ParanoiA

The term "greed" carries a value judgement in our intimate personal lives and since we are unable to separate that from the purely clinical business environment of capitalism we come up with these weird negative conclusions of profiteering. These "causes" in particular, I'm having trouble with: They are causes, sure, but they are natural forces that will always be present. People will buy houses if they're cheap and credit is flexible enough to allow them. Duh. Of course Real Estate agents will try to sell the more expensive home and essentially always work for the seller. Car salesmen will try to sell the more expensive car, or whatever management has decided will garner bonuses that month. They're chasing the money. Duh. I don't see the correllation between mortgage tax deductions and irresponsible loans. Tax deductions were about incintivizing mortgages, not subprime orgies of irresponsibility. I suppose it's a more realistic take since it seems more sensible that problems like these trace back to many small factors rather than one gaping hole. Sounds reasonable to me. But obviously there are forces at work, that are to be there by design and to implicate them is fruitless. Sure you could say that the reason the package of bologna was eaten was because the dog ate it...or you could say that it was because you left it on the kitchen floor, next to his bowl. I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Dak, I don't know what to tell you buddy. People will always rationalize putting their nose in your business. Even here in the supposed freedom loving states we are unable to have differing moral codes, free from government endorsement - from day one. People seem to think all of their personal opinions should be law. So and so doesn't want to kill unborn babies in their belly, so no one else should either. So and so doesn't like trans-fats, so no one else should either. Make it law! The hubris required to trump everyone else's free opinion is atrocious. It's as if they don't believe that slavery was morally justified by those engaged in it, and further justified by the law of the land. If they understood otherwise, then surely they would see that legislating morality is wrong - that you can't be sure your moral code is finalized and righteous in every way. And to prevent that atrocity again, we must force ourselves to live by an objective rule of law that only recognizes direct harm, so society can respond efficiently, immediately to the changing dynamics of morality as opposed to the slow, lumbering, beaurocratic mud of government. Mankind is invested in government and seems to want more and more of it, which would seem to undermine the evolutionary goal I would think humans would agree on - self governance. Government is an unfortunate necessity that only seems to find its purpose in holding humans accountable for their agreements with "the group". Otherwise, government would be unnecessary. So rather than aim for voluntary cooperation with persuasion, we invest in forced compliance, which I don't believe will ever lead to voluntary compliance, and will sanitize individuality. We are doomed to be controlled indefinitely. So, I would expect more and more invasion of your vices - judgements cast by the majority on what you should and shouldn't be doing with your body, rationalizing it with "the greater good" arguments. The same rationale used to justify dismissing health damage by auto exhaust and industrial pollution. We can't admit we're wrong so we don't repeat mistakes, we must justify our ignorance and repeat them over and over again because we don't like being hypocrites. Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to fool itself. We are hypocrites for telling you not to smoke in the same room with us just after driving in rush hour traffic forcing all of the pedestrians to inhale our exhaust. It doesn't make it ok for you to poison the room, but we still can't admit our hypocrisy. Oh well, I'm fairly used to it actually.

I don't believe in empowering subjectivity in law. This is how you engineer societies and "direct" their moral compass. This is how slavery was allowed to continue. The government ignored the line about all men being created equal, their life, their liberty, their happiness and instead passed a subjective judgement that these particular men weren't men, but were animals - an analysis that requires a code of behavior and moral direction (or lack of moral direction) to agree to. Objectively, they were clearly men. So, Subjectively they were animals. Objectively they were men. They chose to go with animals, and later 3/5ths men. So, if we had been legislating from a purely objective mindset, we couldn't have allowed ourselves to legitimize and endorse enslaving men. Even if we all thought they were animals, subjectively. To drop the drama and apply this to smoking - smoking is only a harmful act if you make someone else do it, because it causes damage. If your choice is to cause damage to yourself, then I have no basis to deny you your liberty and happiness to do it. Only if you deny someone else's. I never advocated a solution, so yeah, I'm sure yours is more pragmatic. I advocated not repeating the mistake of dismissing our rights to not be damaged by you and your property just because the you outnumber those of us who aren't swayed by the really cool perks of your advancements. We don't get to use our majority to refuse someone's miranda rights, so why does the majority get to refuse my right from being harmed by others? That's ok, I know the answer, and I disagree. Yes. I'm pretty sure that murder will still be a no-no in any civilized society a long freaking time from now. Principles are like that. Subjectivity is a tough sell to get rid of, I know, but I think everyone is so conditioned to it that it's hard to imagine otherwise. Most people think all of their personal thoughts and feelings should be mirrored in law. I don't. And I find it disgusting. There are fathers of broken families rotting in prison for growing pot plants in their backyard. A family loses their breadwinner, their house, their lifestyle, while mom suddenly becomes an effective single mother and their children add to the columns of statistics on drug addicts, prostitution, crime...condemned to a life of poverty and doing without their father because we decided that smoking pot is "bad". Sure he knew it was illegal, but that's like sending someone to jail for floating a stop sign. I don't have any respect for subjective law. None whatsoever.

I could probably go along with that if the patrons were made aware before entering the establishment. But consider the implications of this. Can anything be released into the air as long as people do it regularly, or the information that they do so is posted? Are we going to say it's ok to let someone spray acid around the room, or anything else you can think of that would kill or mame someone - just because patrons have agreed to that environment upon entering? What if people are tricked into mass murder by someone who posts a sign for a deadly gas filled room, gambling that some will fail to read it? Surely you could get a few corpses just by trickery. That's all a bit extreme, obviously, but it should illustrate the problem with creating a dangerous air environment and then using a person's willful presence to justify it. Of course, I don't practice what I'm presenting here either. I don't smoke, but I don't have a problem with others who do. I voted against the ban in my city. I don't have a problem with smoking sections in restaraunts, bars, anywhere and everywhere - I don't care. My wife smokes, but she has to smoke in the basement, which remains closed off from the rest of the house - to keep it away from the kids. Plus it smells up the house all nasty. So, I'm more or less following your rule of willful presence, even though I tried to shoot holes in it.

Very fair post big314mp. I certainly agree with you on banning smoking in publicly owned property, presuming we're voting since we're the business owners. And I, too, am trying to work out the automobile issue, as well as industrial pollution and etc. That's why I was bringing up the inquiry - a chance to explore the whole idea of air, and rights, or if it can even be looked at that way, and the problems that come up whether you look at it in those terms, or not. If you fail to see rights in clean air, that brings up its own list of problems. So, that's what makes it interesting to me. As for the business and home owner, I equate the two, though most everyone else does not. Regardless, I used to hold the same view as you, but someone here drew an analogy with mustard gas. The point being that smoke does cause harm to others in the vicinity. Do we let business owners allow people to come in and release mustard gas? For that matter, is it not child abuse to damage your child in your home with it? Most harmful things we choose to ingest, like some drugs, fat, grease, sugar...all can be ingested without effecting those in the vicinity. But smoking cigarettes, marijuana, car exhaust - all of these effect people who are around. While I appreciate the notion of freedom of choice, I have to face the reality that it's making choices for others too. And I have a hard time accepting the idea that I have to leave the restaraunt because you decided to release mustard gas at your table. What if I didn't notice until I breathed some? You're free to release poisons in the air and we all have to run around keeping an eye out for it so we can get away? That's almost like saying you should have the right to fire off your gun in random directions and it's up to us to decide if we stay or leave. Anyway, just some stuff to muddy up what would seem clear otherwise.

Preaching to the choir. The capital was artificially inflated, so to speak, and now it's crashing down to their rational levels. There's really no mitigating the effect, unless unfair redistribution of loss is considered mitigation. I'm for allowing the market to correct itself, but I do sympathize with the concerns of those who wish to intervene. I am simply more concerned with the long term consequences of our dollar and national debt. I haven't heard any nightmare scenario that trumps that. And this is coming from someone who stands to lose if the credit market dries up for a time. The economic strength of the country is more important. I can buy that notion, with that qualifier. Sure, you can say that "given our level of regulation" X would produce a bad result if we lift this particular piece of regulation. I'm just not signing on to the notion that because X produced a bad result, this proves that free markets don't work. Clearly that doesn't acknowledge the consequences of the current network of regulations that effect the free market. It seems insane and almost suicidal that a capitalist republic would be composed of a populace that isn't savvy on economics nor the particulars of government. How stupid can we be? I indict myself here as well. We should all be far more intelligent about economics since our capitalist structure is based on individual understanding and achievement.

Is there not some principles of behavior that could be concluded here? We all share the air. So what air do I have a right to? What air do you have a right to manipulate for your purposes? Are you responsible for the air that you pollute with smoke or auto exhaust? If so, for how long? If that air mixes with air close to me, are you to blame for that or am I to blame because I chose to be in that spot? If no one is around when you begin polluting, does that give you the greater right to that particular air at that moment? It seems silly, and perhaps fruitless, but worth it for genuine philosophical inquiry, in my mind anyway. And I'm not sure it's helpful to work backward and attempt to justify the status quo. Rather it would seem more genuine to inquire from a neutral starting position and work out the ethics first, then reconcile with the status quo. It should be timeless. Both of which would expose you to less smoke, but not zero. Do I have a right to kind of hit you in the face?

Smoking as a bad decision is a subjective judgement. It's a great decision if I feel that smoking adds to my quality of life experience. Purely subjective. And I can't drink alcohol while working because my employer says so. And I can't do it while driving because the roads are publicly funded and driving on them is a privilege that carries no natural set of rights. If I killed someone, then I'd be guilty of manslaughter. Did you really think I'd advocate those things? Your premise is falsely applied to my analogy. I never made the analogy on slavery in terms of individual choice. I made the analogy on slavery in terms of the majority overruling the objective rights made in the constitution. In other words, the constitution said all men are created equal and that we all have natural born rights. Then they turned right around and decided black folks were 3/5 of a person and negated their "natural born rights" by endorsing their slavery. That's a contradiction enabled by the majority rule. That's the same essential dismissal practiced here. The majority has decided to ignore that part about damage to person or property by allowing automobile drivers to damage me. Does that clear up my intent or do you still feel my analogy is flawed in making a point about majority rule trumping indoctrinated rights? I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make. I'm actually arguing against allowing someone to just puff smoke and auto exhaust at our expense. If anything, it's as if I think the constitution prevents you the freedom to shit when and where I can smell it.

So what? What if legalizing murder somehow allowed us to advance to god like technological advances? Is it ok to cause physical harm just because you think it would be really cool to technologically advance industrially? Who says we NEED to advance like that? Life can be enjoyed without all of these things - I'm pretty sure "happiness" was experienced before combustion technological advancement became a reality. No, you're just ok with it because it's already established now and we have infrastructure and markets and tons of investment in the entire concept globally - all without ever considering our rights to clean air - or rather your obligation not to contaminate the air that all of us must share - including those who do not drive, yet had their rights dismissed for the majority. We have a bill of rights particularly for that purpose - to limit that which the majority can rule. I'm not even asking to rollback, just pointing out the hypocrisy. We ought to fess up to blatant trampling of rights so we don't do it again. When we come up with a new transportation technology - let's try not to violate everyone's basic rights this time, and respect damage to property and person like we're supposed to. It's wrong to pollute the air I must breathe. It's really that simple. Rationalizing around that is making excuses not to accept it. Same with smoker's smoke - it causes damage to others who share that air. What are you talking about? And how am I arguing for all or nothing? I'm arguing to practice what you preach, and to follow the agreement we made - the constitution. There are rights in it, that we are all supposed to recognize, and you've dismissed mine. Yes, I would like ALL of my rights, thank you. My slavery comment is about the immoral majority endorsing shameful practices like slavery, choosing to ignore the principles they espoused and wrote in the Delcaration of Independence and the Constitution - that all men are created equal. Not white people = 5/5 and black people = 3/5, but all people = 1. That same essential theme with dismissing our rights to non-poisoned air, or dismissing other's liability at poisoning it. Apparently we still aren't equal.

No, instead it's up to my congressman to decide how much pollution I can be harmed with. Thanks congressman, for not standing up for my rights. I wonder if he has a chart on how much mustard gas I can be harmed with before he has a problem with it. Interesting how a human can be justified in militantly attacking a smoker for puffing it near them, and even get legislation to back them up, but walking down the street, I have no right to complain about the long lines of cars, stacked one after another puffing out all kinds of freaky shit for me to inhale and I can't say jack. Just goes to show, if the majority enjoys it and doesn't mind the side effects, your rights are up for sale, even if it's wrong. Another example of how slavery went on so long.

Well there's been more detail than that. Pay it back somehow? I never heard any such thing. The details are still lacking, but it's fairly well known that the feds are to purchase the the bad loans for pennies on the dollar, supplying fannie and freddie with liquid and sit on them for however long it takes for the market to get rolling again, and then sell the loans back to the private sector for a profit. They've been arguing the detailed variations on that theme. Economic theory is relevant because it gives us a working knowledge of forces to negotiate this theme. Even without details, one can draw principled conclusions about constitutionality, free market consequences in the face of implied government rescue, and the value of the currency. With details, we can draw those conclusions more specifically, and add to the list.

I hope they botch it up again and again. And I hope they keep pointing fingers at Barney Frank and Bush - dems and repubs all fully invested in the competition, rather than their jobs. Maybe, then, they will inadvertently do the best thing and stop repeating the same printing press treatment that has yet to cure our ills thus far. I was thinking about this at lunch. It's funny how we carry a national debt, the implication being that at some point we'll have a surplus and can pay it off? Because we all know how there's usually nothing going on that needs money, so there is reason to believe we'll actually pay it off right? We'll just wait until the economy is going great, right? We'll just do it during a year when the "entitlement" division doesn't need any money. Or when there's no bankruptcies to contend with. Or when national defense doesn't need any money. Or when Healthcare becomes free so we don't have to worry about paying for it. Or something like that. It just seems so stupid to worry about paying the debt, when clearly the past has shone we'll have lapses in the need for funding something in the government, that there's always plenty of "down time" to cover this debt. So yeah, print more money, and stop worrying about the skyrotting debt and devaluation of the dollar - we'll catch up next year when nothing is going on...like in previous years....right?

Another way to look at it is that those 12 republicans, presumably like the rest of the respresentatives, received calls from their constituency not to go forward with the bailout - but that didn't change their minds, only their pride and personal feelings changed their minds. So not only did they put their pride ahead of the country's problems, but also ahead of the constituency's direct charge.

Well that kind of answers itself, since hard scientific assessments of historical data provides insights to the result of "mixed" strategies. We don't have a free market, we don't have an entirely regulated market, instead we have a market that is mixed, plus add in various politically strategic ideologies such as trickle down and tax and spend - there's no way any one ideology can be assessed without it's dynamics being unnaturally effected by other forces thereby cancelling the assessment. It's the same reason why we'll never know whether republicans or democrats, or any other party really has it "right" because we always mix them together, as some kind of "compromise" and pretend as if we can measure them individually, and draw conclusions about them, as if they weren't effected by the intimate mixture of an entirely different ideological intent. That's always been my hang up about compromise with logical problems. It sounds all nice and sweet to talk about the balance between them and yadda yadda, but that sounds like an intellectually asthetical trick of rationale. There's no reason to think that two ideologies rolled together will form one great ideologoy - or one great system.

And for some of us... Yay!! The bailout failed! Yay!! And I'm with bascule, the republicans are way super duper more partisan than the democrats here.

Yeah, I completely agree with all of that. I didn't know that about the Couric interview, that's pretty shitty. I wonder if this is something Arizona residents are used to from him, come election time, and it's just new to me, but his campaign behavior just seems entirely opposite from what his reputation would seem to imply.

Actually, between 1989 and 2008 it's worked out to 209 Democrats and 143 Republicans and 2 Independents. That's more dems that repubs, but it's hardly primarily democrats.

No, I understand dodging particulars and I would think it would be best to put it that way. I'm talking about the obvious discomfort displayed at simply answering the generalized question of whether or not they support the notion of a bailout. That would have been a terrific time to launch into theory; to show some depth and explain why they think we should intervene. But they were clearly scared to death of each other's campaigns - knowing that any slip, any little hint at this or that could give the other some ammo to exaggerate and distort. That's what I find dissappointing. Really, this has been the case for decades, maybe more I guess. Debates are still too crafted by each candidate - too cautious with their presentation. They may not be making a speech, but they're still regurgitating pre-negotiated verbiage they feel is "safe". That's unfortunate, because it would be nice to hear them relax and just say what they really think in a down to earth, meat and potatoes debate. They were fairly equal I thought. I'd be fairly suspicious of anyone declaring a winner in this one as it would be little more than a cheer for their guy.

The most fun was watching the two of them dodge the bailout issue. It would have been absolutely awesome if Lehrer had asked them about the sudden insistance on bipartisan unity and the disparity between the outcries by the constituency and their dismissal by congress. It would have been great to see them both wiggle through that one. It would take quite the slickster to somehow say that the people's voice matters while ignoring them at the same time.

I think McCain is caving and is thankful there's enough progress on this that he can use that as an excuse to show up to the debate. I thought that whole ploy backfired on McCain once Obama stated they should be able to do more than one thing at a time.

Heh, I liked seeing Bill again. And I liked that take too. It's kind of weird hearing democrats talk about big profits as a good thing. A buddy of mine from work, an Alaskan libertarian no less, had the idea that we should write the bill to force the profit, from reselling these loans back to the private sector, to go straight to funding social security in lieu of that crisis. Also, are we going to tax ourselves at a higher rate when we enjoy these windfall profits we're being promised?

Yeah, that's a reasonable conclusion too. There are plenty of smart folks that do get it, and they're being ignored too. However, I didn't comment on the first part of Phi's quandry. This sudden insistence on everyone agreeing on this fix. It's...creepy. It would be a welcomed change if it weren't so isolated and obviously political. I think we have to admit we're staring directly at the weakness of our political system. All systems have them, and this is ours. A crisis - which always serves those looking to gain power - being handled during the most intense pandering window available, the presidential election. The parties are not focused on solving this problem, rather they are focused on dealing with it. Appearances trumping substance. I think their campaigns are achieving more focus than the problem is. Of course, to me, this goes straight to credibility. This demonstrates that these adults are not fit to run the country. They cannot put the country first. And that was even McCain's slogan at the convention. You mean, did anyone notice how there was bipartisan agreement on the plan before McCain AND OBAMA showed up in washington? Why yes, I did notice that. And thank god. Or Thor. I heard Rush going on about the meeting, referencing some blog on American Spectator. I haven't bothered looking, yet. I'm sure it will be vetted before long. According to this blog, Obama received his talking points and the room lit up in anger as he went through them. The democrats are saying the republicans blind sided them with their own plan, while the republicans are calling bullshit, noting that the democrats don't even need them to pass their own bill. So, for drama's sake, it will be interesting how this plays out. It seems fairly obvious this is all about both parties and their candidates getting their fingerprints all over this bailout so neither can use it against the other. That would seem to explain all of this political weirdness, at least in my mind. Could it really be that simple? And dispicable?

I don't think this is that hard to answer. I might be wrong, but it seems really simple. Most folks see this as a bailout for fatcats on wall street. Most are too intellectually lazy to ponder the peripheral downstream damage this can cause, because most don't appreciate the complexity of economics. While the representatives and senators DO appreciate this complexity and feel they are duty bound to cancel the "ignorance" of their constituency. That doesn't mean the folks are wrong, (I sure as hell agree with them) I just think they are actually too polarized by class envy to have a thoughtful reason to be against it. If our congress actually believed the constituency understood the breadth of the issue, then I think they might take the complaints more seriously.

They're just trying to pull off their own version of our Moon Landing hoax.

Some interesting comments and theory from a financial expert serving on the Financial Services Committee, Dr. Ron Paul. I provide this, not to seal up any particular points on the matter, but to get into the meat and potatoes of economics and this crisis. Obviously, I'm no expert on the matter, and I doubt there are many of us that can claim to be, other than maybe bascule. I'm betting we all have something to learn and to gain by understanding the fundamentals of the structure of our economy and how these structures earn merit, or contribute to business cycles. Dr. Paul argues on this level, and it's a level I don't really grasp.