Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RSettee]

cerberus wrote on Tue, 23 September 2008 21:48

i'd guess that google scares the crap out of neocons. another business model that creates real wealth. i bet we won't see google crying for a handout. jeff dinces

I've always wondered:

How much does Google pay--per click, for the things that people surf for that drives THEIR prosperity-- versus how much money that the movie studios, record labels, record producers (points), photographers, information providers, writers, journalists, programmers all make these days from that similar deal? Without information, photos, music, movies, porn, entertainment, Google would be absolutely nowhere. That's all just a wasteland of free things that people think they're entitled to, yet another example of how technology ended up trying to privlege the small, but funded the elite. Now you have tons of people struggling, all the while, they try to figure out where that money is going. It's going into Google's advertisement fees that they reap exponential dividends off of.

But I bought into that. We all did. We should know better--the only thing separating your average hard working Joe from your mega businessman, is the illusion. And also, it's not how hard you work, it's how smart you work. Smoke and mirrors. I've gotta hand it to businesses like Google, because they really hoodwinked everyone. PT Barnum told us all, I guess few of us believed him.

In alot of ways, it's pretty hard to have that much disdain for the people or organizations that are that much smarter than us. Who am I really to complain about Google or any of their contemporaries? I mean, I should be like, "ha ha ha, you really pulled that over on all of us, so shame on us, and let you ride this massive monetary crest wave into the elite, while most of all of the rest of us are on the descent to hell".

[cerberus]

hoodwinked?   by the flying google monster?!  
well, i prefer the weed from bc.

jeff dinces

[RSettee]

cerberus wrote on Tue, 23 September 2008 21:48

capitalism does work.

When this comes up, we have to revert all discussions back to the "funding for failed capitalist ventures is communism and social welfare for the rich" scenario. Back to square one, in other words.

Quote:

now google is evil?!

When you look at the hit that movie studios and record companies and programmers and the whole entertainment biz has taken, yeah, they're evil. They're hardly any better than the ISP's that have turned a blind eye while using their product to help hold the door open during the theft. Hell, if ISP's are person holding the door open, Google is the greeter at WalMart that waves at you as you're loading up on the way in or the way out, or maybe telling you what aisle the toasters are in so you can load up on a brand new toaster.

I never really saw the Google connection until now, as I drew this out. I don't even think that anyone else necessarily saw it until now, or maybe to the point where they said, "hey, the entertainment industry is in deep shit, but yet Google is doing great". The scary thing is that once the smoke all clears, we'll have a new set of mega conglomerates that will take over the world. Does anyone not see a "Google/ Coke/ GM" sponsored world?

By all means, let's just continue to do it the way that it's currently being done and see exactly what it gets us.

[Jon Hodgson]

People keep saying this is about saving the "elite"s money.

Do you actually think these guys are playing with their own money? The people at the top could watch their banks go bust and their lifestyle would not change ONE BIT, they're not liable for the bank's debts, they probably don't even have notable deposits in their banks.

If a bank goes down the people who suffer the least are probably the ones right at the top, they've had their multi-million dollar payouts already, they're set for life, some of the poorer ones might not be able to afford that fourth house this year, but they're really not going to sweat it.

Everyone below that level suffers though, from all the people working for the bank, through those who lost money directly, going on to indirect losses. Economies have a life of their own, they have momentum and inertia, a bank failure has a disproportionate effect on this, and remember, if a company has to close tomorrow as a result and somebody loses their job doing whatever, there's a high probability that the job will go to China or India before your industry has time to pick itself up.

To be honest I don't know what the best solution is, but I do think that putting money into it mindlessly is only a temporary fix, the current situation results from a whole chain of people being greedy and dishonest or naive, from the people who lied on their mortgage applications through the brokers who encouraged them to do it, all the way up to the people in total charge who let this happen on their watch (and will walk away with millions), any solution has to include provisions to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, either through stronger regulation or greater accountability.

Perhaps what I understand of Alan Greenspan's opinion of it is the best solution, he suggested that the government should be able to take over the ailing institutions and close them down as gracefully as possible to reduce the shockwave that results... save the economy, not the bank.

[cerberus]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 24 September 2008 07:55

Everyone below that level suffers though, from all the people working for the bank, through those who lost money directly, going on to indirect losses.

jon; everyone below that is protected by the fdic.
if fdic were to need help, then nobody doubts
that congress would find the money needed.

jeff dinces

[Jon Hodgson]

cerberus wrote on Wed, 24 September 2008 13:36

jon; everyone below that is protected by the fdic. so that is not a worry.

I don't know what the rules are in the states, here only 15k of deposits with one bank are insured by the government.

But the big deal isn't the direct losses, our whole economic system is based on moving money around from where it isn't needed to where it is. You put ten bucks in the bank, it doesn't stay in the bank, it gets loaned to some company to buy raw materials to make something, sell it, and pay back the loan to the bank with interest. They take a cut of that and you also get a cut, that's why your account is interest bearing.

Now to you it seems that the money never goes anywhere because you can withdraw it at any time, but that's because the bank relies on the fact that the day that you want all your money out, they'll have enough deposits from other people to cover it, the day everyone asks for their money at once, you get a run on the bank.

When the money stops flowing around, things grind to a halt, and it can be very hard to start them up again. You saw this during the great depression.

There are two aspects to the present crisis, one is inescapable, the other emotional. The inescapable aspect is that there isn't as much money out there as people thought, because they were basing a lot of it on promises that couldn't be fulfilled... when you take out a mortgage on a house you are making a promise that over the next thirty years you will create X dollars of value through your own work which you will pay to the bank.

The emotional problem is that people don't know how big the problem is, so they get over-cautious or even panic, and the problem gets worse. Banks that would normally lend out any spare cash they have (often on very short term loans, such as 24 hours) thus allowing other banks who need cash that day to function hold onto their money just in case, so then other banks have problems, people get more cautious, it gets worse and worse.

Now loans become ever more espensive, so companies may not be able to afford to stay in business as a result, so people lose their jobs. You may not think that someone else losing their job will affect you, but don't forget that some of the money floating around is based on them having a job and turning their time into money (by working and producing something) and paying their mortgage... damn we're back at the start of that loop again.

And don't think it's just the shitty jobs that will go to India and China (or Eastern Europe), there are  people there who are intelligent, educated and motivated, they're quite capable of programming, high quality manufacture and rocket science.

And yes, these guys are skimmers, but what they're skimming off is the service that moves money from where it isn't needed to where it can be used to create more wealth (though unfortunately the system gains a life of its own and much happens that is outside of this fundamental requirement).

[MDM,]

ONE thing people can do right now is push the 'wrong' button and vote for the third party.

...yes, you MAY risk that god-awful feeling of NOT being on the 'winning team' when the political superbowl is at an end..

...yes the third party is not perfect, but the two traditional parties aren't either.. they only excel in promoting their empire.. at your expense...

.. if ENOUGH people vote for what they TRULY BELIEVE IN instead of voting for who they think is more likely to win, then you are ALTERING the equilibrium which makes it almost impossible for anyone who is not part of the empire to participate in politics.

'not wasting their vote on an unelectable candidate' is IRRATIONAL democratic thinking, if you analize it in depth.

the democrating voting process is not a football game where people bet their money on the 'winner' of their choice..

you must vote for the people who represent an ideal: freedom, respect of the constitution etc..

even if the third party does not win, the high number of votes to a non-empire party will be a PUBLIC statement to all the voters of America for the future.. a statement which says that americans are not going to tolerate organized treason anymore.

[cerberus]

jon; some of that money is in dubai, where halliburton is now incorporated. i would
support going to the ends of the earth to take back what is rightfully ours.

max; the congress has already made a statement. if they
do not act in good faith, then a third party candidate
who can achieve the critical mass you are talking
about could emerge. however, at the moment
your scenario is not likely. thus a vote for
cynthia mckinney will be a wasted vote.

jeff dinces

[Jon Hodgson]

MDM, wrote on Wed, 24 September 2008 14:33

'not wasting their vote on an unelectable candidate' is IRRATIONAL democratic thinking, if you analize it in depth.

Only if the voter believes as you do, that there is zero difference between the two parties.

Otherwise the voter must weigh the strength of any statement made by voting for a third party against the possibility that their vote could have been the difference between a really bad party getting in and a slightly less bad party getting in.

Unless enough people were to vote for a third party that one of the main parties gets to thinking "hey, if I can get these guys on my side I'll win next time" then the only statement you are making is that not enough people believe in the third party to be worth bothering with, and in the meantime you have four years worse off.

[RSettee]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 24 September 2008 06:55

People keep saying this is about saving the "elite"s money. Do you actually think these guys are playing with their own money? The people at the top could watch their banks go bust and their lifestyle would not change ONE BIT, they're not liable for the bank's debts, they probably don't even have notable deposits in their banks. If a bank goes down the people who suffer the least are probably the ones right at the top, they've had their multi-million dollar payouts already, they're set for life, some of the poorer ones might not be able to afford that fourth house this year, but they're really not going to sweat it. Everyone below that level suffers though, from all the people working for the bank, through those who lost money directly, going on to indirect losses. Economies have a life of their own, they have momentum and inertia, a bank failure has a disproportionate effect on this, and remember, if a company has to close tomorrow as a result and somebody loses their job doing whatever, there's a high probability that the job will go to China or India before your industry has time to pick itself up. To be honest I don't know what the best solution is, but I do think that putting money into it mindlessly is only a temporary fix, the current situation results from a whole chain of people being greedy and dishonest or naive, from the people who lied on their mortgage applications through the brokers who encouraged them to do it, all the way up to the people in total charge who let this happen on their watch (and will walk away with millions), any solution has to include provisions to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, either through stronger regulation or greater accountability. Perhaps what I understand of Alan Greenspan's opinion of it is the best solution, he suggested that the government should be able to take over the ailing institutions and close them down as gracefully as possible to reduce the shockwave that results... save the economy, not the bank.

Agreed, totally. The only ones that win are the elite of the elite (ironically) and the ones at the bottom that never were a part of the economy, anyways (ie: social welfare). Everyone else has to work for 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week to fund this. By "the elite of the elite", I mean those that are weeks, months, years away from being destitute--not living paycheque to paycheque. Anyone that's a paycheque or two away from losing what they have isn't really in the mega elite. Well off maybe, but not the true elite. They have to work harder and harder to ensure that they're not out on the streets or don't lose what they've worked hard to earn. Even a mortgage becomes a crisis for most people, if they lose their jobs.

[mgod]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 24 September 2008 07:33

Only if the voter believes as you do, that there is zero difference between the two parties.

They are not the same - but they conspire together to control the conversation and the rewards, to keep 3rd parties out. Don't believe me? See "an Unreasonable Man".

I'll vote for Obama, but I just donated to Nader. He was on top of this crisis decades ago and tried to help us before we knew that we needed help. He knew.

DS

[mgod]

From a friend:



I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America

[jimlongo]

Great idea until you do the math.
I think 85b/200m is only 425 per person.  
But it was a good party while it lasted.  

[maxim]

425 dollars today will be worth 425,000 tomorrow...

[mgod]

maxim wrote on Wed, 24 September 2008 16:19

425 dollars today will be worth 425,000 tomorrow...

And about 3 Euros.

DS