finally all stand up and admit that Reagan was wrong? Can we at least do that, so we can start regulating the market reasonably again? Every time I even try to skirt this issue, I'm called a communist or fascist, and I feel like I'm the only one that was actually thinking in my freshman economics class.
The deregulated market didn't trickle down. It created more opportunities for incompetency or corruption, that's all. The final cost of the S&L nightmare was something like $500 billion. Here we are again. We've got corporate lobbyists further de-clawing and manipulating government so that they can reign free, and when they fail—and they'll all fail—the weak and cowardly government has to give away billions of our tax dollars. Quote:
|
this is one thing i've never understood about inflation and money-printing.
everyone knows saying HAY LETS PRINT MOAR MONEYS is bad news. hasn't that been sort of theoretical constant since we were first taught about the germans and their wheelbarrows full of cash following ww1? how about... here it comes. this might be a really dumb question. how about we just DON'T print more money? i see it sort of like "oh shit man there is some crap going on with the banks" "what do we do?" "well, i could hit my head against this rusty nail" "YEA LETS DO IT" .... i've always been told that printing money, especially as a way to avoid recession or whatever the reason is... is a bad thing and leads to a comical-state of worthless bills used as various sanitary-devices, fuel for warmth as everyone gets evicted, and for writing funny devil moustaches on. so why is the first choice for fixing everything. PRINT TEH MONIESS ZOMG |
Philosophically, Will, isn't any regulation the definition of something other than a free market? Any regulation makes it "free except..." Sort of like "a little bit pregnant." At what point does it become Socialist (or Communist, depending)? Protecting Mom and Pop but not "the big guys?" Who shal define the point at which I become a Big Guy?
To clarify, I would make a distinction between criminal law (e.g. stealing) and regulation (e.g. margin requirements). |
Quote:
Every time I hear that trickle down theory I'm reminded of the line from "The Outlaw Josey Wales." Quote:
|
Quote:
It becomes socialist when we have collective property, not before then. |
depends what you like, really. if you like a coherent social order, you'll relegate "free markets" to places like ayn rand novels, where they are safely removed from realities and wrapped in protective purple prose that only the intrepid brave, and even these generally only in their late teens.
it is in part the ideology that makes this absurd separation between "markets" and "regulation" or law that explains in significant measure why we are sitting around watching the financial catastrophe show. that's been one of the main interpretive claims in the thread. fell free to join in the party, though---put stuff up that you might find which you think either gives a fragment of a picture that can be used to piece together and image, or something that provides a basis for provisional interpretation. it's all done on the fly anyway. i smell popcorn. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've wondered how much the twilight of the personal cheque, increased speed of small-time consumer transactions, and increased surveillance of consumers have affected the US economy. The wiring of the world has restricted flows at the bottom (despite the moralist rants about people living beyond their means). At the top, the same communications infrastructure allows for greater and faster flows of capital. |
I keep hearing references to Ayn Rand pop up during this election. I don't really know why... it's starting to get on my nerves for some reason.
|
Quote:
Its an argument going back to the 1980s, where you have Reaganomics (supply side, free market, trickle-down) and more traditional economics (marriage of both market and government working together to maintain stability) competing. |
Quote:
I could be wrong... and hope I am. |
Quote:
Wouldn't it be great if a system could be implemented where those responsible decision makers in power would take a lion's share of the losses. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not really because they will be rich. It is the poor that will wither and die. |
Quote:
Drill baby, drill! Drill baby, drill! Drill baby, drill! Drill baby, drill! -----Added 18/9/2008 at 05 : 33 : 42----- Quote:
Or.. Ive listened to preachers Ive listened to fools Ive watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you have the role |
Quote:
|
i dont see the problem with regulation---for a more rational form of capitalism, all that's required is long term thinking (god, i feel almost dirty saying this...) but think about it: if you are one of these mythical Kaptains of Industry and you like being a Kaptain of Industry, and you'd like to stay one, then acting in a manner that promotes the functionality of the system that enables you to extract profit makes sense---i mean from a bidness standpoint--dont you think? if what's encouraging american-style Tiny Brain capitalism is gearing bonuses to quarterly earnings reports, or even to annual earnings, ban them with fucking regulation, institute say a five year bonus cycle, fine the crap out of firms that don't comply and threaten them with the kind of pillory-ing that the petit bourgeois types are all too eager to slap onto drunken drivers--who for all the damage they do are Pikers when compared with the damage that's been done to regular people's lives by the present form of Tiny Brain capitalism---- and see what happens.
this is obviously not a plan, but i persist in thinking, even after 8 years of george w bush and the possibility that is more than remote of another 4 subjected to the blight of those paragons of everything Tiny Brained, that americans are not intrinsically stupid, that they are no more greedy and self-centered than anyone else--they just do what they can get away with. btw, back in the other region of action--in the nytimes, the rumor that is said to have bounced the markets up a bit this afternoon was that the state was going to form a magical company that would eat all bad debt from banks---in the guardian, the rumor which explained the same thing was that the us was going to follow the uk lead and make short selling illegal. we'll see. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project