Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktA man dies and goes to hell. There he discovers that he has a choice: he can go to capitalist hell or to communist hell. Naturally, he wants to compare the two, so he goes over to capitalist hell. There outside the door is the devil, who looks a bit like Ronald Reagan. “What’s it like in there?” asks the visitor. “Well,” the devil replies, “in capitalist hell, they flay you alive, then they boil you in oil and then they cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives.”
“That’s terrible!” he gasps. “I’m going to check out communist hell!” He goes over to communist hell, where he discovers a huge queue of people waiting to get in. He waits in line. Eventually he gets to the front and there at the door to communist hell is a little old man who looks a bit like Karl Marx. “I’m still in the free world, Karl,” he says, “and before I come in, I want to know what it’s like in there.”
“In communist hell,” says Marx impatiently, “they flay you alive, then they boil you in oil, and then they cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives.”
“But… but that’s the same as capitalist hell!” protests the visitor, “Why such a long queue?”
“Well,” sighs Marx, “Sometimes we’re out of oil, sometimes we don’t have knives, sometimes no hot water.”
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Thanks for the Memories – R. Hope
LikeLike
Having already downed a few power drinks, she turned around, faced him, looked him straight in the eye and said, “Listen up, Buddy. I screw anybody, any time, anywhere, your place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up, sitting down, naked or with clothes on, dirty, clean . . . it doesn't matter to me. I've been doing it ever since I got out of college and I just love it.” Eyes now wide with interest, he responded,"No kidding. I'm a lawyer, too. What firm are you with?”
LikeLike
Mark:So to asnwer your question from last night about the backstop…The backstop helps to prevent a spiralling credit crisis. It provides confidence. Currently European banks are having difficulty funding their short term dollar obligations. Money market funds, a large source for short term $ funding, and US banks are becoming wary of lending to European banks.But if they know that the Europeans have emergency access to short term funds from a kind of lender of last resort (the Fed, intermediated by the ECB), they will have more confidence in lending, thus mitigating the need for emergency access to the lender of last resort in the first place. Sort of the way that deposit insurance acts to prevent runs on banks. It doesn't do anything about the long term structural problems of the European sovereign debt crisis, but it prevents an immediate liquidity crisis (a la 2008) and provides some short term relief to the banks while the governments of Europe try to come up with a solution.
LikeLike
That's a good one, Mark. Lawyer jokes are some of my favorites.Two tigers are walking through the jungle, one behind the other. Suddenly the one in the back starts licking the ass of the one in front as they walk forward. The first one tries to ignore it for a while, but finally turns around and says "Hey, what do you think you are doing?""Sorry, but I just ate a lawyer and I am trying to get the taste out of my mouth."I'm wondering now, though, whether bankers have overtaken lawyers in the bad reputation department.
LikeLike
Little Johnny was on summer vacation, and driving his mother nuts. Finally, in exasperation, she turned to him and snapped, "Johnny! They are doing construction next door, why don't you go over and check it out?""Sure, Mom"Later that afternoon, he returns, and his Mom asks him what he learned. "I learned all KINDS of things, Mom, like if the cabinet door won't fit, you shave a cunt hair off this side, a cunt hair off that side, then shove the fucker in! Works every time!""Oh, Johnny! Go tell your Father what you just said to me!""Okay."So, he finds his dad, and says, "Hey, Dad, Mom wants me to tell you what I learned today.""Oh, really, Johnny? So, what did learn?""Well, I learned that if a cabinet door won't fit, you shave a cunt hair off this side, a cunt hair off that side, then shove the fucker in!""JOHNNY! Go get a switch!""Huh, fuck you, Dad. That's the electrician's job!"
LikeLike
I like that delete function!
LikeLike
Morning all, and thanks for starting my day with some good jokes. scott, appreciate your explanations on the Euro situation.taroya, you gave me a start there. Before I looked closer I almost spit my coffee, thinking somebody else had deleted your post. We may have to change the quote up top, "We're all administrators now," to "We're all blog nannies now." Or we may all have to change our screen names to Bethonie.
LikeLike
Thanx, Scott. It is the use of a guarantee rather than a direct issue of funds that is the mechanism about which I sought clarity.And thanks for the laughs, all.Scott, at PL this morning Chris Fox called me "niggardly sans tone" and added me to his "idiot nanny list". That is typical for my exchanges with him, such as they are, so I have always deferred to you as his bete noir.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
I had to delete because, being lazy, I attempted to cut n paste the repeating phrases. The result was not what I expected.Therefore, I copied, pasted to notepad, fixed, and re-posted.
LikeLike
Apocalypse was the handle that went out of his way, in one of the few moments I could squeeze time to get on Plumline at home, to tell me that 90% of what I had to say was garbage. Didn't realize that was Chris, at the time.I agree he was talking about the net nanny, in this case, and admittedly tao9 gave him the opening for the "slit your own" comment . . . still, I know which one I'd want to invite to my sweet sixteen party.
LikeLike
Yeah, we can all delete everybody else's comments (and posts) so be careful about what you do with your mouse.
LikeLike
I'm pretty sure the first deletion by another person is going to be accidental. "I thought I was clicking on mine!"
LikeLike
Mark:I think okie is right.I also think chris would be pleased with himself for becoming the center of conversation here despite his absence. I don't want to please him, so I'm going to refrain from commenting talking about him (although I am certainly not without an opinion, as you might imagine.)
LikeLike
scottThat was a pretty decent joke but I have one question for you this morning. How do we explain the fact that the Plumline is a decidedly capitalist enterprise and our own ATiM is at least slightly to emphatically more communist? Is the difference that we're not dead yet?
LikeLike
Also for scottThis guarantee or backstop could potentially cause a great deal of grief no?
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Re deleting posts and comments, I was concerned about that last night while playing around with Blogger on my Droid and trying to figure out how it works. It has what appear to be live publish, delete, edit buttons in one section when you are viewing posts, and I was afraid a slip of the thumb would delete someone's post. Probably not for use while driving … not that I was doing that or anything, but I've heard there are people…But we'll be fine.
LikeLike
lms:I don't think that ATIM is communist at all. It is libertarian. A libertarian enterprise allows for much more meaningful communal action than does communism, at least communism as we know it.On the backstop, yes it has the potential to cause grief, but primarily for the ECB, which is intermediating between the Fed (and other central banks with $$) and the European banks. Even if the banks don't make good, the ECB still has to. Watch to see how much this new facility is actually being utilized to judge how much of a problem it is. At the moment, even the ECB 7-day lending program wasn't really being used. In the last two weeks only 2 banks borrowed something like $500mm from the ECB program. That is not a lot. Again, the intent is to provide confidence so that the program is less likely to be needed. But yes, of course when someone steps in to guarantee lending, that can end up being a problem for that lender of last resort.
LikeLike
I can scarcely read PL again this morning. Like a snail. Gotta go.
LikeLike
http://tinyurl.com/42q2sefsorry you have to paste this, but it is goodand somewhat funnyFelix Simon explains euro issue with toys and video clips
LikeLike
"Latest Headlines: Geithner presses EU to act decisively, speak as one."Yeah, just like the Democrats do back home.
LikeLike
"Paris bans Muslim street prayers"Those Muslims don't assimilate as well as they used to.
LikeLike
lmsinca: "How do we explain the fact that the Plumline is a decidedly capitalist enterprise and our own ATiM is at least slightly to emphatically more communist? Is the difference that we're not dead yet?"Actually, it's what's referred to as "flat management". We are highly decentralized. While we do pick and choose our leaders, we are much more parliamentary than dictatorial, or executive. Each has proved their interest in productive dialog already; and that is the barrier to entry. Rather than a lecture, where there are a few lecturers and many in the audience talking amongst themselves, we are a club.Our approach to the conversation is egalitarian. But I would also argue that even if this were a larger, socioeconomic political experiment, you can make socialism and small-c communism (the Soviet Union was highly centralized, and not very egalitarian, in practice) work well, as governing systems, if you can operate them as a club, where a very limited subset of people who had already established their ability to cooperate and work towards a common goal. As a system, communism and socialism can work, as long as everybody is on the same page. This can happen in a selective group, much more difficult to pull off in a larger sense. But a big part of the failure of communism around the globe is the associated political system. While many decry socialism, socialist democracies generally function, comparatively, much better than socialist/communist dictatorships. China may be an exception (very large), but if we grant that China is accomplishing much for a nominally communist nation, we have to give credit to the crony capitalism that is, in fact, funding it. I've been in business environments where top-down, centralized management is tried, and where egalitarian, flat management is tried. I think, generally, flat management works better, but the reality is, centralized management often works fine. But I like the idea of "the workers owning the means of production" (preferably by buying it or earning it, rather than armed revolution, but that's another discussion), and everybody having a role, a stake, and real power in the endeavor. Which may be a little grandiose a way of thinking about our little blog, but sometimes I do that.
LikeLike
shrink: "Those Muslims don't assimilate as well as they used to."I don't France is ever going to embrace multiculturalism like the Dutch or the UK. And despite Qaddafi's belief (as I recall) that a worldwide caliphate would be established, in the end, by consuming Western culture (via immigration) from the inside out, and not direct war, I think most countries will rebel, and start to do things like ban street prayers, or otherwise resist the "Islamization" of their country. While many view multiculturalism as a peaceful co-existence, there are some of this that consider our great big melting pot to be a product of assimilation and compromise. That is, if you want me to respect your culture, you respect mine. You show respect to your host country, even if there are things you don't like about it. If you want me to eat some falafel, I expect you to eat a corn dog. And also give me some more flafel. That stuff's good. When there is a sense, rightly or wrongly, that a sizable chunk of an immigrating population is constantly flipping you the bird, and trying to mold your society to reflect their values (with no give in the other direction), I suspect you're going to get some irritable Parisians.
LikeLike
One reason that the Chinese communism works (for now) is that they are very focused. (where a very limited subset of people who had already established their ability to cooperate and work towards a common goal)They have 5 year Plans, 10 Year Plans, etc, in just about every aspect of their society; that they are also a totalitarian society (and always have been) is what allows that system to work. That, and they aren't so dead-set against capitalism as Russia was with its brand of communism.That system will work fine on this blog, by definition. It won't work for our country, however. Shit, we have people that get bent out of shape because they are required to wear seat belts. And in some places, you can't use a cell phone while driving (want to see that everywhere!!!) unless it is hands-free; and they can't tolerate that either, despite the fact that they know damn good and well they are sharing the road with hundreds of other drivers, and are putting every one of those hundreds at risk by their action.
LikeLike
"Latest Headlines: Geithner presses EU to act decisively, speak as one."It's the United States of Europe. That's exactly what they need. Only I get a sense (from a distance) that in the United State of Europe, France would not enjoy the independence from Brussels that Texas does from DC.Am I right in thinking that the European Union constitution specifies the color of paint for government buildings and the width of all door jams in new construction? Or perhaps I'm exaggerating.
LikeLike
"That system will work fine on this blog, by definition."And we don't have to kill off–er, I mean, "take care of"–all the elderly and infirm for our 5 year plan. 😉
LikeLike
How are you defining "work," taroya? (Note how I asked a question instead of going for the jugular ….)
LikeLike
Okay, Kevin went for the jugular in that fuzzy Kevin way. I consider my daughter a sort of living proof of how China doesn't work, so i get a little sore when China is said to work. But I get it; they can get people living in hovels to build skyscrapers next door.
LikeLike
"How are you defining "work," taroya?"I define it broadly, myself, the way you'd define "work" for a car. If it moves forward when you press the gas pedal, and stops (at some point) when you hit the brake, then it is "working". There are many levels between a beat-down 1972 Buick LeSabre and a 2011 Mercedes or Lexus.China is clearly "working" in the broad sense. Some countries–Zimbabwe, North Korea–seem, at a distance, to be so dysfunctional (press on the gas, car goes sideways) that calling them "working" would be too charitable. Given the context, I think China is working better now than after the Cultural Revolution and probably better than it worked during the Sui Dynasty or the Manchu dynasty.
LikeLike
But I personally don't feel there is a single non-Democratic country that works, broadly, as well as even the most problematic democracy. I'd still prefer to live in Greece to China, thank you very much. 🙂
LikeLike
KevinMy comment to scott was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I do like your explanations. I don't consider myself ideologically driven so much as, let's try it if we think it will work, policy driven. I'm working on a post, so far only in mind, that I hope will clarify my position on many issues or at least why I actually consider myself a moderate. I used the DFH avatar at the plumline, albeit a cute one, as a way of saying to everyone, okay if I'm the hippie then the conversation has moved too far to the right.
LikeLike
I define 'work' the same way that Kevin does: press gas pedal, move forward.If China wasn't working, they wouldn't be owning our debt, now would they?Do I want a Chinese-style communist/capitalist state? No way on the face of this earth!Do I want a socialist/capitalist state? YES. Take care of the people, and they will take care of you.That does mean that a sense of responsibility must be instilled. What do I mean by responsibility? We are our brother's keeper as well as our own. We are in it all together. That means if someone wants to be slovenly and not work, it is OUR responsibility to assist and encourage that sloth to find something productive to do. We might even call that Job Training. I would have no problem whatsoever requiring the unemployed to volunteer for x hours of community service while they are out of a job. I don't see any downside to that.As for those that are incapable of work due to disability and/or illness (and/or age), it is OUR responsibility to enable them to live a dignified life, just like WE would like to have if we were in their place.
LikeLike
And look, no insults or jugulars! Perhaps I should change my avatar here to sleeping kitty.
LikeLike
China is working to destroy liberal democracy around the world, that is how it is working. Sounds paranoid? Just look at the numbers and listen, that big ol' sucking sound, that is our economic vitality and it is leaving, not only to China but to all of the grossly overpopulated places that didn't used to be able to take jobs from Americans in the name of "free" trade. They're batter at crony capitalism than we'll ever be, unless you've lived in Asia, you don't even know what corruption is.
LikeLike
Kevin:Hong Kong was not a democracy when I lived there ('92-'99). It was truly a colony, with a Governor appointed by the UK parlaiment. It worked exceedingly well.But I generally agree with you. HK is just a notable exception, I think.
LikeLike
shrink:They're batter at crony capitalism…Not "better". They just use it way more than we do. I know you like to paint our system as entirely corrupt, but the corruption in our system is relatively small and indirect (albeit not entirely benign). In China it is rampant and overt. And it is precisely for this reason that we don't have to worry about China, at least in the way you think. China is going to blow up at some point (huge amounts of unaccounted for, politically coerced bad loans sitting in desk drawers, for one thing). That may end up having bad ramifications for us, but not because they have sucked up our economic vitality.
LikeLike
These single party capitalist states (Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.) are criminal syndicates. The previous iteration of communism failed because they were isolationist, which had nothing to do with Marx/Engels nor Lenin and certainly not Trotsky. That happened because of Stalin and Mao, traumatized psychopaths they were. These new states are very into globalization, they love it. You want to know how corrupt some of these places, our competitors are? In Indonesia, the IMF loaned a lot of money to Suharto to build an elevated freeway system in and around Jakarta, which is an enormous swamp, really, no tunnels (no sewers!) are possible. Once it was complete, Suharto gave it, the whole freeway system, to his daughter, as a birthday present.She put up toll booths at every entrance and to this day, apart from the occasional mercedes SUV, most of the freeway system is empty (except at the exit ramps where it takes forever to get off) because the gridlocked surface streets still bear all the traffic.
LikeLike
Gee Scott, "I know you like to paint our system as entirely corrupt" no, I don't, don't start telling people what they do, just read. You are saying we have nothing to fear from totalitarian states, I am saying we have more to fear from them now than we ever have. It isn't true that they have to implode someday and we will benefit from that. That is a dream, there are no forces which make that have to come true.
LikeLike
"That may end up having bad ramifications for us, but not because they have sucked up our economic vitality."Why would it be bad for us if China's financial system collapsed if our welfare weren't now interdependent with theirs? You can call it what you want, but it didn't used to be true that our economic fate was linked to China.
LikeLike
"They're better at crony capitalism…Not "better". They just use it way more than we do." Yeah that is exactly what I am saying, I sure wasn't saying they are more moral about it, I am saying that is all they are.Frances Fukuyama, the neo con phenom, declared "the end of history" when the cold war ended, but as you know, I think it never did, it just demilitarized. I think America is being looted and that we need to defend ourselves from international crony capitalism.
LikeLike
ScottMaybe we should change the name of this thread to open thread Friday since no one has put up a new post.My question regarding our interdependence with China is this. Is it just that they own a certain portion of our debt or that our economy relies on the import of cheap goods to keep our working/middle class afloat? Does the fact that so many of our corporations set up shop there also play into the danger? In other words is it the trade imbalance, their monetary policy, or our debt that influences outcomes?
LikeLike
Or are you guys saying it's crony capitalism? I'm not sure I understand that unless it involves our capitalists which I guess it does. So can we affect that through policy here? I would guess yes, if we wanted to. Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud.
LikeLike
shrink:don't start telling people what they do, just readYou'll have to revoke my commenting privileges if that is all you expect from me.You are saying we have nothing to fear from totalitarian states…No, I didn't say that, and don't believe it. (Look who's telling others what they are doing now?)Why would it be bad for us if China's financial system collapsed if our welfare weren't now interdependent with theirs?It wouldn't be. Global interdependence is exactly why it would be bad for us, just as it would be bad for them.You seemed to imply that China was operating on some grand plan to undermine western democracy by "taking jobs" from Americans. That their success would be our demise. That just isn't so. We are certainly more connected now to the fate of China than ever before, which is why it will be their failure, not their success, which will be bad for us.
LikeLike
lms…I'll be back later to respond. BTW Mark has posted a new post.
LikeLike
"Do I want a socialist/capitalist state? YES. Take care of the people, and they will take care of you."We have that. The debate is, do we want more or less, and what parts, specifically, do we want more of, and which parts do want less of? Arguments about Social Security reform (such as Bush's SS reform which, for anyone who has forgotten, I supported) become arguments about "privatization" when, they are, in fact, an argument about which is the best form for the socialism to take. Even Paul Ryan's medicare replacement depends on the government to issue vouchers. And probably approve who is eligible to be voucher recipients. "As for those that are incapable of work due to disability and/or illness (and/or age), it is OUR responsibility to enable them to live a dignified life, just like WE would like to have if we were in their place."I tend to agree, although I think expanding the scope of government responsibility should always be examined, and considered in the light of what will have the maximum benefit–with the understanding that the government probably cannot ever help everybody to the level we would ideally want to.
LikeLike
Of course China is working to disable ALL other gov't, and not just become the global leader, but to be the ONLY gov't.So are we. So is just about every other country. No shit we want everyone to have OUR gov't.We have no idea how all of this will work out in the end. For all we know, in 50 years we will have a Federation-style Star Trek global gov't.(–was interrupted by job in middle of post..where was I?)The thing is, there are pros and cons to every system. I would think it to be our job to figure out how to combine the most positive aspects of all systems together into one.How? No clue. What would it be? No clue.That is why we have 'discussions'.
LikeLike
Thanks scott, I'll check newer threads. I'm busy today also. I was just trying to get a handle on the issues.
LikeLike
"I know you like to paint our system as entirely corrupt" no, I don't, don't start telling people what they do, just read. You are saying we have nothing to fear from totalitarian states,Was that particular exchange meant to be ironic? If so, then, good show, man. Good show!I tend to think that, while our fate is intertwined with Chinas, it would be good for us to use that fact to push them towards being better citizens of the world . . . at the expense of, sadly, having more expensive electronic gadgets and Chinese steel. I refer to Mark's previous suggestion that free trade be dependent on adherence to restrictions on child labor, and the right to free association. And if they don't, a great big tariff on your imports!
LikeLike
Absolutely the scope of gov't should always be examined.That is the reason that I have always stated that conservatism is a necessity just as liberalism is. Liberals come up with the ideas, and the conservatives do indeed ask: How do we pay for it? Doesn't have to always be monetary terms.These days, I then follow up with: conservatism is NOT found in a tea cup. Or tea bag.Not everyone can be helped, and not everyone wants to be helped, even if they need it. That is human nature, has been for millenia. Doesn't mean it is right, it just is.I will never agree to privatize SS. It will not work.
LikeLike
I would agreee to a portion of SS being individual accounts, and it likely would work, I think. I'd even be all right with starting small–a small portion of your social security contributions, if you are below a certain age, start going to an individual account that is yours, and you can pass along when you die. It could be government bonds, at least at the outset. I wouldn't exactly consider that wholesale privatization. It could be tooled as an expansion of the current defined benefit system, by combining it with a defined contribution. I'd be all right if it was 5% of what we pay (this is a very small amount), offset by a similarly minor increase in withholding for the defined benefit portion of the program. What I describe is a slightly more centrist version of the Bush approach. Good or bad, privatization it is not.
LikeLike
"Liberals come up with the ideas"Big government conservatives also come up with ideas. I don't tend to like them any more than the ideas many big government liberals come up with, but liberals and Democrats hardly have the market cornered on government expansion. I give you the Department of Homeland security. The TSS. Medicare part D. If Richard Nixon had actually governed anything like a conservative, I could also give you OSHA, the EPA, COLAs, and much more.
LikeLike
"The thing is, there are pros and cons to every system. I would think it to be our job to figure out how to combine the most positive aspects of all systems together into one."That's sort of what we have. So far, the best we have found is something like what we've got–a system filled with yelling, politics, chicanery, double-standards, gridlock, etc. But the outcome tends to be a mix of both the best and the less-than-best ideas of both sides (while some of the genuinely good ideas also don't move forward–it's the price of the system, I suppose).
LikeLike
:)Here is where we will begin to diverge.DHS? Terrible.Medicare part D? Abysmal.Let the libs take care of the people stuff, and the repubs the military stuff.After all, military only exists to blow things up, including people. That means I really don't trust republicans. 🙂 They are necessary, but I don't have to like it.Not that I wouldn't like to blow things up now and then……….Observation: why are all of the programs you list (OSHA, EPA) regulatory bodies? I thought repubs were all for individual freedom? (heh heh).I will never agree to SS being any kind of privatized, at any level, not even the level that you suggest.The reason is that it would be too easy to game that system. Oh, my account? So, I can borrow against it like a 401(k), and buy a house, and a car, and a……
LikeLike
"Here is where we will begin to diverge."No, SS is where we diverge. "So, I can borrow against it like a 401(k)"I do not have a problem with this. Responsible borrowing against the small part of their individual account? "and the repubs the military stuff."Fair enough, except they spend like drunken sailors. I suppose a world-beating military, but our military spending is huge, and opaque."DHS? Terrible.Medicare part D? Abysmal."I agree 100%. Toldya, that's not where we start to diverge, we're still in the same place. I don't care for Big Government conservatism. "why are all of the programs you list (OSHA, EPA) regulatory bodies? I thought repubs were all for individual freedom?"Not Nixon. Dude instituted wage and price controls to fight inflation. He couldn't have been more to the left on that if he had gone to Russia and became a member of the politburo.
LikeLike
I *support* a world-beating military. Not suppose. Heh.
LikeLike
I happen to like a strong military as well, along the lines of walk softly and carry a big stick. SS does seem to be where we diverge..fairly small divergence, I think.
LikeLike