I feel like I should take a stance today, now that I feel conflicted about the shaky economic policies of not only the right, central and left winged but also, the wingless scum in politics.
If I had franchise (I don't, unfortunately. So this is basically building a stance-castle in pure air), I would MOST CERTAINLY NOT vote for:
1. People who are against abortion and euphemistically call themselves pro-life.
Several reasons:
-- I think the health and quality of life of women is important to the future of mankind. You cannot have unhappy, ill-treated women who are sick in mind and in body and expect their children (of either gender) to be healthy and lead fruitful and enriching lives or better this planet in the future.
-- Banning abortion not just takes away health-rights of women and decreases their quality of life, but also opens the wicker gate to the insanity of illegal non-medically approved life-threatening amateur abortion practices. Nothing can be more cruel to any living being than dying with a stick or a chemical abortifacient eroding your uterus just because some block-headed self-appointed judgemental delusional rich woman with several people to look after her own brood of kids decided that you need to carry your foetus to term as well, because she did and that some insular "God" of hers thinks its the "right" thing to do. Yeah, shame on you if you are not a "caring sacrifice-making parent" regardless of whether you can or cannot afford it, mentally, physically, emotionally and financially. Who cares about the mom, right? We just need to bring as many kids into this world as we possibly can regardless of the cost to the woman. They can take care of themselves and also their kids. If I did it, well, so can anyone.
-- Double-standard-ridden privileged freaks who are far far away from understanding what it is like to be a helpless real-world middle class single poor woman who is also pregnant do not really deserve to be honoured with the status and title of a "woman".
-- Making abortion a social stigma is just as bad, if not worse. Not only do you judge women for the simple fact that she wants control over her dizzyingly out of control life but make it mentally, psychologically and emotionally a trauma for her to get even a legal abortion. Can you be any more effective in violating the human rights of a living being? I think not.
2. People who still believe in Creationism.
-- Frankly, at this point, after centuries of scientific proof, you are shuddering-ly scary. Your ignorance points to the fact that you are happy living under a rock. What will you do when medical principles behind this "far-fetched" "fiction" of evolution lead to the conception and design of drugs/therapies that cure cancer (and yes, I see this happening in the future)? Will you go into self-denial and refuse to take these drugs. I hope you do. The world would be rid of morons like you. Ugh
Yeah, these two issues are going to be my two heavy and stable cornerstones of political decisions for now.
@(e:metalpeter): This is not my "tough" post either. That needs to be on the back-burner some more time.
Tinypliny's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/08/2008 22:44 #46006
Single.. er.. Double Issue VotingCategory: opinion
10/05/2008 17:53 #45948
Apparently, E:strippers LOVE OMGBlog!Category: e:strip
According to this site's 
statistics about (e:strip), we have a more than 138 times likelihood of visiting omgblog as compared to the average netizen. In addition, we are also 90 times more likely to be wannabe health care practitioners. Does that make us OMGdocs?
And, that's not all. Less that one percent of us are official quantified (e:strip) addicts.
The average (e:strip) visitor is a hispanic male teenage kid who comes from a middle income household and is not precocious enough to have entered a college.
Who knew?!
___________
How the hell are these statistics even calculated???!!!
statistics about (e:strip), we have a more than 138 times likelihood of visiting omgblog as compared to the average netizen. In addition, we are also 90 times more likely to be wannabe health care practitioners. Does that make us OMGdocs?
And, that's not all. Less that one percent of us are official quantified (e:strip) addicts.
The average (e:strip) visitor is a hispanic male teenage kid who comes from a middle income household and is not precocious enough to have entered a college.
Who knew?!
___________
How the hell are these statistics even calculated???!!!
metalpeter - 10/06/08 18:16
Interesting based on visitors and not users seems odd. I take it that this isn't you non politcal correct journal that you where working on, I'm still waiting to see why you think people won't like you after that.
Interesting based on visitors and not users seems odd. I take it that this isn't you non politcal correct journal that you where working on, I'm still waiting to see why you think people won't like you after that.
gardenmama - 10/06/08 00:05
I don't think I've ever been to any of those sites, unless it was by accident. I don't think I'm a hispanic teenager either.
I don't think I've ever been to any of those sites, unless it was by accident. I don't think I'm a hispanic teenager either.
james - 10/05/08 18:37
man, the bots must all be teen age hispanics. Who knew.
man, the bots must all be teen age hispanics. Who knew.
drew - 10/05/08 18:26
I don't visit any of them--yet.
I'm thinking that most of us posters are addicts, but there are so many more visitors than posters.
I don't visit any of them--yet.
I'm thinking that most of us posters are addicts, but there are so many more visitors than posters.
10/04/2008 14:16 #45929
The Shock DoctrineCategory: opinion
How true. People need to be shaken up into consciousness and shown this over and over!
metalpeter - 10/05/08 10:53
This is not the first time I have heard of this book but don't remember where else I heard of it. Did anyone else notice that there are new Episodes of South Park. I wonder if now that Issiac Hayes is dead if they will do anything with the character they did with chef when they where feuding. Or if that won't even be mentioned in any of there episodes.
This is not the first time I have heard of this book but don't remember where else I heard of it. Did anyone else notice that there are new Episodes of South Park. I wonder if now that Issiac Hayes is dead if they will do anything with the character they did with chef when they where feuding. Or if that won't even be mentioned in any of there episodes.
gardenmama - 10/04/08 16:43
creepy - but very interesting
creepy - but very interesting
09/21/2008 00:49 #45745
The Mayflower turns 80Category: flat
My building turned 80 this year and the owner and the management team in a rare gesture of camaraderie with the tenants, threw a wine and cheese party on Friday evening in the Mayflower lobby. Apparently, they invited their other building tenants as well and in a strange turn of events, more residents of the Elliot than the Mayflower turned up at the party.
I guess the Mayflower residents couldn't be bothered to come down the rickety elevators. I mean, hardly anyone comes down when there is a fire alarm. Why would they care about two pieces of cheese and cheap wines? If I were more statistically inclined, I could probably prove that the people who habitually evacuate the Mayflower in the event of a fire alarm are no different in number and identity, from the people who came down to check out the cheese. My hypothesis is that they are also the residents who are more inclined to smoke and thus welcome the chance to get out and spew columns of tobacco smoke to shroud the two hollow lions outside, regardless of what the occasion is -- fire, cheese, household feud... whatever.
So, to get back to the party, the piece de resistance was supposed to be the premiere showing of a short film - "Of Dreams and Glory", shot entirely in the lobby of the Mayflower, in January this year. It debuts at the Sundance festival in February. People interested in the making of this movie should check this out. I remember the day they shot it pretty well because they blocked the lobby and the elevators off for the whole day. As I was rushing home in the evening, I slipped on the ice and fell headlong outside the Mayflower. I couldn't even go in through the main door in the front and had to take the side door to the west-wing of the buiding, go down to the basement, cross to the east-wing and then take the elevator to my flat - all with a skinned knee and a thousand well-placed curses.
I thought they would set up a nice projection screen for the movie, but they played it on a tiny DVD player, that jammed after a while. I caught the 10 minute movie in its second showing. They ran it around 5 or 6 times before the DVD player threw up its hands.
I think it was supposed to be a suspense-noir-art movie of some sort. At one point there was a jump sequence with flicking knives and painted bizarre faces. However, I am not very sure what the entire plot was. A lady who lives on the sixth floor said that she probably might end up with nightmares for the rest of this week because of the jump sequences. I personally thought those were the only interesting bits in the movie. The movie otherwise consisted of some expanded dialogue between a painted young man (who was an apparition?) and this old man tied to a chair. The tinny sound from the DVD player resonated around the lobby and none of us could actually hear what the actors were saying. Some of us made up dialogues to go with the scenes and took turns at guessing what was going on but that didn't help our comprehension any. Oh, and I think there was some Christmas music, if that helps.
The "special effects" in the movie were an interesting take on the truth (as in, they were lies). The west-side elevator looked almost brand new. Considering the fact that 80 years have probably passed since they washed the carpets in either of the elevators, that's hardly the truth. Also, in a nifty touch-up, they faked the working of the brass-dial-floor-indicator over the elevator. I don't think even the oldest resident (who has lived here for nearly 35 years) remembers these brass dials actually working. Some of the dials don't even have needles on them.
In the course of the "party", I met and talked to the owner of the building, Myron Robbins. He seemed like a fairly nice old man till I popped the question of recycling. As readers probably know, my building firmly refuses to recycle. (What is with the places I live *and* work refusing to recycle??!!) I creep about and dump all my recycle-ables in my neighbour's (my recycling bin, that s/he stole, actually) bin on Tuesday nights. The advantage of this is that I am on first-nod basis with that bloke who wheels those bottle-filled carts on empty streets on recycling nights. We mutually nod and smile at each other every Tuesday.
So I asked Myron about the recycling and he said that he shall be working on bringing a recycling solution to Mayflower as a first priority and added that he always listens to his esteemed tenants. Really? I can't believe that NO ONE brought up recycling as an issue in all the four years that BMG has owned the Mayflower. In fact, I brought up the recycling issue three times with the current management in the past year. What happened to all those suggestions and concerns? I was told that recycling was impractical for a building the size of Mayflower (a lazy way of saying that they really didn't care). Maybe it was the wine and cheese or maybe its just a load of lies all over again, but this time if there is no move to bring recycling to Mayflower, I shall not hesitate to advertise these empty promises all over the net.
I think the real highlight of the evening for me was not the cheese or the movie but the fact that, in a moment of wine-induced remissness - no doubt, someone from the west-wing let slip that the terrace of the Mayflower was accessible to the tenants (not widely advertised because they don't want the liability of people jumping or falling off the building).
I didn't waste any more time socializing and spent the rest of the evening surveying Buffalo from the roof of the Mayflower. The view is amazing. It's somewhat similar to the view that Paul posted from the 15th floor of Buffalo General but its grander because you can see 360 degrees around the building. You can even see the city of Niagara Falls at a distance. I was so excited that I forgot to take my camera along but its very photo-worthy. Buffalo is a beautiful city and despite the no-recycling weird anti-environment resolve of Roswell and Mayflower, I am glad to be here.
PS: When I moved to Buffalo, I think the first thing that people asked me was whether I could see Niagara Falls from my window. Well, I am pleased as Punch to say that I can indeed see it from my Building. (Who cares, if its just Niagara Falls, the city and not The Niagara Waterfalls. ;-))
than the Mayflower turned up at the party. I guess the Mayflower residents couldn't be bothered to come down the rickety elevators. I mean, hardly anyone comes down when there is a fire alarm. Why would they care about two pieces of cheese and cheap wines? If I were more statistically inclined, I could probably prove that the people who habitually evacuate the Mayflower in the event of a fire alarm are no different in number and identity, from the people who came down to check out the cheese. My hypothesis is that they are also the residents who are more inclined to smoke and thus welcome the chance to get out and spew columns of tobacco smoke to shroud the two hollow lions outside, regardless of what the occasion is -- fire, cheese, household feud... whatever.
So, to get back to the party, the piece de resistance was supposed to be the premiere showing of a short film - "Of Dreams and Glory", shot entirely in the lobby of the Mayflower, in January this year. It debuts at the Sundance festival in February. People interested in the making of this movie should check this
out. I remember the day they shot it pretty well because they blocked the lobby and the elevators off for the whole day. As I was rushing home in the evening, I slipped on the ice and fell headlong outside the Mayflower. I couldn't even go in through the main door in the front and had to take the side door to the west-wing of the buiding, go down to the basement, cross to the east-wing and then take the elevator to my flat - all with a skinned knee and a thousand well-placed curses.I thought they would set up a nice projection screen for the movie, but they played it on a tiny DVD player, that jammed after a while. I caught the 10 minute movie in its second showing. They ran it around 5 or 6 times before the DVD player threw up its hands.
I think it was supposed to be a suspense-noir-art movie of some sort. At one point there was a jump sequence with flicking knives and painted bizarre faces. However, I am not very sure what the entire plot was. A lady who lives on the sixth floor said that she probably might end up with nightmares for the rest of this week because of the jump sequences. I personally thought those were the only interesting bits in the movie. The movie otherwise consisted of some expanded dialogue between a painted young man (who was an apparition?) and this old man tied to a chair. The tinny sound from the DVD player resonated around the lobby and none of us could actually hear what the actors were saying. Some of us made up dialogues to go with the scenes and took turns at guessing what was going on but that didn't help our comprehension any. Oh, and I think there was some Christmas music, if that helps.
The "special effects" in the movie were an interesting take on the truth (as in, they were lies). The west-side elevator looked almost brand new. Considering the fact that 80 years have probably passed since they washed the carpets in either of the elevators, that's hardly the truth. Also, in a nifty touch-up, they faked the working of the brass-dial-floor-indicator over the elevator. I don't think even the oldest resident (who has lived here for nearly 35 years) remembers these brass dials actually working. Some of the dials don't even have needles on them.
In the course of the "party", I met and talked to the owner of the building, Myron Robbins. He seemed like a fairly nice old man till I popped the question of recycling. As readers probably know, my building firmly refuses to recycle. (What is with the places I live *and* work refusing to recycle??!!) I creep about and dump all my recycle-ables in my neighbour's (my recycling bin, that s/he stole, actually) bin on Tuesday nights. The advantage of this is that I am on first-nod basis with that bloke who wheels those bottle-filled carts on empty streets on recycling nights. We mutually nod and smile at each other every Tuesday.
So I asked Myron about the recycling and he said that he shall be working on bringing a recycling solution to Mayflower as a first priority and added that he always listens to his esteemed tenants. Really? I can't believe that NO ONE brought up recycling as an issue in all the four years that BMG has owned the Mayflower. In fact, I brought up the recycling issue three times with the current management in the past year. What happened to all those suggestions and concerns? I was told that recycling was impractical for a building the size of Mayflower (a lazy way of saying that they really didn't care). Maybe it was the wine and cheese or maybe its just a load of lies all over again, but this time if there is no move to bring recycling to Mayflower, I shall not hesitate to advertise these empty promises all over the net.
I think the real highlight of the evening for me was not the cheese or the movie but the fact that, in a moment of wine-induced remissness - no doubt, someone from the west-wing let slip that the terrace of the Mayflower was accessible to the tenants (not widely advertised because they don't want the liability of people jumping or falling off the building).
I didn't waste any more time socializing and spent the rest of the evening surveying Buffalo from the roof of the Mayflower. The view is amazing. It's somewhat similar to the view that Paul posted from the 15th floor of Buffalo General but its grander because you can see 360 degrees around the building. You can even see the city of Niagara Falls at a distance. I was so excited that I forgot to take my camera along but its very photo-worthy. Buffalo is a beautiful city and despite the no-recycling weird anti-environment resolve of Roswell and Mayflower, I am glad to be here.
PS: When I moved to Buffalo, I think the first thing that people asked me was whether I could see Niagara Falls from my window. Well, I am pleased as Punch to say that I can indeed see it from my Building. (Who cares, if its just Niagara Falls, the city and not The Niagara Waterfalls. ;-))
metalpeter - 09/21/08 11:51
The form of the short movie (sorry forgot the term) is one that I have never understood. I'm not saying they are not films, If I ever took a media studies class (I really should it would be interesting) so I don't know why a TV show isn't considered a movie if the entire story takes place in like 45 minutes. That being said the idea of a movie taking place inside the lobby is a cool idea. I wonder if it could be expanded. If you are into movies (not sure if they show shorts or not) but that Toronto Film Festival (that is never advertised here at all) might be pretty good to go to some time.
The form of the short movie (sorry forgot the term) is one that I have never understood. I'm not saying they are not films, If I ever took a media studies class (I really should it would be interesting) so I don't know why a TV show isn't considered a movie if the entire story takes place in like 45 minutes. That being said the idea of a movie taking place inside the lobby is a cool idea. I wonder if it could be expanded. If you are into movies (not sure if they show shorts or not) but that Toronto Film Festival (that is never advertised here at all) might be pretty good to go to some time.
tinypliny - 09/21/08 09:48
@zobar: Yeah, I need to take pictures and post them! Very soon!!!
@libertad -> Let me know when you want to take a tour. :)
@zobar: Yeah, I need to take pictures and post them! Very soon!!!
@libertad -> Let me know when you want to take a tour. :)
libertad - 09/21/08 09:03
That is so awesome. I would love to see the view you have!
That is so awesome. I would love to see the view you have!
zobar - 09/21/08 08:58
Picture picture!
- Z
Well, I am pleased as Punch to say that I can indeed see it from my Building. (Who cares, if its just Niagara Falls, the city and not The Niagara Waterfalls. ;-))
Picture picture!
- Z
09/16/2008 23:33 #45704
e:Jim's very simple guide to Finance!Category: e:strip
In a very cool conversation we had a little while back, (e:Jim) explained, using easy analogies and simplified scenarios, the current big financial crisis in the US. It made things very clear and made a lot of sense to financially-disoriented me. Thus, I think posting it might make someone's day a bit easier!
Here's (e:Jim)'s Current Finance: 101 (Made Simple)
(e:Jim) linked this news:
My Question: So a very quick question -> Is this one line summary correct? The companies that give out money as credit to people suddenly buckled and imploded. They couldn't give out money or mortgages any more because people were not paying back and now the credit-giving companies are in debt themselves and the Government has stepped in to lend them money in return for their now-worthless shares (and stakes)? And the Government will probably extract the money they lent to these credit companies from taxes. The taxes would go up and people who have good credit would end up paying the higher taxes and not get any low-interest mortgages any more just because of irresponsible people who didn't pay their credit card bills and mortgages in the first place?
(Sidenote: Yeah, I know. That's not really a one-liner. Deal with it! If you want to learn, you gotta ask!)
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Yeah, two parts. One: basically they were set up to process huge inflows and outflows of cash, and once that dried up they ran out of steam to operate. Two: AIG owned a ton of financial securities that were two steps removed from actual mortgages, and were thought to be super safe, but the whole mortgage industry shifted underneath them and so these supposedly safe things are now worthless. So, the first things means they desperately need money to operate day to day, and two means that they are no longer in a position to borrow money because what they own is worthless.
My Question: Why not let them file for bankruptcy? Would that have affected anything?
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Well, not quite bankruptcy, it seems like it was illiquidity. They do have TONS of assets. But they need money, not assets to operate. They own lots of stuff, besides mortgages.
But consider it this way: If, every day, they need to take in $10 billion because they have to pay out $10 billion, but they own $100 billion worth of stuff, you'd think they'd be fine. But, if they stumble one day and don't have money, and they can't borrow money to pay what they have to that day, all of a sudden no one trusts them. So then, the next day it becomes 10 times hard to make the cash flow correctly. So they have lots of 'things' but they need cold hard cash, not things to operate. So the US is now taking 80% of AIG's 'things', in exchange for giving it virtually unlimited loans to operate with as cash day to day. The thought is, once people trust AIG now that the US is backing them, is that everything outside AIG will go back to normal. Yesterday, someone might think 'I don't want to trust them with my money' which led AIG to say 'I can't afford to give money to this person I owe it to', but tomorrow, with the gov't involved, we'll all go back to trusting AIG and things will be fine.
My Question: Is that a good thing, per se? I mean its better that the government own things... is it not? But come to think of it, its somewhat against a capitalistic tendency. In a strange way, this is a somewhat socialist outcome to justify a capitalistic venture eg. AIG
(e:Jim)'s Answer: I don't buy it. We're basically socializing the wrong parts of our economy and doing it in panic-mode instead of well considered. The other thing to consider is punishment or the technical term is "moral hazard". If the US bails out these companies after doing really risky things, it makes other companies feel OK doing it to. You really, in a free market, want to let companies that do risky things fail completely so that they become lessons to the surviving companies. So - we're halfway socializing Wallstreet, but not really punishing the greedy bastards, and totally neglecting industries that would function much smoother if socialized (like healthcare and the like). It's going to get worse, I think. Some big banks are still out there teetering. Washington Mutual is next to go, from what I gather.
My comment: HEY!!! Does Bush or any "government" insiders own big time stakes or "former" executive posts in AIG?? Like they do in oil companies?? That would make all of this 80% lending a total-anti-socialist sneaky capitalistic personal-selfish-gain thing to do!
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Not sure ;)
My comment: As you pointed out, they are being, (and rather uncharacteristically so) rather generous to this company after all.
(e:Jim)'s Answer: They sort of have to, it's a mess. I think they should've taken 100% is my beef. But AIG is a company that helps other companies do financial stuff. If AIG fails badly, it basically kicks all the banks when they're already down on the ground having heart attacks.The penultimate cause of all this was actually the mortgage/credit deregulation that allowed anyone to buy a house for no money down, and that's been going on for 7 years or so. It's going to take another equal sort of period to set things right.
Basically, the banks found a way to take ways of making money, and repackaging them into other ways of making money, and selling those other ways to other people. So you'd sell John a mortgage, then sell Sally something that says she's buying the risk on John's mortgage, and then sell Fred the right to the risk of Sally not paying for John's defaulted mortgage in case John defaulted (seriously). And then everyone let John buy a house for nothing, and were shocked when he couldn't pay his mortgage. And once enough people at the base can't pay their mortgages it just destroys the whole chain of made-up financial stuff that's built on top of it.
My Comment: Wow. That's crazy! So people knew what they were getting themselves into - Or Sally and Fred knew that they were indirectly dependent on some stranger John? Was this explicitly understood?
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Yes, the banker says. "Hey Sally, mortgages are pretty safe! we could always just reposses the house! So, if you want to make $100 a week, why don't you say you'll pay for these mortgages should everything go south? I mean, that's never going to happen!" and so Sally signs up, thinking it's a good way to make money.
Only in this case, it's not someone named Sally - these sorts of things were sold to companies and pensions, not any particular person. And they weren't sold in individual mortgages, but instead, thousands of mortgages would be packed up together, and the risk on the whole lot of mortgages sold. If you put your money in a bank, you could get 3% interest, but if you put your money in escrow (essentially, sort of) to guarantee these mortgages, you could make 6%, BUT if things go wrong you lose your deposit. (making up numbers a bit here to illustrate) Sort of like that.
In my post ((e:Jim,45689)) that's what I was talking about: 'derivatives', basicallly they're things you can buy or sell based on things that can be bought and sold. So, instead of buying gold today, I can buy the right to buy gold 6 months from today at a specific price. Or, various layers and combinations of contracts. It gets really crazy.
This kind of financial stuff can be very useful and essential - don't get me wrong. It's when you put up like 8 layers of add'l stuff on top of it that it gets dicey. So, being able to buy a contract to buy gold in the future? Perfectly useful. Some of the other stuff is just operating on faith and in herds.
My comment: Humanity has all these pithy sayings and proverbs but the minute a situation or question gets twisted around a bit, we walk right in and make the same mistakes over and over and build castles all over the clouds and count chickens before they hatch all the time
(One more sidenote: Oh and I forgot to say this but thought about this later: Talk about chasing all the birds in the bushes and ignoring the ones in hand.)
Moral of the conversation No.1: It's always better to hang out at (e:strip) and chat than hang out at other websites or not hang out at all.
Moral of the conversation No.2: (e:Jim) always has **the scoop** on things. If things are not making sense, he is **the go-to-bloke**!
Here's (e:Jim)'s Current Finance: 101 (Made Simple)
(e:Jim) linked this news:
My Question: So a very quick question -> Is this one line summary correct? The companies that give out money as credit to people suddenly buckled and imploded. They couldn't give out money or mortgages any more because people were not paying back and now the credit-giving companies are in debt themselves and the Government has stepped in to lend them money in return for their now-worthless shares (and stakes)? And the Government will probably extract the money they lent to these credit companies from taxes. The taxes would go up and people who have good credit would end up paying the higher taxes and not get any low-interest mortgages any more just because of irresponsible people who didn't pay their credit card bills and mortgages in the first place?
(Sidenote: Yeah, I know. That's not really a one-liner. Deal with it! If you want to learn, you gotta ask!)
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Yeah, two parts. One: basically they were set up to process huge inflows and outflows of cash, and once that dried up they ran out of steam to operate. Two: AIG owned a ton of financial securities that were two steps removed from actual mortgages, and were thought to be super safe, but the whole mortgage industry shifted underneath them and so these supposedly safe things are now worthless. So, the first things means they desperately need money to operate day to day, and two means that they are no longer in a position to borrow money because what they own is worthless.
My Question: Why not let them file for bankruptcy? Would that have affected anything?
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Well, not quite bankruptcy, it seems like it was illiquidity. They do have TONS of assets. But they need money, not assets to operate. They own lots of stuff, besides mortgages.
But consider it this way: If, every day, they need to take in $10 billion because they have to pay out $10 billion, but they own $100 billion worth of stuff, you'd think they'd be fine. But, if they stumble one day and don't have money, and they can't borrow money to pay what they have to that day, all of a sudden no one trusts them. So then, the next day it becomes 10 times hard to make the cash flow correctly. So they have lots of 'things' but they need cold hard cash, not things to operate. So the US is now taking 80% of AIG's 'things', in exchange for giving it virtually unlimited loans to operate with as cash day to day. The thought is, once people trust AIG now that the US is backing them, is that everything outside AIG will go back to normal. Yesterday, someone might think 'I don't want to trust them with my money' which led AIG to say 'I can't afford to give money to this person I owe it to', but tomorrow, with the gov't involved, we'll all go back to trusting AIG and things will be fine.
My Question: Is that a good thing, per se? I mean its better that the government own things... is it not? But come to think of it, its somewhat against a capitalistic tendency. In a strange way, this is a somewhat socialist outcome to justify a capitalistic venture eg. AIG
(e:Jim)'s Answer: I don't buy it. We're basically socializing the wrong parts of our economy and doing it in panic-mode instead of well considered. The other thing to consider is punishment or the technical term is "moral hazard". If the US bails out these companies after doing really risky things, it makes other companies feel OK doing it to. You really, in a free market, want to let companies that do risky things fail completely so that they become lessons to the surviving companies. So - we're halfway socializing Wallstreet, but not really punishing the greedy bastards, and totally neglecting industries that would function much smoother if socialized (like healthcare and the like). It's going to get worse, I think. Some big banks are still out there teetering. Washington Mutual is next to go, from what I gather.
My comment: HEY!!! Does Bush or any "government" insiders own big time stakes or "former" executive posts in AIG?? Like they do in oil companies?? That would make all of this 80% lending a total-anti-socialist sneaky capitalistic personal-selfish-gain thing to do!
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Not sure ;)
My comment: As you pointed out, they are being, (and rather uncharacteristically so) rather generous to this company after all.
(e:Jim)'s Answer: They sort of have to, it's a mess. I think they should've taken 100% is my beef. But AIG is a company that helps other companies do financial stuff. If AIG fails badly, it basically kicks all the banks when they're already down on the ground having heart attacks.The penultimate cause of all this was actually the mortgage/credit deregulation that allowed anyone to buy a house for no money down, and that's been going on for 7 years or so. It's going to take another equal sort of period to set things right.
Basically, the banks found a way to take ways of making money, and repackaging them into other ways of making money, and selling those other ways to other people. So you'd sell John a mortgage, then sell Sally something that says she's buying the risk on John's mortgage, and then sell Fred the right to the risk of Sally not paying for John's defaulted mortgage in case John defaulted (seriously). And then everyone let John buy a house for nothing, and were shocked when he couldn't pay his mortgage. And once enough people at the base can't pay their mortgages it just destroys the whole chain of made-up financial stuff that's built on top of it.
My Comment: Wow. That's crazy! So people knew what they were getting themselves into - Or Sally and Fred knew that they were indirectly dependent on some stranger John? Was this explicitly understood?
(e:Jim)'s Answer: Yes, the banker says. "Hey Sally, mortgages are pretty safe! we could always just reposses the house! So, if you want to make $100 a week, why don't you say you'll pay for these mortgages should everything go south? I mean, that's never going to happen!" and so Sally signs up, thinking it's a good way to make money.
Only in this case, it's not someone named Sally - these sorts of things were sold to companies and pensions, not any particular person. And they weren't sold in individual mortgages, but instead, thousands of mortgages would be packed up together, and the risk on the whole lot of mortgages sold. If you put your money in a bank, you could get 3% interest, but if you put your money in escrow (essentially, sort of) to guarantee these mortgages, you could make 6%, BUT if things go wrong you lose your deposit. (making up numbers a bit here to illustrate) Sort of like that.
In my post ((e:Jim,45689)) that's what I was talking about: 'derivatives', basicallly they're things you can buy or sell based on things that can be bought and sold. So, instead of buying gold today, I can buy the right to buy gold 6 months from today at a specific price. Or, various layers and combinations of contracts. It gets really crazy.
This kind of financial stuff can be very useful and essential - don't get me wrong. It's when you put up like 8 layers of add'l stuff on top of it that it gets dicey. So, being able to buy a contract to buy gold in the future? Perfectly useful. Some of the other stuff is just operating on faith and in herds.
My comment: Humanity has all these pithy sayings and proverbs but the minute a situation or question gets twisted around a bit, we walk right in and make the same mistakes over and over and build castles all over the clouds and count chickens before they hatch all the time
(One more sidenote: Oh and I forgot to say this but thought about this later: Talk about chasing all the birds in the bushes and ignoring the ones in hand.)
Moral of the conversation No.1: It's always better to hang out at (e:strip) and chat than hang out at other websites or not hang out at all.
Moral of the conversation No.2: (e:Jim) always has **the scoop** on things. If things are not making sense, he is **the go-to-bloke**!
- For the financially advanced, further references about how NOT TO build castles in air (102), count chickens before they hatch (103) or chase birds in bushes (104) can be found here: (e:Jim,45689) (e:Vincent,45694) (e:Joshua,45686) (e:Drew,45698) (e:Vincent,45702) and (e:strip) Chat ->
joshua - 09/17/08 12:08
Ha - well done (e:jim). I am a great communicator but find it difficult to condense complicated financial topics in a way anyone can understand. That is why I love reading Brian Greene's books on string theory - I envy his abilities.
As far as Tiny's question about whether or not former Bush officials were involved in any of these private enterprises, I feel like I should highlight the following - Jamie Gorelick, Clintonista and a member of the 9/11 commission, made $26.4m off of the back of FNMA as vice-chair, while Rome was burning and nobody was paying attention. Also, guess who is #2 on Fannie/Freddie's campaign contribution list? Sen. Barack Obama, the guy who on Monday complained about former lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie working for McCain, lol. Cheers. The bottom line is that, despite these factoids, this is only political in the sense that the scope of financial regulations will be bickered over, rather than whether or not more regulation is a good idea. You're damn right it's a good idea!
Ha - well done (e:jim). I am a great communicator but find it difficult to condense complicated financial topics in a way anyone can understand. That is why I love reading Brian Greene's books on string theory - I envy his abilities.
As far as Tiny's question about whether or not former Bush officials were involved in any of these private enterprises, I feel like I should highlight the following - Jamie Gorelick, Clintonista and a member of the 9/11 commission, made $26.4m off of the back of FNMA as vice-chair, while Rome was burning and nobody was paying attention. Also, guess who is #2 on Fannie/Freddie's campaign contribution list? Sen. Barack Obama, the guy who on Monday complained about former lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie working for McCain, lol. Cheers. The bottom line is that, despite these factoids, this is only political in the sense that the scope of financial regulations will be bickered over, rather than whether or not more regulation is a good idea. You're damn right it's a good idea!
jim - 09/17/08 10:12
Wikipedia on 'credit-default swaps' - the John/Sally/Fred type stuff I was talking about in the chat last night: :::link:::
Wikipedia on 'credit-default swaps' - the John/Sally/Fred type stuff I was talking about in the chat last night: :::link:::
jim - 09/17/08 09:24
Hah, I don't have the scoop :) I'm just an interested observer.
Hah, I don't have the scoop :) I'm just an interested observer.
"What I think that means is that it wasn't 7 literal days that was the passing of time."
Okay, fair enough. :)
"When I was in school there was this theory that all the animals where on one big land mass and it broke apart and that is why you have some animals that are the same but have slight differeces on different continents."
Actually, that land mass is called the Pangaea :::link::: It's not a theory because its borne out by fossil evidence, the existence of continental drift, geology of several continental mountain ranges, earthquake faults, and plate tectonics :::link:::
"In the tower of bable story....If there where people on that land mass before it broke away then the tower of babel would make sense."
How would you then explain several human evolutionary species (not just one species) with some species sharing a continuum of anatomic characteristics and some completely different?
"I think science is a kind of faith."
If faith is borne out by solid proof left, right and centre, almost DAILY in a continuous stream of scientific findings from around the globe, well, then it is faith, I suppose. I would much rather relate to a faith that doesn't rely on blind unprovable scoping about.
"When you die your body loses 21grams of weight?"
That unfortunate pseudoscience charade has been debunked completely. :::link::: Besides being statistically inaccurate, the methodology behind the 1907 article claiming this myth was terribly flawed. Additionally, the bodily functions continue after death because they are chemical in nature and not organic. Gases emitted from the body after death can easily amount to around 200 - 300 grams or more. I am not sure Hollywood movies are a credible source for argument that creationism is believable.
"I think that science and Realigon don't have all the answers and some of what is thought is wrong on both sides."
I agree we don't have all the answers. However, Creationism is an unnecessary and completely inaccurate theory that is trying to worm into biology classes in the pretext of "objectivity". If anyone is interested in objectivity they really don't need to look any further than Science. When religion is subject to an objective evaluation, every single story and myth fall apart. Creationism is one of them. While scientists take pains to point out alternative explanations to their theories and provide proof to the contrary all the time, I don't see any creationists even questioning what they believe. The mere absence of self-evaluation is an indication that the theory of creationism is too fragile and fails to stand up to even a modicum of objective and logical questioning.
Here is one Idea that would explain both Creationsim and Evolution at the same time. I'm sorry that I don't remember every single fact from the bible I haven't read all of it. There is this part where God Created the world. Everything took six days and then he rested On the 7th. What I think that means is that it wasn't 7 literal days that was the passing of time. Sorry I don't remember what he made on all six days but he did make animals first and humans later. Who says that the way of the humans being made wasn't evolution. When I was in school there was this theory that all the animals where on one big land mass and it broke apart and that is why you have some animals that are the same but have slight differeces on different continents. In the tower of bable story. Yes the did a cartoon version of this with a giant egg king. The basics of the story is that Man Kind built a tower to try and be with god and he destoryed it and sent the people all over the world and said that they will all speak there own langueges and won't be albe to understand each other until they speak the word of god. That could mean untill they are in heaven or untill they understand god or are uninted in his ways, how ever you want to say that. If there where people on that land mass before it broke away then the tower of babel would make sense. I think science is a kind of faith. Yes there are laws and rules and formulas and things that can be quantified but have they figured out why when you die your body loses 21grams of weight? yes there was a movie I never saw based on that. Some people think that is the loss of the soul. There are something that both science and faith seem like they are saying are different but they really are the same. I do think that animals evolve over time. But look at the balance of nature or currently the unbalance of it, some Indian tribes (sorry to sterotype) might cry over that when they see the balance is off and they don't need science for that. I'm not saying that I'm a heavy believer and I think that science and Realigon don't have all the answers and some of what is thought is wrong on both sides.
OOPS, I missed this comment. :)
@metalpeter:
"There is no reason why you can't believe that god created the world. ..."
If you like I can list around 584,806 reasons from the biological, chemical, physical sciences why I can believe that "God" did NOT create the world as portrayed by creationists. I don't contest the fact that "God" might have had a hand in guiding evolution. ;-)
"I also want to ad that you can Science and Creationism can both be kinda right at the same time."
Really? Can you give me an example where Creationism is as believable and logical as the scientific explanation?? I am really interested as to why you would say that.
More like a fetushark. HaHaHa.
I agree with all, except one, of your opinions (e:Jason). Calling abortion rights a necessary evil is not really doing anything to erase and lessen the social stigma behind it.
I see the argument behind the evil tag attached to abortion, but I don't see any grey areas when it comes to choice. Either you support it or you are against it. You cannot support the concept for some reasons and view it with disdain for others. This ambiguity is what forms the foundations of the construct of a "social stigma".
Medically and legally, a fetus is considered to be a baby after 20 weeks or so (may differ a bit in different countries). This is when all organogenesis has taken place and the baby could potentially be viable and alive with some machine support were it born premature. Before this period of time, the fetus is just that - a systematic growing mass of cells.
I don't see any of the ethical arguments against abortion at the fetal stage being ANY different from calling stem cell research unethical and "evil".
Both arguments and really, any stigma, is often rooted in religious and unscientific beliefs and biased mores. They are an impractical and ostrich-like approach to the problems facing real humans in real situations. If we want to move forward as a race (of humans), we need to be clear about how our ambiguity in opinion and grey areas in practice have seeded and nurtured these so-called "stigmas" and eventually dragged down quality of life for many of us.
Peter I agree with much of what you're saying. But check this out: If a chickenhawk is someone who advocates war while not daring to send anyone dear to him into the fight, what do we call someone who advocates abortion but refuses to abort one of their own? A Fetushawk? Heh, just jokin.
Well if this isn't your tough post I can't wait to see it now. In terms of Abortion you make some good points. The thing that gets lost is Often People who are Pro-Choice get labeled as liking abortions, that isn't true they think that women should be allowed to have them, that doesn't mean that they approve of them. Yes you can be anti abortion and still be pro choice. The term pro-life isn't right either. If you are pro life then you think abortion should be illegal but see if they where illegal then women who got them illegaly would sometimes die so that isn't really being or life.
In terms of the creationism: There is no reason why you can't believe that god created the world. But there are questions that it doesn't answer what about the other planets did he create them also? amd if so then why no life on those planets? I get that is faith and they Have a right to believe that. I also want to ad that you can Science and Creationism can both be kinda right at the same time.
Yeah, Tiny, I hope so too - social change usually isn't immediate, right? =)
indeed!
and the general stigma can change over time; at least that is what I hope for too.
First of all, I've said this before but I'll say it again - I see abortion as a necessary evil, like war. It reflects poorly on us, we are only slightly less savage than we ever have been, but abortion has to be legal and it has to be safe because it isn't a perfect world out there.
1) I don't think that being pro-life means you are anti-women's health, or that you want them to be unhappy. I'm willing to give the pro-lifers at least that much.
2) Totally agree, and to me it is another case of people thinking government action eliminates "bad" behavior. Abortions will still happen, under conditions nobody should accept. It isn't a perfect world!!!
3) Totally agree about the double standard as it applies to people being completely ignorant of what goes on outside of their bubble.
4) We can't do anything about the stigma. People have sovereignty and can accept or reject anything freely. I myself think everything has its limits. Let's worry more about the legal and political issues that people can see a tangible benefit from.
5) Creationism - gah. Again, people can believe what they want. I just don't want it taught in biology class.
AMEN, sister!
Sadly, I think many people get suckered into the GOP on issues like abortion or creationism and just come to believe every other part of the platform as a show of support for that single issue. My mom, for example, is really a democrat at heart. But her support for restricting abortion to the point where it kills mothers has made her gradually accept destroying social security, support Iraq, and be fearful of Muslims.
Any argument that reducing poverty reduces the number of abortions wont sway her, a drop of fetus blood and the whole party is tainted.
Poor bastards.
You go girl. I like to thake this and throw this hooplaa back at them. How is taking away human rights, women's health, and sometimes even her life christian at all? Short answer is it's not. That's why I love being an Episcopalian, we're allowed to think.