I've had a few adventures in my life, and, like anybody who's had adventures, that means I've had to do without things and money at various points. So, maybe I've got a skewed perspective, but as I notice food prices, fuel prices, and so on, I keep on thinking about my great-grandfather. You know how much his fuel prices were? Neither do I, because he had neither car nor central heat, nor air conditioning,and so on. Food was purchased, but more food was caught than bought. So, I kinda think that maybe we shouldn't be so soft. Maybe we should relish the opportunity to lead lives that are simpler, and less media-saturated. After all, we've subsidized farming, sometimes subsidizing farmers to NOT grow food. We've subsidized airlines, and artificially gotten airfare lower than it was in the 1970's. We've subsidized fuel, so we STILL pay less to fill our tanks than folks in Europe. So, maybe the time has come for us to try to live like our myths, and be rugged individuals, without all the government hand outs. Maybe we should be paying a dollar for a banana, and ten dollars for a gallon of gasoline, and a hundred dollars for a day's heat, and a thousand dollars for a flight to some sunnier climate. Maybe we should learn to accept that home ownership belongs only to the few, and that meat is a luxury item. Maybe the natural state of things boils down to lords and serfs.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should figure out that life's better when we all work together, rather than for selfish gain, and that people are more important than profits, and that if a technology isn't sustainable, it needs to be replaced. In other words, maybe a kind of green socialism might be a decent option.
They're not able to afford to eat dirt in Haiti, They're running out of butter in Japan, and Food shortages loom over the horizon. Water, not gold, may start the next war.
Still think everything's hunky dory?
I think it's possible to turn things around. The question is how. Not when, because that's now.
Just a thought for you.
I know it would make sense for me to be all over the grumblings about some kind of comprehensive mortgage reform, but there are several reasons for my relative silence. First and foremost, nothing has been clearly decided. Most of the motions up are so freaking muddy that there's no way they can be implemented. For example, let's say they were to try to buy up at-risk mortgages. What happens with home equity loans that are riding along? How exactly do you factor that in? Do you subordinate the subordinate new home mortgage loan to the formerly subordinate second loan? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying they haven't worked out the basics, so it's all just posturing, right now.
Second, I'm not entirely certain that it's possible to act in time, or if that's even desirable. There are so many, many wild cards.
I just think it's interesting that virtually every solution to the problems of the market boils down to some form of socialism. So, I, of course, would like to see a blatantly socialist response. But, I might just be pot-stirring, there.
I'm thinking, realistically, the best that the government can do for swift, effective action would be to let both sides fall. Take a step back. Let those over-inflated mortgages hang like albatrosses for a bit, so everybody can get a real good look at what happens when you truly believe that laissez faire line.
Won't happen, I know. They've already bailed out the biggest players, and it's just a question of how many folks are going to get bailed out. The problem is, though, that the vessel isn't sea worthy. Every "bail out" just drowns someone else. After all, the money has to come from somewhere....
I say we start with re-structuring how credit is given. I say we re-structure how capital is handled. But, hey, I might be just a tad too convinced....
I use the phrase sloppily, as a kind of joke. I'll say things like 'I'm working for the devil", and mention the "dark overlords" at places i've worked. But I don't seriously believe that Satan worshippers run the world. That would be really crazy. Well, I think McCain meant it the same way I do, but, evidently, some folks take it seriously. I guess they've never heard of Freemasons,or their symbols, huh?
I tried to find the best summaries of their Platforms. Let me know if you've got a better 'bullet point' on where they stand, issue by issue.
I have to say, looking at it, issue by issue, I'm disapointed. I don't really find enough to agree with any one of them. I think I agree with John McCain on the most number of issues, but on the issues that matter the most? There's I'm split between Hillary and Obama. So, like I said: none of them do it for me.
No, you don't.
Every once in awhile it bugs me. This thing of "I need to express" or "I have to say" or whatever. It's almost always followed up by something that the person doesn't really need to share.
How I feel about it is related to how I feel about a lot of people's notion of "support". Support should mean holding somebody up: helping them up when they fall. It shouldn't mean agreeing to every silly thing they say or do.
So, some thing should be shared. If you have pertinent information, yes, please share. If you're just looking at making yourself feel better about something, please don't. I don't like being conscripted to be your chorus.
Here's a good litmus test for what I mean: if it's something you could stand having somebody disagree with, chances are you're sharing. If you only want agreement, you're probably burdening the rest of us.
Now, of course, I've said and written some things that I'll brook no discussion over. I'm not trying to defend that. Just like everything that bugs anyone, there is a little hypocrisy involved. I could come up with defenses, but no, I won't.
But, I will leave you with a thought: what in the world ever gave anybody the idea that all opinions are equal?
