You've got to be kidding me.
You spend $700 billion on something, and you don't know if it had the effect you wanted? Do I even need to point out how absurd this is? When are they going to just come out and admit that the economy is about as mysterious as the sea to them, and nothing they do is ever going to change it?
Is there some reason the market needs to be this occult, arcane thing?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Let the casinos take over the banks.
You know your money is bad when the bank won't take it.
I remarked once before that the entire bailout action was plain, red, communism. The same losers who squeal about socialism voted for it, which mystified me, because that would make them hypocrites.
Socialism, communism...there's a difference. I don't know what that difference is, but I'm sure it's there. The two words get used interchangeably. From what little I've read, socialism seems to be the most realistic of the two, and is basically what we've got now. If you don't think we're in at least a partially socialist state, I'll point you towards commercial zoning, consumer goods safety regulations, and welfare.
I don't see why we can't make enough rules to keep greedy pigs from running the country into the ground, but not so many that Uncle Sam is our boss.
Actually, I do know why. Politicians will say and do whatever it takes to get themselves elected. They will create arguments where there don't need to be any, and will distort facts and tell outright lies to keep themselves in office. They spew crap about taxpayers and socialism, and don't actually do anything.
Anyway, back to the nationalization of banks. Isn't it the idiot government printing the money to begin with? From what I gather, government losers print money and send it to banks for loaning (Putting people into debt to make a profit for themselves) and then bank losers lend that money to stupid people.
Is there something inherently wrong with cutting out one layer of stupidity, or at least sandwiching the two together so the distance between morons isn't so great?
"For Fidelity, taking the money would mean the government would have owned about 25 percent of the company's outstanding stock."
Whatever the hell that means. Outstanding stock? Maybe I'm just ignorant, but as a voter, shouldn't the mechanisms that run this country at least be in terms I only need about a semester in college to comprehend?
"'These are the guys who brought you Hurricane Katrina. These are the guys who were supposed to be watching Fannie and Freddie,' Ross said. 'I've not seen anything like this, where they really are talking about nationalizing banks.'"
I agree with him. He's from a bank that didn't have a lot to do with the credit crisis, so for him to call the government out on being criminally stupid is valid.
I guess my theory is this: For the government to control the banks, we'd be combining two groups of corrupt, incompetent, losers. Two negatives make a positive, right? Perhaps by letting these two negatives come together, they'll magically become positive. Two stupids make a smart.
More likely, they'll find new and interesting ways to ruin everything.
I remarked once before that the entire bailout action was plain, red, communism. The same losers who squeal about socialism voted for it, which mystified me, because that would make them hypocrites.
Socialism, communism...there's a difference. I don't know what that difference is, but I'm sure it's there. The two words get used interchangeably. From what little I've read, socialism seems to be the most realistic of the two, and is basically what we've got now. If you don't think we're in at least a partially socialist state, I'll point you towards commercial zoning, consumer goods safety regulations, and welfare.
I don't see why we can't make enough rules to keep greedy pigs from running the country into the ground, but not so many that Uncle Sam is our boss.
Actually, I do know why. Politicians will say and do whatever it takes to get themselves elected. They will create arguments where there don't need to be any, and will distort facts and tell outright lies to keep themselves in office. They spew crap about taxpayers and socialism, and don't actually do anything.
Anyway, back to the nationalization of banks. Isn't it the idiot government printing the money to begin with? From what I gather, government losers print money and send it to banks for loaning (Putting people into debt to make a profit for themselves) and then bank losers lend that money to stupid people.
Is there something inherently wrong with cutting out one layer of stupidity, or at least sandwiching the two together so the distance between morons isn't so great?
"For Fidelity, taking the money would mean the government would have owned about 25 percent of the company's outstanding stock."
Whatever the hell that means. Outstanding stock? Maybe I'm just ignorant, but as a voter, shouldn't the mechanisms that run this country at least be in terms I only need about a semester in college to comprehend?
"'These are the guys who brought you Hurricane Katrina. These are the guys who were supposed to be watching Fannie and Freddie,' Ross said. 'I've not seen anything like this, where they really are talking about nationalizing banks.'"
I agree with him. He's from a bank that didn't have a lot to do with the credit crisis, so for him to call the government out on being criminally stupid is valid.
I guess my theory is this: For the government to control the banks, we'd be combining two groups of corrupt, incompetent, losers. Two negatives make a positive, right? Perhaps by letting these two negatives come together, they'll magically become positive. Two stupids make a smart.
More likely, they'll find new and interesting ways to ruin everything.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
He does look a bit like your wife's ex-husband.
Saw this one coming.
I'm not sure if I admire this guy, or fear for him. I mean, there's some more-than-damning evidence against him, yet he still maintains his innocence. He's either completely insane or has huge balls.
Some highlights:
"After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat."
No partisan lines there.
"In a second, identical vote, lawmakers further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in the state again."
That's the best part. Not only are you fired, don't ever come back. As if he could get elected in Illinois, or any other state. Maybe he could, wasn't the mayor of D.C. a crack addict.
So, the business world is corrupt, politicians are corrupt...nothing new, I'm sure, but with the economy tanking, I have to wonder if corruption isn't part of the root cause.
What did annoy me when the Blagojevich thing broke was that no one in the media could pronounce his name. Granted, it's hard, but about five minutes tops of research and you'd have it. Once you hear it, it's easy, and I'm sure the people in Illinois could tell you easily enough.
To cap the stupidity, they turned to calling him Hot Rod or my personal favorite, Bloggo. Or Blog-O, like Jack-O, back when Micheal Jackson was in the news. I say, drop the nicknames and act like a professional. Losers.
I'm not sure if I admire this guy, or fear for him. I mean, there's some more-than-damning evidence against him, yet he still maintains his innocence. He's either completely insane or has huge balls.
Some highlights:
"After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat."
No partisan lines there.
"In a second, identical vote, lawmakers further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in the state again."
That's the best part. Not only are you fired, don't ever come back. As if he could get elected in Illinois, or any other state. Maybe he could, wasn't the mayor of D.C. a crack addict.
So, the business world is corrupt, politicians are corrupt...nothing new, I'm sure, but with the economy tanking, I have to wonder if corruption isn't part of the root cause.
What did annoy me when the Blagojevich thing broke was that no one in the media could pronounce his name. Granted, it's hard, but about five minutes tops of research and you'd have it. Once you hear it, it's easy, and I'm sure the people in Illinois could tell you easily enough.
To cap the stupidity, they turned to calling him Hot Rod or my personal favorite, Bloggo. Or Blog-O, like Jack-O, back when Micheal Jackson was in the news. I say, drop the nicknames and act like a professional. Losers.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Money, meet hole. Hole, meet money.
This is why we're in the shape we're in.
What's important to note here is that these people aren't the same class of loser that sends you e-mails rambling in broken English about Nigerian princes and offshore accounts (Or maybe they are) but "respected" Wall Street types.
It's like cockroaches. If you see one, there's more. I wonder how much of the current economic situation is due to corruption and not stupidity as we've been led to believe. I swear, you'd think we were living in China with the way these people act.
What I fail to see is how certain politicians can still blubber about there being too many regulations on the financial sector. It's not like they follow the rules anyway.
The really awful part is that I highly doubt anyone even understands how the economy really works. To hear the idiots talk about it, one would think they're discussing dam construction or something.
It seems to me that the economy is based on two things:
1. Owing other people money. The problem comes, of course, when you have to pay it back or can't collect a debt. The very concept of charging interest means that someone is going to the poor house or the Government is going to have to print more money (To ship overseas where all of our goods are made). It seems like a faulty system.
2. People need to believe the economy is goof for it to be good. It's based on wishes and kitten farts essentially. Nothing is more fickle and stupid that the opinion of a group, so why are our finances based on it? Seems a bit like trusting a baby to a herd of nervous cattle.
I've been reading up on the history of a nearby Vermont town, and from what I've read in regards to a situation regarding land grants, the greedy losers who run things have never known what they were doing and in an effort to make themselves come out on top, screwed everything up.
Now and again it seems I read something written by a person who seems to hold the believe that this is all fine and dandy. It's how the world works and people who don't like it or want to change it need to grow up, or some such nonsense. I say they either made a lot of money in some shady fashion, or they're economic Uncle Toms.
What's important to note here is that these people aren't the same class of loser that sends you e-mails rambling in broken English about Nigerian princes and offshore accounts (Or maybe they are) but "respected" Wall Street types.
It's like cockroaches. If you see one, there's more. I wonder how much of the current economic situation is due to corruption and not stupidity as we've been led to believe. I swear, you'd think we were living in China with the way these people act.
What I fail to see is how certain politicians can still blubber about there being too many regulations on the financial sector. It's not like they follow the rules anyway.
The really awful part is that I highly doubt anyone even understands how the economy really works. To hear the idiots talk about it, one would think they're discussing dam construction or something.
It seems to me that the economy is based on two things:
1. Owing other people money. The problem comes, of course, when you have to pay it back or can't collect a debt. The very concept of charging interest means that someone is going to the poor house or the Government is going to have to print more money (To ship overseas where all of our goods are made). It seems like a faulty system.
2. People need to believe the economy is goof for it to be good. It's based on wishes and kitten farts essentially. Nothing is more fickle and stupid that the opinion of a group, so why are our finances based on it? Seems a bit like trusting a baby to a herd of nervous cattle.
I've been reading up on the history of a nearby Vermont town, and from what I've read in regards to a situation regarding land grants, the greedy losers who run things have never known what they were doing and in an effort to make themselves come out on top, screwed everything up.
Now and again it seems I read something written by a person who seems to hold the believe that this is all fine and dandy. It's how the world works and people who don't like it or want to change it need to grow up, or some such nonsense. I say they either made a lot of money in some shady fashion, or they're economic Uncle Toms.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
