It's Under 9000!!!

[Glaiel-Gamer]

By that I mean the DOW.

[Der-Lowe]

I formally request pics of Ravariel eating his hat.

[drDAK]

God. Damn. It.

[AbstractVagabond]

OH MY GOD!!! Vegeta just M Night Shyamalan'd my ass!!!

[KeithHybrid]

McCain: WHAT?! 9000?!?!

Fuck, time to pack it in, boys...

[evilaxis]

its gonna be under 900 in a mo'

[marchohare]

According to this article, which has a UK address, the Dow closed today at 8,589.

I found it funny that I couldn't find that figure in the U.S. media, but maybe I just overlooked it. I didn't look that hard.

[dySWN]

At 10/9/08 06:32 PM, evilaxis wrote: its gonna be under 900 in a mo'

No. Lern2economics.

[marchohare]

According to this article the Dow closed at 8451 today. This is a bit like being at the bedside of a terminal patient, isn't it?

If you look at the history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it never broke the 1,000 mark until November, 1972, and did not break 2,000 until January, 1987. Ten months later, in October 1987, it experienced the worst percentage drop in history (up to that point): 22.61%.

Since shortly thereafter--probably right around the time most of y'all here on Newgrounds were born--we've been living in a bubble: 1991 - first close above 3,000; 1995 - first above 4,000, then 5,000 later that year; 1996 - first above 6,000; 1997 - first above 8,000; 1998 - first above 9,000; 1999 - first above 10,000, then 11,000 later that year.

Then came 9/11/01; the worst dollar loss in history occurred six days later.

After that, it was bubble time again: October 2006 - first close above 12,000; 2007 - first close above 13,000, then 14,000 later that year.

Can you see the mirrors through all that smoke, Newgrounders?

I won't be terribly surprised if we see Dow 2,000 again before this disaster is over, after a few false rallies of course. It might be even worse.

Everything above that figure has the distinct smell of fish about it.

[Ravariel]

At 10/10/08 06:14 PM, marchohare wrote: Everything above that figure has the distinct smell of fish about it.

Because, as we all know, economies don't actually grow.

[marchohare]

At 10/10/08 07:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: Because, as we all know, economies don't actually grow.

Take a look at that chart I linked to, Ravariel, and you tell me how it swelled over seven times its size in only twenty years. Were you even alive back in '87? I'd already been out of college for 5 years.

Need I remind you which one of us has nailed this pattern so far? How did that hat taste?

[JackPhantasm]

Woah you're old guy I need to read your posts more often.

THusly, I agree with the old dude.

[marchohare]

At 10/10/08 07:19 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: THusly, I agree with the old dude.

LOL. I'm happy to report that I don't feel very old at this point. Give me another twenty years and ask me how I feel then.

[marchohare]

Incidentally, in 20 years I'll STILL be younger than John McCain is now.

[CogSpin]

This is why you need to spend your money RIGHT now on hard assets that will help you survive the depression, like storable food, water filters, gold, guns, etc etc

[DocSprite]

At 10/9/08 05:26 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: By that I mean the DOW.

What 9000? That can't be right?

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/10/08 07:25 PM, marchohare wrote: Incidentally, in 20 years I'll STILL be younger than John McCain is now.

damn that is OLD!

GOP (Grandads & Oldies Party)

[Ravariel]

At 10/10/08 07:11 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 10/10/08 07:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: Because, as we all know, economies don't actually grow.

Take a look at that chart I linked to, Ravariel, and you tell me how it swelled over seven times its size in only twenty years. Were you even alive back in '87? I'd already been out of college for 5 years.

A) Your chart is meaningless without context. Follow the growth of technology over the same time frame, the increase in globalization and international trade/cooperation, and the internet... The DOW's rise is only spectacular if you look at it outside of the social context. Within it, it makes perfect sense.

B) I'm old for this forum... wtf are you doing here? And yes, I was alive in '87. Feel free to check my profile and do the math.

Need I remind you which one of us has nailed this pattern so far? How did that hat taste?

Well, shit, you should be an economist or day-trader since you're so tuned into the market. If you're so good at this why aren't you a millionaire yet? God forbid I get something wrong!

I still think we're getting close to the bottom here. After reading several interviews with (mostly U of Chicago) economists, they agree that the bottom is near... though it may be a year or more before we start to rise significantly again.

The problem is that you think it's a market thing, when it isn't. The market is overreacting to the credit situation (much as it overreacted to the bubble of the years before). Oil prices are plummeting, which will lower energy costs across the board, European markets are stabilizing, and though the difficulties in the Auto industry and on Wall Street will keep us suppressed for a while, the falling Dollar and previous items will help level us off fairly soon.

Your doom and gloom of some new Depression is overreaction and is based in nothing more than speculation. Hell, you were alive during the Savings and Loan crisis, which saw similar drops in the markets, as well as the Dot Com bubble, history has shown that shocks to the system only hurt for a short while, it then rebounds quite effectively. The only reason this one has been so impressive is the triple-punch of rising energy prices, the sub-prime/housing fiasco, and the credit crunch all at once. There is no reason to suspect that we'll go back to the days of the fledgeling market, or have another depression. The reason that the Depression happened was because the government did nothing and let the market grind itself to a halt. Once the New Deal got into place (and we got a kick in the pants from WW2, but I digress), things got better in a hurry.

Even today, when we fell another 130 points, we started up nearly 700 after news of new gummn't action. We even rallied late after being down ~400ish... and markets rarely rally late on Friday, because of the uncertainty of what might happen during the weekend.

[Ravariel]

<doublepost>

At 10/9/08 06:00 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I formally request pics of Ravariel eating his hat.

Working on it... this thing is tough... stoopid chinese craftsmanship!

</doublepost>

[marchohare]

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Your chart is meaningless without context. Follow the growth of technology over the same time frame, the increase in globalization and international trade/cooperation, and the internet... The DOW's rise is only spectacular if you look at it outside of the social context. Within it, it makes perfect sense.

Don't you think I know the context? It only makes sense if you assert that new technology and globalization (the latter of which has seriously damaged consumer buying power, which is part of this disaster too--I'll come back to that) are responsible for over 85% of the market's value, which is absurd.

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: I'm old for this forum... wtf are you doing here?

Showcasing my Flash and getting a feel for the audience. I've done 3 so far: my first sucked (except for the quality of the animation), but it was only a test. I'm proud of my second, but people 'round here didn't get it. I'm really proud of my third, and it scored pretty well (even though I didn't design it specifically for Newgrounds), so I figure I'm on the right track.

I think all I need to work on now (for the Newgrounds audience anyway) is keeping the pace faster than the first half of my last entry--gamers expect a blinding pace. I'm already hitting closer to the bullseye with the comedy and violence. My sense of humor might be a little dry for the average Newgrounder, but I refuse to dumb it down, even if it hurts my score.

Newgrounds doesn't have an upper age limit as far as I'm aware. You have no Flash submissions on your userpage, so what's your excuse for being here?

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: ...you should be an economist or day-trader since you're so tuned into the market. If you're so good at this why aren't you a millionaire yet?

You must be joking. Thank heavens I cashed in my paper almost four years ago (and have been mostly living on it ever since). Actually, I'm still in the black; I own the roof over my head (which has not dropped in value: it's a ninety-year-old house in a historic neighborhood that has become popular among people fleeing their styrofoam McMansions) and have very little debt. I'm no millionaire, but compared to most Americans I'm in great shape--unusual for an artist.

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: I still think we're getting close to the bottom here.

And I don't, although there will almost certainly be sucker rallies. Actually, I haven't been pessimistic enough. I expected a sucker rally last Monday. It didn't come.

Those with an interest in keeping the bottom from dropping out are, and will continue to be, pumping money into the market. They'll do it for as long as they can, then... whoops!

It'll be safe to invest in the market when "conventional wisdom" says that only a fool would own stock. Don't fall for a sucker rally, folks.

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: The problem is that you think it's a market thing, when it isn't...

What? Please show me where I ever said that.

I don't think it's just a "market thing." I think it's far more serious than that: a systemic breakdown. In fact, everything else you wrote indicates that you're focusing in on over-simplified causes for the current crisis. That is known as "the pot calling the kettle black."

F'rinstance--I said I'd come back to this--you completely failed to mention outsourcing and illegal immigrant labor, which is right down at the root of the problem--surprising, for a guy from Michigan. You've seen what I'm talking about firsthand. How could you miss it?

I have to laugh at those idiotic Archie Bunkers from your home state who were waving the flag and saying "What's good for GM is good for the country!" twenty years ago. Yeah, the fucking vampires at GM really stood behind y'all, didn't they? They outsourced to places where labor is cheap so fast it made y'all's heads spin, lobbying the sold-out whores in government to provide incentives for doing so. We were dead the moment that happened, and have been running on false confidence and pure momentum ever since, but the flywheels are slowing to a stop now.

The public has a short memory, and so, apparently, do you. This downward spiral started with a vanishing standard of living and a crisis in consumer confidence. I don't know how the meme "debt is good" ever got set loose to run amok in U.S. culture, but it did, and it was doomed from the very beginning.

This crisis is not isolated to the stock market. As I said, it's systemic. There are maggoty corpses all over the place that haven't even risen from their graves yet... but they will. The dominoes are falling.

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Your doom and gloom of some new Depression is overreaction and is based in nothing more than speculation.

Educated speculation. What is your sunny, Chamber of Commerce outlook based upon (as you chew off your leg to escape the steel trap that is Michigan)? Psychic powers? Are you an Oracle? Two can play the "tinfoil hat" game, although your hat appears to be made of cement, which is difficult to chew. Apparently it covers your eyes as well.

At 10/11/08 03:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Hell, you were alive during the Savings and Loan crisis, which saw similar drops in the markets, as well as the Dot Com bubble, history has shown that shocks to the system only hurt for a short while, it then rebounds quite effectively... blah, blah, blah...

Recent history, but long-term trends paint a different picture. Those moneyquakes you mentioned (you left out Enron, etc.) were in fact related, and were only foreshocks of the Big One to come. They were seen as isolated events--which appears to be how you still see them--but they weren't.

The system has been kept afloat these last twenty years by borrowing and dumb optimism, but lies and denial can only work for so long. The U.S. economy, which up until recently drove 30% of the global economy, had a lot of momentum, but it doesn't take a mechanical engineer to tell you what happens to a machine that's using more energy than it generates: it stops.

You apparently believe in perpetual motion, Ravariel. I think it's funny, since those on this BBS who've been accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat obviously do.

Talk about magical thinking!

[Ravariel]

At 10/11/08 02:03 PM, marchohare wrote: Don't you think I know the context? It only makes sense if you assert that new technology and globalization (the latter of which has seriously damaged consumer buying power, which is part of this disaster too--I'll come back to that) are responsible for over 85% of the market's value, which is absurd.

Only if you believe that market growth is naturally linear. It isn't. Add in the boom of technology and globalization, and the trend is, for the most part, realistic. It got too big for it's britches because of the retarded "debt is good" trend that you mentioned (which I completely agree with), but most of the growth is a logical extension of societal factors and natural market growth.

Newgrounds doesn't have an upper age limit as far as I'm aware. You have no Flash submissions on your userpage, so what's your excuse for being here?

Others' flash and game submissions, eventually my own musical submissions, and the community. Out of all of the "layman" poli forums I've been to, this one has the largest amount of intelligent users I've yet seen. Plenty of idiots, but most of the regs are solid. Anyway, I was surprised when I learned that TheMason was older than me... to learn someone has nearly 20 years on me is more surprising, simply because it's so far outside the bell curve... regardless, good luck with the animation.

Those with an interest in keeping the bottom from dropping out are, and will continue to be, pumping money into the market. They'll do it for as long as they can, then... whoops!

Actually, most economists don't think that'll work either. Most believe that a simple government guarantee of loans would nearly immediately unfreeze the credit market.

It'll be safe to invest in the market when "conventional wisdom" says that only a fool would own stock. Don't fall for a sucker rally, folks.

Except conventional wisdom is already almost there. Regular people are starting to look to unload all of their stocks to avoid losing more.

F'rinstance--I said I'd come back to this--you completely failed to mention outsourcing and illegal immigrant labor, which is right down at the root of the problem--surprising, for a guy from Michigan. You've seen what I'm talking about firsthand. How could you miss it?

Of course I've seen it, but it's not actually at the root of the problem. Outsourcing IMPROVES profitability of companies (to an extent, we can go into costs of quality problems if you want), allowing them to expand and actually create more jobs. Our economy is moving away from an industrial/agricultural to a technological/service one. This is a natural evolution, and one welcome for global markets as it improves not only our economy by improving bottom lines for companies here, but the economies of the countries we outsource the work to.

Does it suck for the people who made livings in the industrial sector? God yes. It really sucks for Michigan, and it is one of the main reasons we have the worst unemployment rate in the country and one of the worst forclosure/subprime problems. However, that is a problem that will fix itself as soon as we as a state decide to stop sucking off the teat of the Big 3 (soon to be big 2, it would seem)... it'll be a slow and painful process, but a necessary one.

Immigration, especially in Michigan, is less of a concern. It only hurts those at the bottom of the employment chain. It sucks for them, no doubt, but the bottom 1-2% of the work force do not drive the economy. In fact, the immigrants help the economy, not hurt it, by lowering overheads and, resultantly, costs of products. As a matter of fact, I don't really see how this is some basic root cause of our economic woes right now. Maybe you should elaborate a bit on that.

Educated speculation. What is your sunny, Chamber of Commerce outlook based upon (as you chew off your leg to escape the steel trap that is Michigan)? Psychic powers? Are you an Oracle?

Um... history, plus a basic knowledge of economics, plus research of people who are much more knowledgeable about the system than me.

Recent history, but long-term trends paint a different picture. Those moneyquakes you mentioned (you left out Enron, etc.) were in fact related, and were only foreshocks of the Big One to come. They were seen as isolated events--which appears to be how you still see them--but they weren't.

Where's your PROOF. Where's the connection? Corporate corruption? Deregulation? What, specifically connects them that actually logically points to a catastrophic fall? You have yet to be specific except to spout the bullshit of "if you don't see it, you're asleep". Bring the analysis, specific, researched, and educated. Prove your point rather than simply maintaining it sans anything but general association and bad metaphor.

[W31RD0]

At 10/11/08 06:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: Where's your PROOF. Where's the connection? Corporate corruption? Deregulation? What, specifically connects them that actually logically points to a catastrophic fall? You have yet to be specific except to spout the bullshit of "if you don't see it, you're asleep". Bring the analysis, specific, researched, and educated. Prove your point rather than simply maintaining it sans anything but general association and bad metaphor.

Perhaps I can be of assistance. If you look at the big players in this bailout, you will find the connection that all of them have been ridden with gross accounting ethics lapses. And when these companies are so omnipresent that they nearly hold the global economy in their hands, this becomes very risky. Until stronger accounting regulations are established you will simply get the same problems.

Here is some links for you:
AIG
Fanny Mae
Freddie Mac

[marchohare]

At 10/11/08 06:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: Only if you believe that market growth is naturally linear. It isn't.

I never said I believe it is, and I don't. But that curve is unrealistic and unsustainable.

I was surprised when I learned that TheMason was older than me... to learn someone has nearly 20 years on me is more surprising, simply because it's so far outside the bell curve... regardless, good luck with the animation.

Thanks! I didn't know the Mason was one of us older guys either, but I can easily believe it from the quality of his writing. I enjoy reading his stuff.

Actually, most economists don't think (pumping money into the market will) work either...

And I would agree with them. Unfortunately it's being done anyway.

...conventional wisdom is already almost there. Regular people are starting to look to unload all of their stocks to avoid losing more.

It's getting there, but it's not quite there yet.

Of course I've seen it, but it's not actually at the root of the problem. Outsourcing IMPROVES profitability of companies (to an extent, we can go into costs of quality problems if you want), allowing them to expand and actually create more jobs....

Here's where we disagree. The jobs being created are no match for those that have been exported in terms of numbers (that's why they call it downsizing), or pay.

Our economy is moving away from an industrial/agricultural to a technological/service one. This is a natural evolution...

There's nothing natural about it. It's a bad idea. A "service based economy" is not an economy: it's a circle-jerk of servants serving one another. It is not sustainable. I don't give a flying fuck what the so-called "experts" say about that. If they think putting all your eggs in one basket is wise, they're either stupid, or lying.

There is an enormous incentive to lie. I don't believe I need to fill in the blanks. You said it yourself: it's good for the companies. It is not good for American labor.

If American companies want to outsource, fine, but they should be heavily taxed for that, not rewarded. Their alternative would be fair: leave. Become an Indian or Chinese or Mexican corporation instead.

The fact is, the U.S. standard of living was the result of such protectionism, and when you pull out that plug the water seeks its own level. What you've been convinced is a boon, Ravariel, is part of the disease.

If you believe Globalism is good for America you've either bought into a pack of lies and are ignoring the law of entropy, or you don't mind leveling the playing field when the new level is way the fuck down there in a hole.

...that is a problem that will fix itself as soon as we as a state decide to stop sucking off the teat of the Big 3 (soon to be big 2, it would seem)...

And do what? Let's face it: your average assembly line worker wasn't exactly Albert Einstein. What are you going to do with him? He earned an unbelievable wage for putting the doohickey on the thingamabob for twenty years (too high in fact, which was part of the problem). What's he gonna do now? Work at Wal-Mart for $6.50 an hour? Yeah, that's gonna take care of his wife and kids.

Immigration, especially in Michigan, is less of a concern. It only hurts those at the bottom of the employment chain....

You're wrong about that. Many illegal immigrants are highly skilled artisans, and there's no question about it: they do good work. Remember Dynamation International? They made those life-sized robotic dinosaurs that used to tour the country. Their sculptors were illegal Mexicans they trucked into California--paid 'em less than minimum wage, let 'em sleep in the shop. Those were $18 an hour jobs, minimum; the sky is the limit if you're really, really good.

Those Mexicans did not know that. Sad part is, we (some of us anyway) condemn them for wanting a better life. They're being exploited, and U.S. labor is being shunted aside. It was the owners of the company who were committing the real crime. No danger they'd be punished, though. They were fat cats.

There are a million stories like that in this naked country.

...research of people who are much more knowledgeable about the system than me.

Sounds like some of them have given you a bum steer. Not surprising. A lot of them do that. As I said, there are incentives.

Where's your PROOF. Where's the connection? Corporate corruption? Deregulation? What, specifically connects them that actually logically points to a catastrophic fall? You have yet to be specific except to spout the bullshit of "if you don't see it, you're asleep"....

Sorry about that. I don't suppose being that confrontational serves any purpose, but to me the connections are self-evident. Where's my proof? It's right under your nose.

W31RD0 already answered your question as well as I could where he said, "If you look at the big players in this bailout, you will find the connection that all of them have been ridden with gross accounting ethics lapses. And when these companies are so omnipresent that they nearly hold the global economy in their hands, this becomes very risky. Until stronger accounting regulations are established you will simply get the same problems."

In other words, "Corporate corruption? Deregulation?" Both, with government collusion and corruption in high places being the reason for the deregulation.

I'm all for smaller government myself, but for the last thirty years or more, it's been getting smaller in all the wrong, highly strategic places.

As far as individual freedom goes, however, government has gotten much, much bigger. That is not a good trend.

[Ravariel]

At 10/11/08 09:12 PM, marchohare wrote: Thanks! I didn't know the Mason was one of us older guys either, but I can easily believe it from the quality of his writing. I enjoy reading his stuff.

Me too. We don't always agree, but he's one of the users I respect most on this board.

The jobs being created are no match for those that have been exported in terms of numbers... or pay.

Actually the only negative comparison is in numbers. The pay for the new jobs, as they are usually more highly skilled, technical jobs (IT and the like) is usually higher than the ones lost. The problem is that the new jobs are usually out of the skill range of those who lost the old, outsourced jobs. We lose 40-80K/yr jobs to get 50-100k/yr jobs.

There's nothing natural about it. It's a bad idea. A "service based economy" is not an economy: it's a circle-jerk of servants serving one another. It is not sustainable.

Eh? How is a service-based economy unsustainable? Other people make things, we buy them. Economies grow when money flows between hands... it doesn't matter who makes the MacGuffin, only that people want it. Sure, that's another way to make money flow, by producing the MacGuffin, but we're in a world where not every country can be completely self-sustaining, and the work needs to be distributed if we actually want to foster trade, and allow a global economy to thrive.

Also, just because we're serviced-based doesn't mean in any way that we're service-only. Quit trying to pigeon-hole things as so black-and-white. You're trying to force contradictions where none exist. We're still a huge agricultural and industrial power in the world. We're just getting better, via our own wealth and technology, at the more technical parts of an economy. IT, internet, security, international trade and business, shipping... these are all integral parts to a global economy that we do better then anyone else.

If American companies want to outsource, fine, but they should be heavily taxed for that, not rewarded. Their alternative would be fair: leave. Become an Indian or Chinese or Mexican corporation instead.

When Crysler can build a headlight in CHina for 80% of the cost in America, why should it be punished for it? Especially since the Traction-control system and computers and GPS/OnStar and a million other parts can only be produced with satisfactory quality here in the states. Overly taxing people for having a factory somehwere else is retarded... nearly as retarded as giving them a tax break for it. It's protectionism at its worst, and never a good thing for an economy.

The fact is, the U.S. standard of living was the result of such protectionism, and when you pull out that plug the water seeks its own level. What you've been convinced is a boon, Ravariel, is part of the disease.

If you believe Globalism is good for America you've either bought into a pack of lies and are ignoring the law of entropy, or you don't mind leveling the playing field when the new level is way the fuck down there in a hole.

What's wrong with level? You seem to think that a truly global economy would necessarily tend towards the lowest common denominator, when that's not the case. When you "level" the field, the one's in the hole are brought up to ground-level and the one's on an artifcial pedastal are also brought to ground-level... not dropped into the hole.

And do what? Let's face it: your average assembly line worker wasn't exactly Albert Einstein. What are you going to do with him? He earned an unbelievable wage for putting the doohickey on the thingamabob for twenty years (too high in fact, which was part of the problem). What's he gonna do now? Work at Wal-Mart for $6.50 an hour? Yeah, that's gonna take care of his wife and kids.

Now he can work in an Ethanol Plant, in a factory that makes solar panels, in a factory that makes wind turbines, for the power company to create a new infrastructure for individuals to be able to feed power back into the grid from their own power-sources... and a billion other possible jobs. Just because they made cars for 20 years doesn't mean we need to artificially fix the economy so that they can keep that job, at that wage.

I never said it would be easy... in fact I said the opposite... but a fundamental shift in the economic focus of Michigan is the only way we're going to get back in the game.

You're wrong about that. Many illegal immigrants are highly skilled artisans, and there's no question about it: they do good work.

I never said they weren't. But by and large, they do the work that noone else wants to do. And you can give me stories all you want, but the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data". The problem with them is exactly what you said: companies exploit them by using their ignorance against them... paying them less than they're worth. If all the Gummn't would do is enforce the minimum wage on everybody, and stop caring whether or not they had a green card, nearly ALL immigration problems would solve themselves instantly.

If all they did was give people an automatic 12-month work visa, regardless of entry method, then allow them to enter the process of actual legalization, without instant threat of deportation, neither would the border floodgates open, nor would we continue having the problems of crime, health care, and exploitation. Punish the companies for infractions of these rules rather than the workers...

Either way, this is still not a root cause of our current problems. Illegals don't get loans for houses, nor do they play the markets, nor do they sit on the boards of large banking conglomerates. It's an important problem, and I'm not going to pretend that the effects of the problem aren't felt throughout the system, but it's nowhere near a root cause.

Sounds like some of them have given you a bum steer. Not surprising. A lot of them do that. As I said, there are incentives.

What incentive to tenured Economics professors at the University of Chicago have to lie?

W31RD0 already answered your question as well as I could

He nails the problems, yes, but not the logical conclusion of a catastrophic market crash. Government is coming around to the fact that they need to regulate the market and make it more transparent. They're doing it slowly and not without opposition, but it is happening. Remember, it was their non-involvement that allowed the Depression to get as bad as it did, and their current involvement is indicative that they're at least not making that same mistake again.

"Corporate corruption? Deregulation?" Both, with government collusion and corruption in high places being the reason for the deregulation.

The thing is this: there is NO incentive right now not to do what is necessary to stabilize the market. Because if it bombs, the ones that live off of that market, the ones at the top of the food chain, stand to lose the most. Those of us working in factories and fast-food restaurants really don't need to worry. Our jobs, paychecks, and way of life are relatively safe... hell even our cost of living is going down, so bravo shitty market! Gas finally back below $3.00 a gallon!? Where do I sign up?

The only reason the government "conspired" or colluded with the companies was because they, either intentional or otherwise, were ignorant of the problems, and the system seemed like it was working. They tried the get-rich-by-lying and it bit them in the ass. Granted it always happens, a-la Enron, S&L, and our current situation... but now that the cat's out of the bag for these huge companies, the fix is obvious and the incentive is, too. Regulation will return, because it has to, because it's the only way these fat cats can hold on to at least some of their money.

As far as individual freedom goes, however, government has gotten much, much bigger. That is not a good trend.

True, but that's a discussion for a hundred other threads.

[marchohare]

At 10/12/08 10:13 AM, PivotAL6 wrote: Lol. I think their good now.

What happened to that post? Did a moderator blast it? If so, no big loss.

Ravariel and me were never "bad." We just disagree about some things and we're passionate about expressing it, that's all.

At 10/12/08 03:16 AM, Ravariel wrote: Actually the only negative comparison is in numbers. The pay for the new jobs, as they are usually more highly skilled, technical jobs (IT and the like) is usually higher than the ones lost.

We appear to be seeing two completely different realities: in the one I see, IT has largely been packed up and moved to India.

You'll have to show me some sources supporting your assertion, but rest assured I'll be following the money trail that leads to those sources.

Eh? How is a service-based economy unsustainable? Other people make things, we buy them. Economies grow when money flows between hands... it doesn't matter who makes the MacGuffin....

You just answered your own question: "Other people make things, we buy them." With what? I'm looking at that anecdotal evidence you mentioned: evidence of my own eyes, in other words--it's only "anecdotal" to you.

I'm a direct witness. So are you. How are things up there in Michigan? They suck down here in the Deep South. They were sucking pretty hard back in Oklahoma too, which had already switched to IT, aerospace and high-tech after the domestic oil boom went bust in the 'seventies. When I departed in '04, IT and tech were following the oil boom down the toilet, primarily due to mergers and outsourcing, although there were other reasons. Here's another major one: American Airlines is the state's eighth largest employer, 'nuff said.

As long as I'm on the subject, here, top to bottom, are Oklahoma's Top Ten Employers: The State of Oklahoma itself; Wal-Mart; Tinker Air Force Base; US Army Field Artillery Center; US Postal Service; University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; American Airlines; Tulsa Public Schools; Chickasaw Enterprises.

Let's break that down: 3 federal institutions; 3 state institutions; 1 municipal institution (a very inefficient, badly run school system--I know, I attended it--bringing us to 7 out of 10 government employers so far); 2 corporations (one arguably the most notorious bad employer in the U.S. and one that's been in deep doodoo since 9/11/01); and 1 Native American Tribe (technically an 8th government employer I suppose, but... good for them!)

Also, just because we're serviced-based doesn't mean in any way that we're service-only. Quit trying to pigeon-hole things as so black-and-white.

I am not a black-and-white thinker, which should be obvious. That doesn't prevent me from seeing very dark gray, however. It's a matter of proportion: 7 out of ten top employers, governments--8 if you count a tribe--and two megacorps, both whose names live in infamy for one reason or another.

No matter where you live, look up your own state. I'm unwilling to go through the other 49. I'll bet for most states, your result will be similar.

Overly taxing people for having a factory somehwere else is retarded...

That was mature (although I've been guilty of immaturity myself--"When in Rome...") No, it isn't, and here's why it isn't: we're not talking about people, we're talking about corporate entities, which are groups--nevertheless defined as persons by federal law. Individuals have rights; groups don't. If you believe they do, try getting involved with one that doesn't have The Authoritarian Seal Of Approval. They'll hang your ass out to dry. Just ask Tommy Chong or Bill Ayers.

Incidentally, here's how many innocent people those "terrorist" Weathermen killed: 0. Their only fatalities were three of their own members, who blew themselves up making bombs, which made them re-think their strategy. They were careful about not killing people (sloppy manufacturing aside); they just blew up stuff. Stupid strategy anyway. Yeah, you'll really win the hearts and minds of the public by blowing up its infrastructure... not.

Anyway, rights apply to individuals; groups are more dangerous, and the most dangerous of all are those in which the greatest economic and political power is concentrated. Corporations chartered in the U.S. reap all the benefits of a U.S. charter, with few of the obligations. They are employing, directly or indirectly, essentially slave labor wherever they can find it. If you can't see the ethical wrongness of that, I can't help you.

They should be taxed out the ass. That, or they can move their base of operations. Good luck with that!

...It's protectionism at its worst, and never a good thing for an economy.

Wrong. You don't have to like this, but the U.S. owes its (former?) standard of living to protectionism. I'm all for protecting the borders and citizens of the United States, economically as well as physically, until such time as there isn't a threat to the American way of life (fat chance). Are you not?

Slave labor is a threat. In Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut described a society that had split into a handful of Ivy League managers, with the vast majority of citizens listlessly employed in government makee-workee. We're just about there, except expensive automated machinery wasn't the real threat; cheap, easily reproducible biological machinery was.

What's wrong with level? You seem to think that a truly global economy would necessarily tend towards the lowest common denominator...

I do, because it will. The law of entropy applies whether you like it or not. If you open a hot oven in your kitchen, the kitchen becomes somewhat warmer; the oven rapidly cools. The process continues until equilibrium is reached, with the kitchen a few degrees warmer and the oven hundreds of degrees cooler.

I know you hate it when I speak in "bad metaphors," but that one is apt.

I never said it would be easy... in fact I said the opposite... but a fundamental shift in the economic focus of Michigan is the only way we're going to get back in the game.

I agree with that, but I direct your attention back to my Oklahoma statistics, and invite citizens of other states to look up their own. You don't want that. It's Player Piano all over again.

Do we believe its enough to create jobs, even when they're government jobs? When they're self-perpetuating, created to address problems caused by government itself? When many government jobs, perhaps most, consist of making the lives of innocent strangers miserable? When bureaucracy exists primarily to ensure its own existence? Give me a break. There's your "service-based economy" in a nutshell.

(Illegal immigrants) do the work that noone else wants to do. And you can give me stories all you want, but the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data"...

Clever, but there's a reason they call it "undocumented labor." Anecdotal evidence is the best anyone can do. I pay attention to what goes on around me. The evidence is not anecdotal to me, although what I present to you is, by necessity.

I invite you to look around. In my experience (art; entertainment; government) most of the undocumented labor I've encountered has been in highly-skilled jobs: heavy construction; fine craftsmanship; expert landscaping; etc.

* * *

Forgive me, but I wrote this in a plain text editor and I see I've exceeded the character limit. I'll have to conclude in a separate post.

[marchohare]

PART II

If all the Gummn't would do is enforce the minimum wage on everybody, and stop caring whether or not they had a green card, nearly ALL immigration problems would solve themselves instantly... Punish the companies for infractions of these rules rather than the workers...

BINGO! On this, Ravariel, we absolutely agree. But you'll notice it's the one thing our public officials haven't been diligent about doing. It's a subject they'd rather avoid. Instead, they build worthless fences along our Southern border, hiring fatcat government contractors who employ cheap Mexican labor, natch.

Now, why do you think that is?

...Illegals don't get loans for houses, nor do they play the markets, nor do they sit on the boards of large banking conglomerates. It's an important problem, and I'm not going to pretend that the effects of the problem aren't felt throughout the system, but it's nowhere near a root cause.

Yes, it is, but it doesn't make up the whole root by itself, or even most of it. Skirting the spirit of U.S. labor law does, whether you're paying an illegal immigrant below-minimum-wage or benefitting from a Chinese factory worker with a gun to his head. Looking at human beings as expendable resources, replaceable as the bumper on a Toyota, has to stop.

If it doesn't... if the Powers-That-Be exploit it instead... well, consider the law of entropy again: the U.S. as an open stove, rapidly cooling...

What incentive to tenured Economics professors at the University of Chicago have to lie?

Plenty: research grants from those who benefit from their opinion; paid speaking engagements; book deals; perks; access to the Mainstream Media; access to the law; etc. On the disincentive side we have justifiable fear of going against the flow, of censure and ridicule, loss of tenure, etc.

Some of them aren't even lying. They actually believe what they're selling. You see it in the hard sciences too: going against an established paradigm is dangerous. Institutions deplore a boat-rocker.

I revere science by the way--even, to some degree, such an alleged science as Economics--but I loathe the politicization of science. The tools are good, it's those who wield them I distrust. I have good reasons.

...it was their non-involvement that allowed the Depression to get as bad as it did, and their current involvement is indicative that they're at least not making that same mistake again.

I've read differing opinions on the non-involvement hypothesis. Anyway, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing, and their track record this time around has been lousy so far.

Because if it bombs, the ones that live off of that market, the ones at the top of the food chain, stand to lose the most...

Not true. A millionaire is not at the top of the food chain. Those are billionaires. The global corporate elite doesn't give a fat rat's ass what happens to the nouveau riche, and no matter what happens the global corporate elite will come out of this with "the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed" intact, although they might throw a few of their own to the wolves along the way. Even their victims won't be hurting much. They'll probably become guest commentators on Faux Noise or somethin'.

The only reason the government "conspired" or colluded with the companies was because they, either intentional or otherwise, were ignorant of the problems...

So you subscribe to the Heinlein theory (I think it was Heinlein), "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by human stupidity"?

I don't, not quite. I don't think they gave a fuck. They see who signs their campaign donation checks and they act accordingly. If the government worked for the people, that 850 billion dollar bailout never would have happened.

Doing something is the worst action one can take if it's the wrong thing. Didn't we learn that from Iraq? Congress has no excuse. Its members should already know the danger of acting like a rubber stamp for an unconstitutional (because it originated in the Senate) law.

...it's the only way these fat cats can hold on to at least some of their money.

Whatever happens, those fatcats are sitting pretty. Billy-Bob Doofus, who believed the sky is no limit, trusted his 401(k), and formerly considered himself to be a financial wizard is shit out of luck.

[Ravariel]

At 10/12/08 02:45 PM, marchohare wrote: We appear to be seeing two completely different realities: in the one I see, IT has largely been packed up and moved to India.

You're confusing customer service and call centers with actual Information Technology... the people who actually design and build the networks that companies use to run their business, including, but not limited to, intranets, security, web design, programming, etc.

You'll have to show me some sources supporting your assertion, but rest assured I'll be following the money trail that leads to those sources.

http://www.automationworld.com/webonly-3 20
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba480/
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con tent/03_34/b3846027.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tradean dForeignAid/wm467.cfm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_
id=2546

You're right... I am unable to defend my assertion... it is obvious through these studies and the links behind them that Outsourcing is good for the economy. Period. Not good for companies, bad for people; good all around. There has been a net gain of American jobs by the very companies that outsource. And actual outsourced jobs account for less than .75% of the jobs lost every year. There is not some glut of good jobs being sent overseas... and keeping those jobs here will have a negligible effect, if not a negative one, on our own economy.

You just answered your own question: "Other people make things, we buy them." With what? I'm looking at that anecdotal evidence you mentioned: evidence of my own eyes, in other words--it's only "anecdotal" to you.

With trade of our own goods, with capital built up through that trade and our own production... is it really that hard to understand? You insist on seeing doom and gloom where none exists. I think you're being a victim of selective observation here... the downfall of every tinfoil-hatter. ;-)

Let's break that down: 3 federal institutions; 3 state institutions; 1 municipal institution (a very inefficient, badly run school system--I know, I attended it--bringing us to 7 out of 10 government employers so far); 2 corporations (one arguably the most notorious bad employer in the U.S. and one that's been in deep doodoo since 9/11/01); and 1 Native American Tribe

Well, the only thing I can find similar to Michigan has a list of more than 50 of the state's largest employers... now I don't know if they intentionally left out government stuff, but there isn't a single government job on the list.

Source: http://www.jobbankusa.com/jobs/michigan_
mi/job_employment_largest_employers.html

If you know a better site (because I looked pretty hard), do tell.

No matter where you live, look up your own state. I'm unwilling to go through the other 49. I'll bet for most states, your result will be similar.

Done, and unless I'm missing something, there's no such occurrence in Michigan... and we have arguably the worst economy in the country right now.

That was mature (although I've been guilty of immaturity myself--"When in Rome...") No, it isn't, and here's why it isn't: we're not talking about people, we're talking about corporate entities, which are groups--nevertheless defined as persons by federal law.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Individuals have rights; groups don't. If you believe they do, try getting involved with one that doesn't have The Authoritarian Seal Of Approval. They'll hang your ass out to dry. Just ask Tommy Chong or Bill Ayers.

Lol. Having rights doesn't mean having the right to break laws, whether you're an individual or a group. Groups do have rights, so either you're simply lying, or your letting your conspiracy-theorist out again. Bring it back to facts, not speculation and assumption.

They are employing, directly or indirectly, essentially slave labor wherever they can find it. If you can't see the ethical wrongness of that, I can't help you.

Again, you ignore context. We see "Suchandsuch a company only pays it's Chinese workers $5 a day to do work that here would cost $10.00 and hour, SLAVE WAGES!! BURN THE WITCH!!"... when in reality, in China, $5.00 a day is a good, living wage. Cost of living is lower there... paying them our wages would catapult them into the upper class in an instant, which isn't good for anyone; us, them or the Chinese economy.

They should be taxed out the ass. That, or they can move their base of operations. Good luck with that!

Again, why? Your slave wage and "groups don't/shouldn't have rights" arguments are either fallacious or irrelevant.

Wrong. You don't have to like this, but the U.S. owes its (former?) standard of living to protectionism. I'm all for protecting the borders and citizens of the United States, economically as well as physically, until such time as there isn't a threat to the American way of life (fat chance). Are you not?

That depends on what your definition of "American way of life" is. Nothing about outsourcing challenges my ability to follow the American way of life as I see it. It doesn't threaten my career or ability to ascend into the middle or upper class. It actually helps me afford the things I need so that I can save for the things I want. In fact, removing taxes on those outsourced jobs/imported goods would make it EASIER for all Americans to gain a higher standard of living. It doesn't even take lateral thinking to see that this would be a direct correlation.

Slave labor is a threat. In Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut described a society that had split into a handful of Ivy League managers, with the vast majority of citizens listlessly employed in government makee-workee.

Lol... seriously... anyone who bases a viewpoint on a work of fiction, no matter how awesome and/or thought-provoking it is, needs to start actually looking at reality. Next, you'll be using 1984 as a basis for views on what's happening.

If you open a hot oven in your kitchen, the kitchen becomes somewhat warmer; the oven rapidly cools. The process continues until equilibrium is reached, with the kitchen a few degrees warmer and the oven hundreds of degrees cooler.

Yes, because the oven was artificially inflating it's own temperature through unsustainable means. To carry your own metaphor further, instead of simply letting the oven do all the heating, if we instead outsourced some heating elements to the Toaster, the Radiator and the Space heater, sure the entire room will never be as awesomehot as the oven when it did it's own thing and said fuck you to the rest of the room, but the entire place will be comfortably warm, the work will be spread around, and that warmth will be sustainable because you're not relying on one single source.

I agree with that, but I direct your attention back to my Oklahoma statistics, and invite citizens of other states to look up their own. You don't want that. It's Player Piano all over again.

Sorry, looked it up, and either you're mistaken about your own state or it's a unique instance. Private industry is still the main employer here.

I invite you to look around... most of the undocumented labor I've encountered has been in highly-skilled jobs: heavy construction; fine craftsmanship; expert landscaping;

If by "heavy construction" you mean commercial work, then you're actually wrong. Most commercial work, at least here, is Union, and very well regulated. It's the small-business residential construction that uses the undocumented labor. Landscaping, no matter how awesome, is not high-skill work, sorry.

Also: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/6.1 .pdf

[Ravariel]

At 10/12/08 02:46 PM, marchohare wrote: Instead, they build worthless fences along our Southern border, hiring fatcat government contractors who employ cheap Mexican labor, natch.

Now, why do you think that is?

Because half of the population is, by definition, below-average intelligence, and they think that a wall will actually work, and fight for it to be built. That it's being built by many undocumented workers is an irony I find most amusing, believe me.

Politicians are held accountable to their constituents, and for the most part do what they ask, even when it's a bad idea... either through their own ignorance, their own laziness (doing what they ask is easier than educating them on a good idea) or their desire to remain employed. People are naturally xenophobic, like it or not... and the companies there don't want to hurt their bottom line, so obviously they fight against any measure that might hurt them or it. Politicians are held captive by this. Sure, some of them might actually do it on purpose, for their own gain, but I doubt that's as widespread as you seem to think.

Granted, that's nothing I can prove or even give evidence for, but rather I suppose a difference in fundamental ideas about the human condition.

Looking at human beings as expendable resources, replaceable as the bumper on a Toyota, has to stop.

Why? What benefit do we get, economically, from paying everyone "what they would get if they worked here"/what they "deserve"? What benefit, economically, is there to forced protection of jobs? Because all I see are negatives. Your "moral" outrage at the apparent inequality of outsourced jobs is nearsighted. Also, companies can't survive if they don't bargain for the best deal, be it in labor or in product. The natural flow of jobs is necessary to keep the economy healthy... bad businesses die, good ones thrive, same with workers.

Now, when bad businesses are allowed to thrive, especially huge ones like recently, then shit will obviously hit the fan. So back to our original discussion: The only problem with our system right now is a lack of regulation and forced transparency in the financial market. We agree on this, I believe. And absolutely no one with any brains disagrees. Everyone, even the billionaires at the top, realize that it's better to make a little less money and run a kosher business, than to have everything fail and be forced to make FAR less money (even if it they can remain in their way of life) and have everything fall apart. Personally I think most of the resistance to the necessary action is done out of fear of reprisal/consequences by the top brass, not necessarily because they don't realize it needs to be done to save the system.

Plenty: research grants from those who benefit from their opinion; paid speaking engagements; book deals; perks; access to the Mainstream Media; access to the law; etc. On the disincentive side we have justifiable fear of going against the flow, of censure and ridicule, loss of tenure, etc.

Lol... you actually think that scientists, even those in the "soft" science of economics think that way? Wow, do you have a grim view of humanity. No wonder you're so pessimistic, you seem to think that everyone is out to fuck the other guy whenever possible, if it gains them even in the very short term.

Even the most malicious of people, if intelligent, will realize that less gain through good business practices over a long period of time is better than a short, immense gain that eventually collapses.

Institutions deplore a boat-rocker.

I was originally a physicist... we LOVE boat-rockers. Everyone in the hard sciences agrees... people who find shit that goes against the grain, that challenges or invalidates conventional wisdom... they're the heroes of the field... they're the ones that get the Nobel.

I've read differing opinions on the non-involvement hypothesis. Anyway, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing, and their track record this time around has been lousy so far.

Prove that statement with evidence, please. Because by "wrong" you could mean "almost, but not quite, right" or "mostly wrong" or"wow, that couldn't be a wronger action if you were trying to put out a fire with gasoline". Do you have evidence that the current actions taken by the government are of the latter sort and that them doing nothing and allowing a catastrophic failure of the banking system, triggering a worldwide depression is actually the better course?

Not true. A millionaire is not at the top of the food chain. Those are billionaires.

Did I mention dollar figures? No, I merely said the ones at the top. Again, you're putting words in my mouth, and assuming situations that you have no evidence for.

So you subscribe to the Heinlein theory (I think it was Heinlein), "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by human stupidity"?

Sort of. More like "Don't always attribute to malice that which can be explained by human apathy, ignorance, or stupidity." Always and never are two words I rarely use, and never (lol) absolutely. Even when I do use them, I always acknowledge, though not always in my writing, that there are very few absolutes in life, and rarely do they apply to the human condition.

Is there malice? Sure. But is there also ignorance, apathy and stupidity? Absolutely. And without investigating a situation very thoroughly, you can't be certain which applies. Assuming based on personal ideas of general human decency is a one-way ticket to being an idiot.

Doing something is the worst action one can take if it's the wrong thing.

No it's not... again, you're all black and white. An action, if it's incorrect, can be so by degrees. You have yet to show that the actions now taken are enough down the incorrect scale that doing nothing would be better.

Didn't we learn that from Iraq?

How, exactly, was deposing a mass-murderer who repeatedly threatened his neighbors sovereignty, and committed genocide, "wrong"?

Did we do it at the wrong time? Yup. Did we fuck up the mid-game? Yup. Did we take our eye off of another ball to it's detriment? Yup. But the action originally taken was not the wrong one. Can you prove that doing nothing in Iraq would necessarily have led to a result that was better for everyone?

Sure, you can say that 4000 Americans wouldn't be dead now, and that the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaida might not have happened (but the latter two can't be definitively proven at all)... but what about the overall effect? Would America be more secure financially and physically? Would oil Prices be better? Would the region be more stable? Would more Iraquis be alive now? What, exactly, can you prove, definitively, would be better in the world had we not invaded?

Now answer that question when I pose the hypothetical; without fucking so much of it up (i.e. disbanding the military, failing to rebuild the infrastructure before frocing them to govern themselves, allowing corruption to take over that government, and taking our eyes of the ball in Afghanistan).

My point is this: the action itself wasn't wrong... nor were the mistakes we made inevitable by design of the action itself. Only our cock-ups turned it into the problem it ended up being. It is not an indication that everything we do will necessarily be a cock-up... nor does it prove that the cocked-up action is better or worse than no action.

[Kasualty]

What does that mean? Oh lawd, i is not good at econawmiks.

[animehater]

So I guess It's now officially OVER NINE THOUSAND again.