Holy shit, Shirley Bassey.
I'm going to work on being able to buzz on a final "ng" like that with my mouth closed. Cripes.
This was the only song I didn't know from last night at the Little Jam. Little did I know, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in Sandpiper. 1965-ish, Barbra and Johnny Mathis.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Money.
Here's a handy-dandy chart showing various modalities the government can use to stimulate the economy. It seems that the most direct route is by stimulating consumer spending (rather than giving upper-income individuals or corporations more money to play with, invest, etc.). This is more or less the heart of the argument for tax benefits being aimed at the lower half of the income spectrum--i.e., people with less margin ('headroom") between their month-to-month spending and total income are more likely to go right out and spend that extra money than folks with no shortage of cash and a more diverse set of priorities. That's the basic idea, anyway.
As an added bonus, the fact that that munnie is in the hands of the consumers allows competition to play out in a way that it would not if it were, say, spread evenly to every business in the land. Winners, losers.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
housequake
I somehow got on the topic of earthquakes yesterday. I guess it didn't register with me how historically ginormous that one was. But when you think of the sheer force and water displacement unleashed, well yeah. Earthquakes are freaky. Apparently they happen when I'm in bed, but I never notice them.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
This is fascinating.
Definitely some perspective on things. I don't really make any more money than these people, and I'm a single gay man living in a major city--facts that cut both ways as far as my economic situation goes.
And yet--I'm fairly well-educated, and generally do not partake of the hopelessness expressed in the article. Partially because I live in a relatively prosperous city with a relative wealth of opportunities, and partially because the folks in my family tree have done more-or-less what they wanted to do and lived fairly comfortably for several generations now. Stuff like that affects (if it doesn't determine) your outlook--total failure seems like a distant possibility, even if it isn't.
There's a part of me that's attracted to the gothic, extravagant decay of places like the towns in the article. Over the last four or five years, I've looked at a few job opportunities that would've taken me to strange small(er) towns. Never got anywhere near pulling the trigger, but thought about it, imagined it. Maybe.
And yet--I'm fairly well-educated, and generally do not partake of the hopelessness expressed in the article. Partially because I live in a relatively prosperous city with a relative wealth of opportunities, and partially because the folks in my family tree have done more-or-less what they wanted to do and lived fairly comfortably for several generations now. Stuff like that affects (if it doesn't determine) your outlook--total failure seems like a distant possibility, even if it isn't.
There's a part of me that's attracted to the gothic, extravagant decay of places like the towns in the article. Over the last four or five years, I've looked at a few job opportunities that would've taken me to strange small(er) towns. Never got anywhere near pulling the trigger, but thought about it, imagined it. Maybe.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
sugar-bear-monkey-on-a-stick
I'm pretty bad about this. Like the story says, I think I'm being "nice," or maybe comforting. Then again, I call pretty much everybody "sugar." I've turned into the papery old queen I long feared . . . .
OH, and--if I call you sugar, there's only a 4.3% chance I'm making fun of you for being incompetent . . . .
OH, and--if I call you sugar, there's only a 4.3% chance I'm making fun of you for being incompetent . . . .
Monday, October 6, 2008
the trouble with tribbles
Here's a post with a lot of zeros in it.
I should preface my response by saying that it does hurt my heart to see government money fly out the door (though apparently not fast enough) to accomplish nothing more than maybe kinda sorta keeping Amurika open for bidness. But you fight with the Army you have, not . . . .
Fundamentally, though, I have trouble with the knee-jerk certitude that this is a Bad Idea. After all, most of the smart money seemed to be on the downside-of-no-bailout being a swift and terrible credit contraction followed by East German levels of unemployment and a generally deep and prolonged recession. Which we may be seeing the first act of anyway, by the by. Let's game it out: we'd only know for sure that it's a bad idea if it hadn't passed, and then nothing happened, more or less. It's worth remembering, though, that more wealth has been destroyed today than the whole thing will cost, under the worst and direst assumptions.
Perhaps equally, if all that government money doesn't forestall the big recession, then it wasn't worth it. Fundamentally, the real fun starts when credit gets so tight that big businesses can't meet payroll. If we get to that point, I don't think arguments along the lines of "think how much worse it'd be without the bailout . . . " will have any force.
Much more likely outcomes: 3) no bailout/contraction-recession, or 4) bailout/less clear outcome, especially in the near term. My money's on this last. If all the charnel-house scenarios outlined by prominent economists are headed off, it's true--we can never know if the bailout was totally necessary. But it would seem that there's a better than even chance that it was. Problem with advanced-opinion is that an argument wasn't made one way or another on this question. It was, "Ohmigod, look at all those zeros."
A-O then pivots and gets in some 3rd party hacks. I'm just not convinced that there's anything necessarily inimical to my generally Democratic Party-type principles in this package. Given a choice between shoring up the savings and investments of millions of people and sticking it to some CEOs, I know which way my commie blood flows. So, no, I'm not "disappointed" in myself for not being full-throatedly against this thing, nor am I shocked at the flawed bill that ended up being passed. I'm reserving judgment and waiting to see what comes of it.
I don't think most Republicans should have a big problem with it, either. Once everybody gets the Lou Dobbs moment out of their system, unless you believe 1) the mass of expert opinion on this was just wrong, and you and your Internets were right, or 2) small government and fiscal probity are principles that can't be sacrificed for anything at all ever, you are at worst taking a wait-and-see attitude on this bailout.
You're definitely not voting for Cynthia McKinney, for God's sake.
I should preface my response by saying that it does hurt my heart to see government money fly out the door (though apparently not fast enough) to accomplish nothing more than maybe kinda sorta keeping Amurika open for bidness. But you fight with the Army you have, not . . . .
Fundamentally, though, I have trouble with the knee-jerk certitude that this is a Bad Idea. After all, most of the smart money seemed to be on the downside-of-no-bailout being a swift and terrible credit contraction followed by East German levels of unemployment and a generally deep and prolonged recession. Which we may be seeing the first act of anyway, by the by. Let's game it out: we'd only know for sure that it's a bad idea if it hadn't passed, and then nothing happened, more or less. It's worth remembering, though, that more wealth has been destroyed today than the whole thing will cost, under the worst and direst assumptions.
Perhaps equally, if all that government money doesn't forestall the big recession, then it wasn't worth it. Fundamentally, the real fun starts when credit gets so tight that big businesses can't meet payroll. If we get to that point, I don't think arguments along the lines of "think how much worse it'd be without the bailout . . . " will have any force.
Much more likely outcomes: 3) no bailout/contraction-recession, or 4) bailout/less clear outcome, especially in the near term. My money's on this last. If all the charnel-house scenarios outlined by prominent economists are headed off, it's true--we can never know if the bailout was totally necessary. But it would seem that there's a better than even chance that it was. Problem with advanced-opinion is that an argument wasn't made one way or another on this question. It was, "Ohmigod, look at all those zeros."
A-O then pivots and gets in some 3rd party hacks. I'm just not convinced that there's anything necessarily inimical to my generally Democratic Party-type principles in this package. Given a choice between shoring up the savings and investments of millions of people and sticking it to some CEOs, I know which way my commie blood flows. So, no, I'm not "disappointed" in myself for not being full-throatedly against this thing, nor am I shocked at the flawed bill that ended up being passed. I'm reserving judgment and waiting to see what comes of it.
I don't think most Republicans should have a big problem with it, either. Once everybody gets the Lou Dobbs moment out of their system, unless you believe 1) the mass of expert opinion on this was just wrong, and you and your Internets were right, or 2) small government and fiscal probity are principles that can't be sacrificed for anything at all ever, you are at worst taking a wait-and-see attitude on this bailout.
You're definitely not voting for Cynthia McKinney, for God's sake.
Monday, September 29, 2008
looks like we're about to find out
Well, that thing just got flushed. Interesting.
1) It was certainly a hell of a lot of money. And money that was quite possibly not going to do any discernible public good. If, for instance, it either didn't prevent or somewhat postponed inevitable bank failures, we'd all be holding the bag in ways much more tangible than we are at this moment. It was also (most likely) the greatest incentive to make the same mistake/continue banging your head on that wall any of us have ever seen. It would have done the utmost that could humanly be done to insulate executives/shareholders from consequences. A lot there to hate, regardless of your political persuasion, leading to
2) For there to really be an honest prospect of better days, better practices ahead, it seems that the executives and shareholders who bought into this mess are going to have to take it on the chin. Now, that sucks, and there can be no doubt. Economics is scientific because of very powerful predictive principles about human behavior. Where it falls short, it seems to me, it falls short because people are given too much credit for being rational actors. The only surefire way to prevent more "bad behavior" (i.e., risky, unwise speculation) in the future is for bad actors to bear the brunt of their mistakes now. Anything else gives people too much credit, i.e., for being able to repent of trying to get really rich in nefarious/risky ways. Won't happen, unless they lose their shirts.
3) Beyond which, a bailout-less world is one in which the consequences of bad behavior fall most heavily on those perpetrating it. UNLESS
4) The sky really is falling, and we will now have the credit contraction/widespread bank failure/run-on-your-local-bank that some people have forecasted. Barney Frank and George Bush and Nancy Pelosi will look like the goddamned Founding Fathers if that comes to pass.
5) While we're on the legislative groping that's gone on, interestingly, opposition to this seems to have crystallized mostly on the hard left and right. Let me just say that it does not engender great confidence in Nancy Pelosi that she brought a must-pass bill to the floor with only the support of at best 60% of her own caucus. The libruls weren't having it. Additionally, people like John Barrow were scared shitless. If it really is Doomsday (as she apparently believes), she would have been willing to risk getting 0 Republican votes. But it doesn't make any sense when your own (fairly strong) majority can't pass it, because they either don't believe in it, or don't want to touch it w/a 10-foot-pole. I dunno, maybe getting everyone on record before the Dow tanks is a relatively strong setup move for Round 2?
6) Am I the only one who woke up in the wee hours (about 5) this weekend wondering if this was the last weekend before a new Great Depression?
1) It was certainly a hell of a lot of money. And money that was quite possibly not going to do any discernible public good. If, for instance, it either didn't prevent or somewhat postponed inevitable bank failures, we'd all be holding the bag in ways much more tangible than we are at this moment. It was also (most likely) the greatest incentive to make the same mistake/continue banging your head on that wall any of us have ever seen. It would have done the utmost that could humanly be done to insulate executives/shareholders from consequences. A lot there to hate, regardless of your political persuasion, leading to
2) For there to really be an honest prospect of better days, better practices ahead, it seems that the executives and shareholders who bought into this mess are going to have to take it on the chin. Now, that sucks, and there can be no doubt. Economics is scientific because of very powerful predictive principles about human behavior. Where it falls short, it seems to me, it falls short because people are given too much credit for being rational actors. The only surefire way to prevent more "bad behavior" (i.e., risky, unwise speculation) in the future is for bad actors to bear the brunt of their mistakes now. Anything else gives people too much credit, i.e., for being able to repent of trying to get really rich in nefarious/risky ways. Won't happen, unless they lose their shirts.
3) Beyond which, a bailout-less world is one in which the consequences of bad behavior fall most heavily on those perpetrating it. UNLESS
4) The sky really is falling, and we will now have the credit contraction/widespread bank failure/run-on-your-local-bank that some people have forecasted. Barney Frank and George Bush and Nancy Pelosi will look like the goddamned Founding Fathers if that comes to pass.
5) While we're on the legislative groping that's gone on, interestingly, opposition to this seems to have crystallized mostly on the hard left and right. Let me just say that it does not engender great confidence in Nancy Pelosi that she brought a must-pass bill to the floor with only the support of at best 60% of her own caucus. The libruls weren't having it. Additionally, people like John Barrow were scared shitless. If it really is Doomsday (as she apparently believes), she would have been willing to risk getting 0 Republican votes. But it doesn't make any sense when your own (fairly strong) majority can't pass it, because they either don't believe in it, or don't want to touch it w/a 10-foot-pole. I dunno, maybe getting everyone on record before the Dow tanks is a relatively strong setup move for Round 2?
6) Am I the only one who woke up in the wee hours (about 5) this weekend wondering if this was the last weekend before a new Great Depression?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Lord Jesus
Well, here I am, a depositor at Washington Mutual.
My drinking has lots of bad consequences, but I also talk to financial planners whilst tanked, and I learn things . . .
I always assumed that FDIC basically rendered your average (sane) depositor/investor safe, BUT little did I know. . .
if your bank fails, and you need the FDIC, you will receive 1 DOLLAR before they shut your shit off, and tell you to get out of line. THE FDIC WILL NOT SAVE YOUR ASS. That's an important point.
Oh, ye Wachovia depositors, do not assume ye are far behynde. Things are very much up in the air. If St. McCain proves willing to sacrifice The Economy As We Know It to save his shit-sorry campaign, watch out. The liquidity crisis might be coming to a theater near you.
If there's a takeaway, it is . . . there are lots of people with a WHOLE LOT MORE money than me. They have this money out of a certain commendable form of persistance. I really can no longer accept the idea that it's because they're smarter than me.
My drinking has lots of bad consequences, but I also talk to financial planners whilst tanked, and I learn things . . .
I always assumed that FDIC basically rendered your average (sane) depositor/investor safe, BUT little did I know. . .
if your bank fails, and you need the FDIC, you will receive 1 DOLLAR before they shut your shit off, and tell you to get out of line. THE FDIC WILL NOT SAVE YOUR ASS. That's an important point.
Oh, ye Wachovia depositors, do not assume ye are far behynde. Things are very much up in the air. If St. McCain proves willing to sacrifice The Economy As We Know It to save his shit-sorry campaign, watch out. The liquidity crisis might be coming to a theater near you.
If there's a takeaway, it is . . . there are lots of people with a WHOLE LOT MORE money than me. They have this money out of a certain commendable form of persistance. I really can no longer accept the idea that it's because they're smarter than me.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Burning Time After Reading
OK, saw Burn After Reading the other day . . . and, eh.
Typical Coën brothers fall-apart ending. It was funny, yes, but not fall-out-of-your-chair-funny, as I had been led to believe, by people I Trust About Humor, because they are funny.
So what up? I think we all unconsciously hold Hollywood to a much lower standard, like, "I saw [fill-in-the-blank-flavor-of-the-week-play-for-our-demographic], and it was grrreeat!" when in fact, it's merely OK. This is affirmative action for the cineplex. Wes Anderson is Public Enemy No. Fucking One (as I've said before) on this score. Call a mediocre movie (even if it has St. Malkovich) a spade, for God's sake.
SPOILER ALERT
Totally didn't see Brad Pitt getting offed coming, though. Killing the most interesting character (except Lietke, of course) was a change of pace, and a sure sign that we'd be getting off the bike soon.
*and scene*
Typical Coën brothers fall-apart ending. It was funny, yes, but not fall-out-of-your-chair-funny, as I had been led to believe, by people I Trust About Humor, because they are funny.
So what up? I think we all unconsciously hold Hollywood to a much lower standard, like, "I saw [fill-in-the-blank-flavor-of-the-week-play-for-our-demographic], and it was grrreeat!" when in fact, it's merely OK. This is affirmative action for the cineplex. Wes Anderson is Public Enemy No. Fucking One (as I've said before) on this score. Call a mediocre movie (even if it has St. Malkovich) a spade, for God's sake.
SPOILER ALERT
Totally didn't see Brad Pitt getting offed coming, though. Killing the most interesting character (except Lietke, of course) was a change of pace, and a sure sign that we'd be getting off the bike soon.
*and scene*
oh, hi there, T.T.
I'm back in the saddle, but I want busy people in Czechoslovakia, so change of venue.
Annnyway, I hate the way this looks so far, but just wanted to get up and posting. I promise this thing will look more inviting within 14-17 days. Nevertheless, this site is your indispensable up-to-the-minute guide to All Things T.T.
It's all going to get progressively more true over a moderate span of human time.
Annnyway, I hate the way this looks so far, but just wanted to get up and posting. I promise this thing will look more inviting within 14-17 days. Nevertheless, this site is your indispensable up-to-the-minute guide to All Things T.T.
It's all going to get progressively more true over a moderate span of human time.
Just Another Manic Wednesday
Encouraging signs from the Democratic leadership that sanity will prevail in the government's response to Wall Street's, er, meltdown, whatever . . . .
I hate that word, "meltdown." Like "dimension" or "catalyst" (good God, "catalyze"), I would like to see uses beyond its technical meaning banned. A meltdown involves the compromise of the core at a nuclear plant. Not a shit fit. Why isn't "shit fit" good enough?
Anyway, I like that Schumer's talking some money now, maybe more later. That is manifestly the only sane response to this, not committing such a gargantuan sum ($700b, for you cave dwellers) with less than a week's deliberation. The politics are interesting. Republicans making sounds like they don't want anything to do with what eventually passes, Democrats trying to hedge their bets.
Well, it's tricky. Whatever gets passed, if it's even marginally effective, will have arguably saved us from a recession. But, like "no attacks since 9/11," it would be a rhetorical strategem of probably limited effectiveness. A catastrophe averted isn't tangible in the way that $700b worth of new debt is. Is this thing really necessary? It seems like it probably is (based on the wide array of experts who are soberly warning that it is), but who knows? Anyway, Democrats should just get to a bill that's broadly acceptable to their caucus, and ram it through. See if Bush feels like saving the economy this week.
BTW--why is it that there's so much frigging doubt about the bill that will come through? It's a spending bill, therefore, it must originate in the House. The Democratic-controlled House. Because of House rules, the Democratic leadership can absolutely kill any bill they don't like. One bill will come up for a vote, and that bill should be the one that has the chance of holding the caucus together. Bush won't like it, but it will be the only bill he will see. People talk about this like the administration can just submit their own idea, and then Democrats have to react to it. No.
I hate that word, "meltdown." Like "dimension" or "catalyst" (good God, "catalyze"), I would like to see uses beyond its technical meaning banned. A meltdown involves the compromise of the core at a nuclear plant. Not a shit fit. Why isn't "shit fit" good enough?
Anyway, I like that Schumer's talking some money now, maybe more later. That is manifestly the only sane response to this, not committing such a gargantuan sum ($700b, for you cave dwellers) with less than a week's deliberation. The politics are interesting. Republicans making sounds like they don't want anything to do with what eventually passes, Democrats trying to hedge their bets.
Well, it's tricky. Whatever gets passed, if it's even marginally effective, will have arguably saved us from a recession. But, like "no attacks since 9/11," it would be a rhetorical strategem of probably limited effectiveness. A catastrophe averted isn't tangible in the way that $700b worth of new debt is. Is this thing really necessary? It seems like it probably is (based on the wide array of experts who are soberly warning that it is), but who knows? Anyway, Democrats should just get to a bill that's broadly acceptable to their caucus, and ram it through. See if Bush feels like saving the economy this week.
BTW--why is it that there's so much frigging doubt about the bill that will come through? It's a spending bill, therefore, it must originate in the House. The Democratic-controlled House. Because of House rules, the Democratic leadership can absolutely kill any bill they don't like. One bill will come up for a vote, and that bill should be the one that has the chance of holding the caucus together. Bush won't like it, but it will be the only bill he will see. People talk about this like the administration can just submit their own idea, and then Democrats have to react to it. No.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)