Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Merit: Advancement by Aptitude & Statistical Measure; Meth in Small Town America; and "Mort" (Death
declaredemer
Member Posts: 2,698
INTRODUCTION
This is what happens when I leave work early. I have not created a Topic in a while. At least, I feel as if I have not. And since I am still in mourning, I thought I should write . . . something. Uncharacteristically out of order:
From Bailout to Bankruptcy and Back - Again
At the nadir of economic insanity, similar to how health care will consume at least one-fifth of the U.S. economy in due time, all growth in 2006 was virtually tied to building, selling, and financing a home. Behavioral economists seek to understand (and explain) why people drive out of their way to save $5 on a $15 item but not $5 on a $125 item. A principle of real estate, perhaps related, is that no one ever (ever) purchases the home they want. People can hardly find the house they really want, let alone "buy" the house they REALLY want. NOW COMES easy money, easy credit, "no stated income" terms on loans. A mad rush to the bank for what was for all practical intents and purposes free money occurred. Over-extended, over-worked, over-leveraged, yet underpaid, people finally got the home they REALLY wanted (with more cash than expected). It seemed unreal. It was.
The auto industry did not fare well, even with taxpayer money, which will of course be discharged. It was a weird funneling of taxpayer money in terms of how the auto industry will not fulfill its responsibilities, yet the taxpayer will through guarantees, bailouts, and other programs 100% unrelated to industry. Even when the auto industry collapses, finance wins. I should have been a banker, even more so than a doctor, everyone thinks you must know EVERYTHING. Afterall, you are a banker.
Merit
Merit is one of the most elusive terms. We all desire, or at least should desire, a meritocracy in our institutions. The path toward success and advancement, however, is blocked by tests (college, licensing, certification, etc.). We have placed a lot of stock in those who (a) test well and (b) possess aptitude. We believe, unwittingly, that this is the measure and method by which we achieve a meritocracy. My philosophy is, and always has been, that an exam cannot measure the "important stuff" that transcends every exam: character, courage, bravery, determination, inter alia.
As the entitled generation finds itself unable to afford an art trip in Italy or their parents unwillingness to finance an internship at a prestigious "think tank," this rude-awakening will be good for our society. The work experience of $7.25 an hour will teach them lessons and skills and knowledge about life and themselves they will not get elsewhere. And, as I write this, I would like a glass with just ice with my drink - thanks. Pouring drinks, waiting tables, and pumping gas --contributing in the service sector-- will also help lift our economy in this recession.
I digress, however, and would like to return to our test-based establishment. Because one scores high an aptitude test does not mean she will appreciate fine art, really absorb shakespeare, or put in the extra effort to get the job done (and done well).
An aptocratic, test-based establishment is frustrating for some (many?)
Meth
How do you tell a small town American to "think globally" and then to "act globally"? The answer eludes me. An almost invisible culture of shut-down and shut-out factories; inadequate schools (tax revenue down); corporate dominated farming; and old-town country roads. I consider it "fly over" country. It is a place where chain-smoking is still "OK" and drinking cheap canned beer is socially acceptable. Hardly anyone has heard of Chomsky or Kant.
A classic meth image
The cycle of abuse involving production, distribution, and consumption of meth is leading to utter catastrophe in small town America; an invisible culture already with big problems. Can small town American be revitalized? Can one kick a meth habit?
CONCLUSION
I wonder how future generations will look upon this generation. Although I am still in mourning and still waiting for my glass with ice in it, let's just look at the NY TIMES NONFICTION Paperback Best Sellers :
- Number 1: GLEN BECK'S "COMMON SENSE", by Glen Beck
On a positive note, Al Franken aka Stuart Smalley was sworn in as Senator for the great State of Minnesota, and Governor Palin of Alaska resigned. Our leaders.
Comments
No, one can't kick the meth habit. As the A.A. and N.A. people say "Once an addict/alcoholic, always one." The only way to really free people off of things like that is to remove the source, or remove THEM from the source. Sure, they may eventually find another dealer but they'll have to actually work at doing that. If you put them back into the same environment they already know the dealers.
Meth is a scourge because its a man-made chemical drug. Nothing good can come from that as casual drug use. People using meth always think they can handle it, which is why they always fail. As a chemical it alters their bodies just like steroids or any other drug does, but in a harmful way.
You said you're in mourning but I don't know what from. Whatever it is, I hope you get over it soon and it doesn't haunt you for long.
"TO MICHAEL!"
[*]Sarah Palin's sudden, and let's face it - unexpected, resignation;
Michael Jackson's sudden, and let's face - not THAT unexpected, death.
His death was unexpected to me. I certainly wouldn't expect a 50 year old icon like him to die this "young". I hadn't heard any rumors of drug use and he was always weird, but I never heard of him strung out on drugs. That was a shock.
Palin was a shock that she'd run away like that. But that tickles me after all her "sacrifice" and "true grit" talk during the election vs Obama.
I guess you're kidding about one, but not about the other. I'm not sure why Palin would make you mourn so I'm guessing /sarcasm, lol.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Sounds like you're mourning the loss of the middle class. Fact is, we lost them long ago.
The middle class has been trading manufacturing jobs for service jobs + a credit card for many years. It's unfortunate that by the time they realized what was happening, it was already too late. By then they had 4 mouths to feed and no time/money for continued education.
So, what do you do in this situation?
Well, meth makes it possible to work a second or third job, but it's awful taxing. Then again, the expectations aren't that high when you're at the doughnut shop at 3, go stock the retail shelves at 8, and repo cars by night. Two hours of sleep? Fuck it, I can rage on for a couple more days.
The other option is the military, that business is always booming. Free health care to boot!
I think you got my number, which is slightly disconcerting for me (unknown to me at this time why).
You mentioned the credit card. I have had TWO credit cards canceled on me because I do NOT use them; it shocks me to hear the balance that people have. I basically use one card, and only one card, for varied reasons. I have never (ever) missed any kind of payment of any kind. I have never, ever, borrowed and made installment payments; I have always paid in full when my bill (credit card or otherwise) has come due. My car, e.g.,? All cash. Everything - all cash or later paid-in-full. And what do these banks do? CANCEL MY CARDS (for not using them). LOL. Responsibility, and responsible people, increasing are "weird" and get punished. It is, and I had to use this language because of the faux-melodrama, fucked.
IT GETS WORSE (like a, "but wait - there's more!")
Robert C. Pozen, Systemic Risk and the Fed, Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2009 online.wsj.com/article/SB124709521417414867.html ("it is a mistake to give the central bank vast new regulatory powers"). Moreover, in today's article, "the U.S. Treasury has proposed that a council of eight regulatory agencies be appointed to minotor the so-called problem of systemic risk. Treasury also wants the Federal Reserve to become the exclusive regulatory of all financial institutions deemed systemically risky." The author goes on to REMIND US, "A good case can be made that the Fed already has too much power, and should give up its current authority to set customer rules for mortgages and credit cards."
YES. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SETS THE RULES FOR (A) MORTGAGES and (B) CREDIT CARDS.
Jane J. Kim, Fixed-Rate Credit Cards May Vanish, Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2009, at D4 online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203577304574276302614628572.html (Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Discover Financial Services have notifed customers that their fixed rates were changing to a variable one.) DOES THIS REMIND NO ONE OF THE ARM (ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE)?
YES. PEOPLE CAN GET SCREWED WITH A VARIABLE RATE, SIMILAR TO AN ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE.
They want ME out of the credit card game for some reason. But a lot of people with balances are going to get trapped, but do NOT take my word for it.
EDIT: Know what is funny? I predict, right now, a bail-out for credit balances, as delinquent accounts are the HIGHEST on record I just read in the Journal. But? Guess what? The bail-out will NOT be for the household or individual behind; they will still be required to service that debt, somehow, just like their mortgages. Do NOT take my word for it on a bail-out for credit card balances.
All business entities resist shrink. Success is measured by growth, not profit. However, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The losses will be astronomical for credit card companies. A bailout may be proposed, but it will not pass. Which might actually be a bad thing (depending how near/far down the time line you want to look). I do, however, believe that the credit card companies will make concessions. There's really no other way. Like I said, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
I honestly think if people knew how shakey the economy is right now they'd be very afraid. I'm just thankful that fear isn't being manipulated TOO much by the current administration. Then again, when it drops like a ton of bricks, it could be ten times worse. This is going to take decades to correct itself (that's decades of GOOD policies, not considering if bad policies are implimented). We're currently propping up a failed system until we can figure out a course of action. It's only a matter of time until the rigging gives way, though, and if there's no net by then, god help us.
I almost want to laugh every time someone says "no economic recovery yet, what's the deal?". Then, other times, I want to cry.
Agreed.
The "me want it fixed now" generation of conservatives doesn't understand that this was a long time coming.
The economy was slowing down when Clinton left office back in 2001. That wasn't a big deal in itself, as we couldn't have record growth every year and most of it was based on non-tangible things, not goods. (internet, hedgefunds, credit) The problem was when Bush came in, he went right to work spending money. He even spent before 9/11. The wars were just the straw that broke the camel's back.
If he had waited just one year instead of creating Homeland Security, giving tons of no-bid contracts to Halliburton and spending like a drunken frat boy it may have not been so bad.
But because with the other hand, politicians (Dems and Repubs) were letting corporate giants off the hook tax wise and allowing loopholes, repeal of bankruptcy laws for individuals and all kinds of Enron-esque chicanery, there was just no way everything was going to stay sane while having TWO wars.
That puss-filled sore called debt had to burst sometime, unfortunately it burst right as Bush was leaving office and he kept downplaying the recession as "not a recession".
"TO MICHAEL!"
This bubble and burst cycle is what you get when you have no oversight. It's the illusion of good business, an exercise in making as much as you can, as fast as you can, then getting out before it goes bust (rinse repeat). It's not a sound economy, but both republicans and democrats have encouraged it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul and hoping you can find someone else to rob to pay Peter. It's actually a legal ponzi scheme, funded by citizens' mutual funds and 401ks.
Ahhh credit cards. I know people who have over $50k in credit card debt right now. It's so strange to me that some view it as an extension of income. Almost like "I made $50k in salary + $15k in credit balance -$1500 in payments. That means I made $63,500". It's totally absurd and leads to more cards and higher limits.
I can understand why the mortgage brokers were doing what they did (lack of oversight made it a no lose situation), but I really can't understand the philosophy of credit card companies.
I used to gamble. I played pool for money. I always knew there was a threshold when I needed to get paid or I would likely be stiffed and would have to eat the loss. I've known that since I was 13 years old, but bankers still haven't figured that out?
Sure, the wars took a toll. However, tearing down the regulations and oversight is what breeds the bubble/burst structure. It will continue to get worse and worse, I fear. We're just now starting to learn the full extent of how much "play money" we have invested. There are many dominoes left to fall (unless we prop them up with more tax dollars). I do agree that a certain amount of propping was necessary, but at some point we have to shift to solutions instead of damage control. I'm just not optimistic that it'll be very soon.
People went from a "magazine lifestyle" to an "affluent magazine lifestyle."
Such as
In wicked retreat, a sort-of dreamed burned, people must borrow more (and more) to sustain a fantasy lifestyle. This time, however, their access to credit and capital is CUT-OFF. I think when "they" (Palin and Jackson fans) surrender more of their (a) jobs, (b) homes, (c) dollars, (d) time, (e) Constitutional rights, and (f) other, then -finally- will they be "saved" and "rescued."
It is truly, and oddly, spooky watch this unfold. A culture where everyone wants to be King ("the King of pop") whose legacy is that of forcing the hands of Kings and royalty.
Tax 'em, ticket 'em, because I am not bailing-out everyone.
EDIT: And a culture that has refused to bow to Kings, beginning with the courage of John Adams not to bow to the King, His Majesty, of England (The United Kingdom and Northern Island and blah blah blah). Trust me, I love the British, and I like the British crown in general. Just wanted to make a point. They say there is no celebrity like that in the United States; that is because people, quite literally, become "kings" and live as such. Even comport themselves as such.
Everyone feels deserving of such status, and honestly, why shouldn't they? It's tough being middle class in the US these days. It's not nearly as fulfilling as it used to be. There's no satisfaction in doing the best thing for your family when your concept of 'the best thing for your family' is buying them off.
My son wants a pair of $150 sneakers. I'd better buy them for him or he won't like me.
My wife wants a new stainless steel fridge. I better buy one for her or she won't respect me.
My boss wants me to work the weekend. I'd better do it or I'll lose my bonus to that slut Rachel and I won't be able to pay the minimum after charging the sneakers and fridge. Guess I'll have to miss my son's basketball game. I sure hope he doesn't give me a guilt trip, I really can't afford one right now.
It's no surprise that people are over leveraged. They've not only been conditioned to people please, they've been conditioned to think that material objects are the only way to please people. So you become bitter, and start to blame these possessions and the fashion in which they've enslaved you with such ruthless efficiency.
As far back as I can remember, kids have asked for things. Usually more things than most responsible parents could afford. I wonder at what point parents started saying "okay, you can have it", even though they couldn't afford it. Probably around the same time mortgage brokers started saying "sure you can afford it! Ever hear of negative amortization? Adjustable rates? Graduated payments?". No money down sounds like a splendid deal when you can't come up with any money down. Hell, it's exactly what you want to hear at that point. So purchasers delegated responsibility to people they thought they could trust. It was a good deal for everyone involved...until the roof caved in.
Will this economic transition be good or bad? Well, that depends on the mindset of the American people. If they continue to invest in worthless shit, that they can't really afford, then it just spirals out of control again. If they actually start to reevaluate what's really important, then it will be a positive change (as painful as it will be to correct our previous actions). I do think we're finally on the right track, though, which is why I voted for Obama. After all, if nothing else has been proven since the election it's that the fundamentals of the economy ARE NOT sound.
My persistent theme has been REinvest in America - Again. We are restructuring our auto-industry. We ought to restructure our health care system. I also was drawn to what was mentioned about student loan forgiveness because there is no better way, in many respects, to REinvest in America - Again by investing in our future. Even more, and I spoke with a good friend of mine about this who is pursuing an advanced degree in Taxation, these people would spend more. Instead of so much of their incomes going to finance --interest on car debt; student loan debt; mortgage debt; and more-- it could go to other things.
So much of spending in the U.S. is toward finance and health care that it is a serious problem. (In previous posts, I have identified three areas that concern me most: (1) excessive debt (public and private; (2) health care costs; and (3) taxes (being too low in some areas and too high in others). I think we need to at least consider options for student loan forgiveness because it is one area where we could generate spending, inspire confidence, and invest in young minds. It could also deal with the excessive private debt problem, and it could be possibly structured in a way not to transfer private debt to public debt.
We still have a lot of funds available to contribute to our national infrastructure, institutions of health care, energy, education, and so forth, and elsewhere. It is exciting. We have to watch inflation, but we need to get the wheels moving again.
I found this lecture, by Elizabeth Warren, particularly fascinating. Most people probably don't recognize that name because she's a commercial law scholar, rather because she was named to chair the oversight committee for the the banking bailouts.
The whole thing is quite good, but It starts getting into health care around 30:00. You'd probably enjoy it, if you haven't seen it already.