Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

04/15/2009 22:39 #48396

Urban Farm
Category: buffalo
Hey, you probably heard about this already. It's been going on since last week.

image

This couple, Mr and Mrs Stevens, they've got 7 kids, they moved to Buffalo's East side from the country. They own a home on the Fillmore ave on the between Broadway and Sycamore. They have 2 acres of open lots behind their house, all of which are owned by the city. They requested to buy the lots and turn it into a farm. The city said no. Here it is in the Buffalo News

Here's the land

image

image

image

Behind Fillmore, between Broadway and Sycamore.


What do you guys think?

Should farming come back to the city? Without a huge increase in population, what will happen to abandoned neighborhoods? People keep sprawling homes over farmland, and the city is left with abandoned homes to demolish, how can the city rejuvenate itself? The East Side, how does it get better, where can it go. I don't think you can ignore the East Side and expect the rest of Buffalo to Recover. So where is the east side headed, and how can it be positive?

The area around the proposed farm was a dense, popular Buffalo street at one time, a central Business District for the East Side. Broadway Market is still there. But now it's one of those places you drive around and get depressed. The once magnificent buildings on Fillmore and Broadway just look like death. and most of the people who live in the area would rather move. It's a shame. I get furious when I think of how we let our cities rot. First they went to Cheektowaga and let Broadway rot, now they move further out and toss Cheektowaga out like a half eaten happymeal. Back in the 60s it would have been easy to help the East side, and all of the city, now look what we've got.

I'm pretty familliar with the East side, went on the Tour de Neglect twice, that's about 7-8 hours riding my bike around, and used to drive out to MLK park every other weekend.

The way I see it, the City is absolutely foolish not to allow people to turn acres into farmland. The one thing the East side has going for it is the open space, nature has reclaimed areas, and it's a beautiful thing. You can look as some buildings and businesses as assets, but as a whole, the peaceful open spaces are the strength of the East side.

The Mayor would rather see new houses constructed there. Like there's a shortage of homes. Yea, I know, new homes, people like those. Well, I've seen plenty of them abandoned and boarded up too, on the East side and in South Buffalo. I don't think the houses that were there were the problem, it's the neighborhood that nobody wants. new homes can be wasted just like the old ones if the neighborhood has no heart.




I got tons of links on this, the city seems to be getting a lot of bad press, even that Buffalo News article, on the front page, big picture, titled "City Says E-I-E-I No" There's stuff in Artvoice Buffalo Rising WNY Media is doing video, oh, and there's a Facebook group I joined, it's getting close to 400 members

the non-profit Broadway Fillmore Alive has links to a bunch of different stories


oh, by the way, there is a farm in the City FYI Mayor Brown, it's about 4 blocks East of Main St. Queen City Farm Saturdays at 9 you can volunteer.


metalpeter - 04/16/09 17:41
Well I'm kinda mixed on this issue my self.
-I live in the city If I wanted to live near a farm I would live in the country
-The people who wanted to do this should have looked into it before they bought the house instead of the other way around
-I do like the idea of having an urban farm and it is a good idea to use the area, but if you all ready have a plan with Habitat you can't really go back on that (plus that sends the message that agreements made mean nothing if you change things when some else comes along).
-Yes that part of town is kinda rough. There is this Idea that the reason houses get run down is because the people who own them don't live there, and that is true sometimes.
-People assume that poor people destroy places and sometimes that is true. But often what happens is that renters don't feel like it is their neighboorhood. So when they see bad shit go down they don't say anything. But when these people own a house it causes them to care about the area and what they own. I do agree with that.

---- Here is what should Happen. The people should be allowed to buy all the land. However there should be a set of time maybe 5-7 years that they must run a farm there. If it fails or they stop or they decide to open some thing else up or move or something along those lines they are held to strict stipulated penalties of some kind. What if they start this farm have it for 2 years and go broke and then move during the night and leave the house behind and now you have to start the plan all over. In terms of building new homes. I'm sure there is some place else in that area where the city can use federal money to knock them down and build new ones. On a side note I think Jannelle makes a lot of good points that there needs to be an entire system used for urban farms. Will this farm have animals and food will be grown or is is just like a huge Garden. What happens if someone from the hood goes into it at night and plants pot who makes sure that doesn't happen? Also what about zoning? What is allowed? -----
dcoffee - 04/16/09 11:49
Hmm, from what I've read so far I think Habitat is flexible, they realize there is a lot of open space and are willing to look elsewhere. I also heard Habitat was surprised that the mayor even knew about their Wilson st. idea and didn't like his using it as an excuse to deny the farm permit.

Personally I'm not so keen on livestock, chickens, pigs whatever, cause you'll have to build shelters and deal with their waste. but I think farming plants is quite positive.

and as paul said, "we all know how easy it is to make farmland into subdevelopments."

there are community gardens all over the city in empty lots, and they're always regarded as positive things, politicians go and make speeches in them for photo ops. They're more popular now, and some of them have veggies too.

As for the masterplan excuse, there is a plan from about 4 years ago, building on the Queen City Hub plan, it was created by 'East Side Good Neighbors Planning Alliance' each neighborhood had a 'GNPA' it's community folks, they create the plan for their own neighborhood. the Wilson St. lots were down for parkland/greenspace. So housing might actually go against that. :::link:::

I think beautifying the open spaces will lead directly to a more desirable neighborhood, and better home values. I think it would actually help more than new-build homes. The East side will attract bargain shoppers, do it yourself people, who'd buy a house cheap and put some sweat into it. Maybe a house with an empty lot next door they could farm. Realy, who wants to buy a house there, thrifty self sufficient people.

Also, there really is a farm East of Main near Utica, and it's 3 acres, bigger than this one.

And PS. zobar, I'm totally changing my user sound to the Talking Heads.
james - 04/16/09 11:42
Ya, the lease offered had a clause where they would have to be off the premises in 30 days. No Farmer in their right mind would take that.
janelle - 04/16/09 10:11
I think that Habitat for Humanity offered to allow them to use the land temporarily but they declined. It's probably not worth their efforts.

That's why I say the individuals should have done a little more planning ahead of time.
paul - 04/16/09 09:58
I say why not let them build a farm with a short term permit - say 5 years - and see how it goes. There is definately not an urgent need for housing on the eastside or anywhere in Buffalo. I mean so many of the houses are completely destroyed - which means no one wanted them.

If it doesn't work - we all know how easy it is to make farmland into subdevelopments. However, if they build one of those newstyle plastic sided subdivisions, it is a little more difficult to turn it back into farmland and required demolition, etc - although I am sure the eastide would be capable of that oer ten years.
james - 04/16/09 09:05
I agree to an extent Janelle. However, I do not think there is any long-term vision for this particular neighborhood. The mayor's plan for new housing is a great way to build some new homes that devalue to nothing over the course of ten years. You cannot simply install a sustainable neighborhood. Having Habitat for Humanity build low-cost homes is fine, but this particular neighborhood is in the middle of no where. There is a two acre lot because the homes rotted into the ground.

The farm is a great way to incrementally stabilize the neighborhood. First, it puts the land back on the city's bankroll. Ka-Ching! It puts a business in there that is not necessarily dependent on local consumption. Ka-Ching! It ties in to other local businesses like the Broadway Market. Ka-Ching. If it does take off and stabilize neighborhood housing prices, it would become feasible to rehab or construct new housing, eventually making the farm's land value to great they would be fools not to sell it and homestead some other rotten part of the city. At worst, the farm doesn't make it but the city collects tax on that land for a few years. At least there wont be any new construction on that land to demolish.
janelle - 04/16/09 08:35
While I think urban farming is an interesting idea, the city has a responsibility to consider how the idea fits into a broader plan of development. They shouldn't hand over land to every person who comes by with an idea and it would be irresponsible city planning to do so.

Obviously the city isn't entirely opposed to urban farming because of the farm on the west side. And David Rivera's office is diligently working on the backyard poultry issue.

I wonder if these people did any research on the issue when they moved here. If they wanted to do urban farming, it might have been more beneficial for them to spend some time checking out different neighborhoods, seeing where it might be viable, and having discussions with the local councilperson to garner support for the idea.

I would like the city to explore urban farming because it would be an interesting way to use vacant land. But there needs to be a system in place to consider where the farm will go and the impact on the area. Farms seem so nice and idyllic but the byproducts of farming could further add to the pollution in the area. So I rather not have people just putting up farms wherever they can claim a piece of vacant land without any thought or oversight.
zobar - 04/16/09 07:55

This used to be real estate, now it's only fields and trees. Where have they gone? Now it's nothing but flowers. The highways and cars were sacrificed for agriculture. I thought that we'd start over, but I guess I was wrong...



If the neighbors are down [if there are any neighbors] and they can get the money, I don't see why it's any of the mayor's business what they do. The upside of the whole thing is that if the city turns down enough money for enough projects they don't like, it's going to put more pressure on the city to articulate and follow through on this master plan of theirs.

...and as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention.



- Z
heidi - 04/15/09 23:55
ARGH! I have lazarus installed on the other ocmputer! I had a beautiful long comment and now it's gone! :-(

(e:dcoffee), thank you so much for posting this!! I definitely agree with you about the potential of urban farming as a path for reclaimation and encouragement of community & economic development.

03/30/2009 11:10 #48237

Drug Companies, money for Ads, not R&D
Category: healthcare
Doing some healthcare research.

Check this one out

Drug Companies spend Twice as much on marketing and advertising than they do on Research and Development, about one third of their revenue.

image

Source PDF
from Families USA

Just one example of how we are getting ripped off despite the huge summs we are paying for our healthcare.

Drug Companies are the third most profitable industry in America.


Why so much Profit? Instead of creating new drugs, they spend a lot of time tinkering with old drugs just so they can get a new patent and have a monopoly for 20 years on the production of something, then they spend their money marketing some new form of Prozac with a new patent and a different name.

Anyone else get annoyed by the TV commercials out there telling me to "ask my doctor" about such and such wonderpill? I don't feel like I'm qualified to guess what kind of perscription I need, that's why I'm going to the doctor in the first place right? If I know how to handle it, I wouldn't be going to the Doctor. And didn't they spend about 13 years in school learning this stuff?

I always hated those drug commercials, I always felt like they were just increasing my cost and providing nothing of value. Now that I know the actual numbers... This is so much worse than I thought.


jenks - 03/30/09 22:07
i'm totally with you here. I mean yes, the drug companies are businesses and need to earn money. But I think the 'direct to patient' advertising is absolutely wrong.
I mean i'm not against making people aware of new meds.
but that line 'ask your doctor is x pill is right for you" just absolutely rubs me the wrong way.
How about you trust your doctor to know which meds are right??
If anything the drug companies should spend more of their energies educating the doctors who will prescribe the drugs, not the patients. There are a lot of great new drugs out there. But so many docs are set in their ways and scared to try something new- usually b/c they don't know about it. Once in a while I will see someone learn about some new product, and then try it out to see if it lives up to the hype. I think that's how it should go.
I mean the patients need to know- but I think they should hear it from their doc, not from someone with a background in advertising.

While they're at it... the drug companies can stop buying me lunch and giving me free pens. If they do that, maybe they can drop their prices .0000001% or something.
libertad - 03/30/09 20:43
That is interesting data. I'm surprised how much more they spend on advertising than on research. They have banned cigarette advertising so clearly they can ban any kind of advertising they want. I don't see why it is in the public interest this type of advertising.
dcoffee - 03/30/09 20:01
I just don't feel like the Drug Companies should play the role of the 'slick salesmen'. We'd all be better off if the could spend money creating new cures, instead of spending twice as much on marketing. If this drug really is as amazing as they say, wouldn't my doctor know about it? if it could help me personally wouldn't they mention it?

We have the FDA to approve new drugs right? Don't they notify people when something new comes out? There must be a comprehensive list of osteoporosis drugs somewhere, the doctor should be able to look at the list, think about the side-effects and other factors in relation to my body, and pick one. Why should I think the TV commercial knows more than my doctor? If that's the case than my doctor sucks.

Don't get me wrong, I can take care of a lot of things myself (I have to) I don't think you should be helpless without your doctor. But really, that's their job, and they went through over a decade of Med school to get there.
metalpeter - 03/30/09 19:44
The part that is weird about some of ok a lot of the ads is that they Tell you the drug name but don't really say what it is for. Or now the new wave of them is people talking and then they list the side effects in the conversation (legaly they have to list them). I do get why they do the Ads if you are trying to sell a Hard on pill and no one knows about more choices then Viagara you won't get any sales. There is one that I find really strange it is a drug for people who have depression and are taking meds but it doesn't cure everything so this pill is supposed to take care of things in addition to the meds you are allready taking.
joshua - 03/30/09 15:52
Yeah, the ads have always been shady. Then again, if you spend $800M-$1B developing a drug, I have no idea how you recuperate that much money without actually advertising for it. The advertising itself never really has bothered me, but the scale of it has definity been a stone in my shoe for a long time.

03/24/2009 23:17 #48189

Community
Category: life
(e:metalpeter) left a comment on my last journal that is right on. I had to give it a hell yea.

I guess the basic idea is that, in America we've slowly lost our sense of community, and that may be our biggest problem.

I probably worry way too much about America, and our problems. But you know what... in my frantic search for solutions, I often come back to the idea that we are all a little too isolated, a little too fearful, and a little too detached from one another.

Community.

That really is the the path to a better world, and a better life in your own skin.

Somewhere along the way, we were fooled into thinking that if we could just take more and more for ourselves, we would be happier. But I think the opposite is true. You have to give, in order to be happy. Cause you'll never have complete control, the world is disorderly, life is unpredictable, and if you think you can take enough from the world to make you happy, you're missing the point. Rich people can be miserable, and the dirt poor can be joyful. The thing that matters, is the people in your life. And if the people around you matter, then selfishness has no place.

Fear of eachother, and self-centered values. I'll bet that's hurt our society more than anything.

Yea, we moved out of our towns and cities. So we could get away from all those people. Get our own grass, our own pool, our own swingset, our own everything. But self indulgence has not made us happier, and fuckin'a we worked so hard to get it.

I think we're starting to come full circle though. Technology drove us apart, but now it's starting to bring us together again.

You know, I make eye contact with anyone I walk by. I want to know my neighbors. And sitting home alone I can relax, but I need people in order to have fun.




By the way, thanks (e:strip) for bringing people together, thanks paul for making it exist and enviting us to your house. And for improving the site all the time. I won't let you launch the new site without sending you a donation. I'm a cheap bastard, but I put my money where it matters.
metalpeter - 03/25/09 18:19
First of all thanks. Second of all you are right to thank (e:Paul) for the site. I'm often not very social of a person. One of the things that I like about (e:strip) is that yes it is a social networking site, but it is also set up to be a community site. I don't mean an internet community that is something different. It is a way to also have a community off of the internet. Thirdly again maybe it is part of the keeping to myself but I don't know any of my neighbors. Yes I come home and some times there are lots of Asians playing ball out side, then some cop used to maybe he still lives a couple houses over. Not that I remember it but I have heard there was a time that if You where doing something you shouldn't (maybe smoking by the railroad tracks) you're mothers neighbor would fix you good and then when you got home, it would be Dad's turn if it was something really bad, and you would hide in fear. I don't only want to blame the suburbs cause they are not the only reason we have lost that. What the other reasons are I'm not sure. I know that I should know the people who live around me, but sometimes it is tough. For an example I was walking home one day and these two guys asked for help. It was the dried up extra black top stuff, I had seen them the few days previous working on some construction thing, so I figured fine the extra scrap is there's. So a couple days later I read about some guy who broke into a church and got caught. So I run into the black guy who I helped and he tells me the white boy who was with him, tried to have sex with his girlfriend (they where friends or something not sure) and that he broke into a church, and this was the guy I was trying to help, now I don't want to try and help any one. How am I supposed to trust anyone. So I go home and watch my TV or maybe a movie or something, yes gadgets are nice but they can make you more isolated.

03/19/2009 12:18 #48121

NYS Rockefeller Drug Laws, more news
Category: news
Lots of interesting things in the News today. The stabbings on Elmwood which (e:James) Mentioned.

Drug Laws

Also Rod Watson takes on the Drug Laws in NYS for 2 reasons;
One the laws target Minorities. 90% of the people in NYS who are locked up for non-violent possessions charges are black or Hispanic, though whites use drugs just as much. Here's a statistic "blacks made up 53 percent of drug offenders in state prisons nationwide, while comprising only 13 percent of the population."

Second reason is the waste of money. "it costs $45,000 to $50,000 to lock someone up for a year. That compares with about $30,000 for residential drug treatment, and about $14,000 for outpatient treatment."
I'm glad we're getting some sane discussion on this issue. In the past just questioning the drug laws could make people label you some sort of self centered hedonist, who values nothing except being in a drunken stupor, and doesn't care about somebody's children.. or something like that. It's a ridiculously simple and shortsighted argument, but a popular one that tends to stop rational discussion.

Least Compotent Criminals .or. Not My Neighbor Anymore

Another Article in the news is about an idiot in South Buffalo who used to run the Moose Lodge on my corner. Apparently he fired bullets into a house because the guy inside was going to testify against him about breaking a somebody's nose in a bar fight. So instead of an assault charge, now this moron has felony witness intimidation, reckless endangerment, illegal possession of a firearm, and a host of other stuff. And he's unemployed, cause he was booted from the moose lodge. So good riddance to him. But it does make me wish that our Prisons were better at being 'correctional' facilities.


Updated......
One Bit of National News relating to the AIG bonuses and the public uproar they are causing.

The public has a right to be pissed. We definitely talked about this issue when the stimulus was being discussed a month ago, and as far back as the election, "Golden Parachutes" was the term being used them. So it should be no surprise that the revelation of these bonuses and others in the industry has caused an uproar. So now some people are trying to use this anger in a political way. I saw Cantor on the TV trying to say "this is exactly the reason why no republicans voted for it". Personally I do think people should have had time to read the bill before voting on it. not that I think much would have changed.

Anyway people are looking for some scapegoats and political windfall from this. So I wanted to dig a little deeper. Chris Dodd (D) chair of the senate banking committee, has been named as a culprit. I looked into it a bit, and I don't think he deserves any of the blame. You can see a video here it's on Huffington post, but the pest part is the 8 minute CNN interview where he sets the record straight.

After reading a little more about this, I think you can fairly blame Timothy Geitner for loosening the restrictions. And maybe Lawrence Summers a bit though he technically doesn't have as much power. But I think Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Obama are fine. They all wanted a tougher bill, and they seemed compelled to change things in the compromise. I never really liked Geitner, and there was some article a month back, in Politico I think, about him getting heat, getting laughed at, and argued with, when he was pushing the market's interests in a meeting where most people were most concerned about taxpayers. I think Geitner got what he thought was best, and not it's bitten us all in the ass.


metalpeter - 03/19/09 18:44
I think a lot of it is a Race/Class thing. Not all drug dealers are rich. Hey if you get busted and they take the drugs and the money how do you get a good lawyer? I think that is a big factor. I also think that there is more crime in the areas that are poor so that brings in more law enforcement. I think it is a good idea to make nonviolent criminals do less time. However I (the guy who wants it all legal) Do have a problem. How can you tell if the dealer is in a gang or not? Just because he is in a gang doesn't mean he is shooting or beating people up. So how does one figure this part out.

In terms of the bonuses. I thought I saw on line that a New Law just got passed. I didn't read all the details. Anyone who got a bonus from a company that got a bailout and makes over $250,000 will be taxed at 90%. With out knowing all the details that sounds good to me.
jason - 03/19/09 15:16
I totally agree with you about the need to reform the law. Clearly it is another bad example of government social engineering. It costs us too much, it doesn't solve the underlying issue, and it overcrowds our prisons. For these reasons alone it is obvious that reform is necessary.

I suspect that the race issue has more to do with enforcement of the law. Are white suburban hustlers going to be as likely to be prosecuted? My guess is no. While that is in no way a statement about the law on its own, and it is silly to try to equitably distribute jail time across all races based on percentage of population, what it does tell me is that if the law can't be properly enforced, it's damned useless and should be scrapped on principle.
jenks - 03/19/09 14:57
i have mixed feelings on the drug laws, but I do have a friend in town who served 10 years for cocaine possession... and now works in law firm and is one of the most successful people I know.

03/22/2009 23:12 #48160

Simplifiying the Stupid Economy
Category: politics
I'm frustrated. I don't even know where to start. I think Washington hates change. it seems like they're doing everything possible to preserve the current systems that have destroyed the country. Life changes, circumstances change, and you have to adjust, or else you're screwed. I think we're getting closer and closer to "screwed".

So much of our way of life is unsustainable, but it seems like our politicians are trying to preserve all of it. As if they think a lifestyle based on importing chinese crap, exporting weapons, moving our manufacturing to Mexico, building McMansions on farmland, running our lives on credit, saving zero dollars as a nation, shrinking the middle class, letting our cities rot, and leaving our healthcare up to insurance companies instead of doctors, is something we should be fighting for.

I thought we had finally hit bottom, but now I'm not so sure. Corruption runs deep. There are a lot of people making money off of our misery. I was hopeful that we'd finally see some progress now that the people on top are hurting too, because of the Stock Market. But these bailout proposals look like free cash for Wall Street.

And why the hell does big business think they're entitled to free cash and aid from the government without penalty? Oh, right, cause there's no such thing as a free market, we always bail out the fat cats, that's the way it's always been.

two big issues are bugging the shit out of me. Healthcare and the Economy. I've decided to start with the Economy.

2 Opinions about the economic problem

There seems to be two general opinions on what the problem is in the Stock Market.

1) the first opinion is the Tim Geitner, Paulson, Wall Street perspective

2) the second opinion is the Krugman, Stiglitz, Robert Shapiro, Richard Freeman, and dcoffee perspective. Along with all the others who support wasting as little money as possible, protecting the public, and letting the lying gamblers on Wall Street who got us into this mess go broke.

1) the first opinion;
The main problem is that investors are scared. There is too much instability in the market, and nobody has confidence that they can make money. But things are fundamentally sound, the assets and most of the companies are OK, they're just undervalued because nobody is buying right now. But eventually things will go back to normal.

2) the second opinion;
Some of the money that people had on paper never existed, or it was grossly inflated because of the crazy housing bubble and other bundled debt that was sold. So actually there are 2-3 trillion dollars missing from the stock market, and it's not coming back.

these two ideas are not really compatible. Sure there is a crisis of confidence, that is obvious, but the money either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, we'll have to find out what's worthless sooner or later. Or we can let the government buy the trash and save Wall Street's ass.

1) the first opinion supports the idea of giving 'aid' and 'relief' to financial institutions to help them get through this troubled period. Everything will go back to normal eventually, but right now the usual investors are just acting irrational. Maybe the government could buy the worst assets that nobody really understands, and nobody wants. Then it's our problem, instead of Wall Street's, and wall street can at least go back to normal.

2) the second opinion says that, there was a lot of gambling going on in the market, there was a lot of deception, and everybody lost money in the end. Now the public as a whole is in danger because our money was in that corrupt system. The government is the only one who can stabilize the market for the sake of protecting us all. This involves firing the people who got us into this mess, taking control of all the assets from that institution, not just the 'toxic assets'. The government reestablishes confidence by figuring out what all that stuff is really worth, and sells it back once we've made sense of it. We've done this in the past, in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis, maybe you forgot about that crisis, cause the nationalization plan worked damn well.

1) you might call the first option, cash for trash. Or a Bailout.

2) you might call the second option, detox. Or Nationalization.


The fundamental disagreement is weather the money exists or not. Call me crazy, but I don't think people on Wall Street can't accept that the money is gone. If you're on Wall Street you cannot be objective, because you want that money, you expected it, and the fact that it's gone is just impossible, no matter how much research you see to the contrary.

What happened to the money? A lot of it was based on mortgages and other debt. Everyone assumed that housing prices could only go up. So you got a big mortgage, and bought an amazing house. Your house was like a huge credit card that not only had a big credit limit, but its value went up, and eventually you could sell it and make a profit, or at least pay off a chunk out of the debt you owed on it. You wanted an expensive house, so even lame houses became expensive, and you didn't care, cause the value could only go up. At least, that's what everyone said.

The money was based on all of our debt, and we had a shitload, we still do. But we're not so sure we can pay it back, and neither are the banks, cause unemployment is rising. When you take out a 20-30 year mortgage at 4% - 5% you end up paying double, that's right, double, go ahead do the math. So that means the banks, as soon as they gave you that mortgage, they acted like they had cash in their hand. They figured about a quarter of the overall money they were owed wouldn't be paid back. So you get a $200,000 loan, they double it to $400,000, and subtract a quarter, and they guess they're going to make $100,000 from the interest over time. so they took that money, and used it on the stock market.

Add our consumer debt to that pile. And you realize this money is not coming back.


There's a hole in the market, that money is gone. The part that bugs me is that this problem was created on Wall Street, and they expect the taxpayer to bail them out. We should bail ourselves out, and put the greedy crooks who crashed the system in jail.


metalpeter - 03/23/09 19:54
This is going to sound crazy but I think a lot of this is caused by people moving out to the Suburbs also known as sprawl. Yes there are towns and cities and Villages but that not what I mean, well maybe a little bit. When everyone lived in the city everyone was close. Now as people move out they depend on cars and gas. But what happens is you lose community. When you live and work in the same area you care about the people where you live. I think that lost sense of community makes it easy to ship jobs of china or some other country. You don't see the guy who loses his Job because he works at a place that made that part. Even if you don't see that guy you don't care about him either way since the sense of community and what is important for the whole instead of you. That is one thing that I do like about China (yes it can be bad to) That the good of the whole is more important then the one. I think we could use some more of that in our country, but no so much so that we take rights away. I also think that moving out to the burbs destroyed housing markets. What do you do with houses that you have no one to buy because more houses where made but now you don't have enough people to live in these nice city houses. Even if they could then what would you do with the poor homes. Well what you do is you find renters and try to get them to buy a house. But see they don't have the money so you give them a loan anyways. Again I think that if a Banker really knew someone or knew that person knew someone else they knew they wouldn't lend them money, again the community thing. I think one other factor is that it used to be Banks could only be open in one State. Yes all banks could only be state banks and some where that changed. Again with the community. Yes there are some banks that are only in one state (M&T still might be one). I'm not saying people still wouldn't be greedy. But I think it makes making a bad choice tougher to make if the it costs the guy on your softball team or in your bowling league is job.
dcoffee - 03/23/09 10:09
More reading. I'm a little crazy this morning, I think it's going to be a two computer day, one for work, one for news.

Here are some articles arguing for nationalization.

Stiglitz :::link:::
Krugman :::link:::

Obama could lose his credibility if he doesn't handle this right :::link:::