| Author |
Message |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 9:33 am: | |
Hilarly Clinton would have made a quite good Wilma Flintstone I suppose. We can complete the picture with Betty Rubble. However I don't recall she ever wore glasses. Maybe they weren't invented back then? |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 3:48 pm: | |
Hm, the financial markets are looking really quite frightening at the moment. It is beginning to look more and more like they can't stop the wreck happening. |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 11:58 am: | |
Postmodernism amounts to this: the subversion of common sense by ordinary life. It no longer requires art. Ordinary life is full of 'exoticisms' - idiocies - that defeat common sense by saturation. In a street encounter - a man talking to himself, laughing and pulling faces as if he were perfectly sane; prolonged silences get filled with sudden volubility, followed by sets of hand gestures and moments of staring into space as if he were listening to coherent speech. He is talking to someone wirelessly on his mobile: but he is talking into the empty air. He is the image of an insane sanity. What this financial crisis emphasises again and again is that it is the concept of normality that is the most persistent, the one hardest to be rid of. We still go about our daily lives as if nothing has happened and nothing is happening. Like some kind of gyroscope normality gets knocked but then spins itself back into a central position. I think it is one of the things that stops our politicians from adopting any sort of strategic thinking - they seem to have no strategic imagination: unlike someone such as say Will Hutton, who however wild he may get is very imaginative in his approach to this crisis. Too many politicians seem to think instead that they are merely facing an uncomfortable normality rather than what it actually is, a sea change. |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 3:57 pm: | |
Let's get an expert's view of all this, shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 10:07 am: | |
I assume that is a clip of Betty Rubble doing her controversial best to make some sort of sense of this darned ol' silly world of ours.
(I am locked out of it here at work.)
They have partially nationalised the banks. Goodbye to M Thatcher's big bang deregulated world. Amazing, we have undergone such a change in social, political and economic life and nothing looks any different! |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 1:42 pm: | |
>>Amazing, we have undergone such a change in social, political and economic life and nothing looks any different!
I'm not sure the change happened yet. Either that or we're on a drip feed of change.
We're still in denial and pointless fall out prevention, don't you think? |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 4:18 pm: | |
Not Ms. Rubble, no - John Bird explaining to John Fortune how subprime actually works.
Yo, Dave - hope y're okay over there. Here, there seems endless cold sweat (Prime Minister and Chancellor both look five years older than yesterday) and various folk at work are now talking about working till their 70s, just to meet their endowment mortgage. I don't know anyone tied up with the Iceland internet bank - but my morning train has more and more anxious suits muttering share details into cell phones.
About 3 months ago, my oldest friend asked me: should we really be worried about all this? If he'd been a politician, that remark would now be quote of the year. As it is, my view is Howard Devoto's: maybe it's right to be nervous now ... |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi Martin. I'm doing alright, thanks.
I do have a confession to make though. I like seeing the Wall Streeters sweat. Anxiety suits them. |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 6:03 pm: | |
'The Edge of the Abyss'
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/09-3
Despite an admirable attempt at outlining the problem clearly, this article's solution seems to be to lapse into hyperbolic metaphor and '60's nostalgia.
But, I have to admit, it's difficult to problem solve when you can't get past the abstract nature of the problem. |
iotar
Username: iotar
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 10:04 am: | |
Meanwhile our "no shit, Sherlock" correspondent reports:
"Repossession 'is mental threat'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7662119.stm |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 12:20 pm: | |
The "cute baby" line is open to question these days - but my parents remembered this lyric from the Thirties, and would murmur it to keep things in perspective:
No more money in the bank
No cute baby we can spank
What's to do about it
Let's put out the lights and go to sleep |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 10:25 am: | |
One of the questions that will be asked is how so many experts in finance failed to anticipate the current financial crisis in any form. About six months ago I remember seeing a comentator/financier commenting on upheavals then, that had been happening that afternoon in New York. His face was aghast, there was real shock in it, but he still managed his five minutes of online spiel. In spite of wishing and wanting. |
alex
Username: alex
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 1:03 pm: | |
Failed to anticipate? Are we sure they didn't? It's the Illuminati, you know. |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 4:35 pm: | |
I don't think there was any failure to anticipate the crisis. The people creating the bubble just didn't need to worry about anticipating risk as they're entirely capable of dodging the fallout.
Have you guys seen this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugma n.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
'Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?'
I'm not sure what to make of it. Perhaps you can clue me in a bit? |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 10:15 am: | |
I would say that since Gordon Brown seems to be willing to take a degree of responsibility for the fiasco his actions have got the measure of things so far. Be interesting to see what are the longer term effects of these bank nationalisations. |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 10:26 am: | |
Brown uses money from tax (us) to buy a controlling stake in weak banks who have unsecured loans with the public (us), guaranteeing their liquidity with public assets (us again). This means the banks have the security to loan more money to the public (us yet again), so that the whole circus doesn't collapse around us. But "we" don't have any say in how these banks are now run - the government does, through new boardroom appointees.
In practical terms, this is nationalisation - or state socialism. I'm not sure how the international "free market" will gloss it, but that's what we're talking about. Effectively, the state acts as guarantor for the market, and supplies collateral that the banks were too greedy to demand from their bad-risk customers in the first place.
If we had bank managers as they used to be, of course, who demanded firm collateral for any loan, none of this would have happened.
http://www.snaithprimary.eril.net/fpage/captain.jp g |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 1:56 pm: | |
Hi Martin, I guess what I meant was more about being clued into the Gordon Brown aspoect of things. What do you think of what he's doing? He seems as shady as the rest of the lot of politicians, but he's getting high praise for this. Seems odd to me. Am I just being paranoid, or do you think his leadership on this issue has potential? |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 2:31 pm: | |
Brown sees it as a chance to restore his domestic standing: though most of us see that his policies got us into this mess in the first place. Internationally, I think he's allowed a lot of regimes to think the unthinkable, and nationalise as a necessity without losing face: it's inconceivable for Bush to have done this even a year ago.
Which power bloc will truly benefit when the dust settles is anyone's guess. For the time being, most of us are simply glad that we're not facing immediate redudancy, repossession or (it seems) utter pension wipe-out. |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 4:23 pm: | |
>>For the time being, most of us are simply glad that we're not facing immediate redudancy, repossession or (it seems) utter pension wipe-out.
Yeah, terrifying prospects abound. Personally, I've dodged a lot of these bullets: I'm young and only just graduated with my MA, so, given that I only just recently got my first "real" job and I decided to pay off studnet debt before opening a 401K, I haven't lost anything.
Over here, rumblings are starting: What sort of stock will the tax payers get as a result of the gvernment using their money to sure things up? What is Wall Street going to do for the nation given what the nation's tax payers are doing for Wall Street? This sort of thing...
I honestly don't know enough about the potential repercussions of nationalisation. On one hand, I worry that the bail out doesn't represent an actual shift in ideology (how can it when those responsible for the crisis are not only not being held accountable, but are being compensated for their losses) and that the markets will refuse to work no matter how much cash is poured into them. On the other hand, maybe the tax payer anger caused by the bailout will finally radicalize voters such that motivation for a real ideological shift finally comes together. |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:14 am: | |
If the fourth paragraph from the article linked below is any indication, I think I know what to think of Brown and his role in all this.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/14-8
Also, this kind of thinking seems cause for hope:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081027/zinn
Zinn is a saint. |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 10:34 am: | |
I like and admire George Monbiot. However, I can't agree with some of the things he has written recently: he is becoming increasingly like a British version of Ralph Nader - I know you admire him too Dave but .,..- Monbiot is painting himself into a corner some imaginary kingdom. (Later.) |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:27 pm: | |
Whatever: I didn't know the Greek root of "ecology" = house-keeping. That's today's small satori. |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 1:25 pm: | |
>>he is becoming increasingly like a British version of Ralph Nader
Sweet. I'll keep my eyes peeled for his articles. ;)
Looks like he's right about ecology, but how we get from ecology to environment to greens to freak is anybody's guess:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ecology &searchmode=none
Where I'll be tomorrow at noon:
http://www.votenader.org/events/nyc/ |
martin
Username: martin
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 2:59 pm: | |
But - hey!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDqSvJ6aHc
 |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 4:39 pm: | |
Chuck Norris is still keeping the faith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ-lQMUn0xw |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 5:52 pm: | |
Monbiot again:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/28
MJP, I'm interested to hear why you have been developing a dislike for Monbiot. I've only read a few of his columns, but think he's okay so far. In particular, this article linked above seems pretty accurate to me. Sounds like you've been reading him for much longer though. |
mjp
Username: mjp
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 11:47 am: | |
I do like Monbiot alot. It's difficult to put it into words. However, I think there is some sort of danger of Monbiot fantasising the world, Tolkien-like, into Good and Evil men. There are no such things. Not like that. A few weeks ago he talked about the American car industry and how they haven't made their cars any more fuel efficient since the Model T Ford. Who knows, it might be true. The sound of American cars irritates me. That big burbling rumble; unlike European cars. On the other hand, things have changed somewhat since the Model T. I can't see why George Monbiot can't be positive occasionally and think of working with the car industry instead of just against it, making monotonous sounds of complaint. We live in a car economy. Some good has come of it. I am somewhat sceptical of Monbiot's dainty relentless pernickity endlessly finding fault with the world. Compare his comments say with Richard Rorty's in the New York Review of Books, about the Bush administration. Where Monbiot's are vague and derogatory, Rortys' are precise and businesslike: they concern issues of judicial oppression and threat from the Bush administration. |
dave
Username: dave
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi MJP. I'll have to be watchful for that sort of dynamic as I read him in the future. There is a lot of hyperbole in his writing style.
Have you read much of Chris Hedges? He writes about similar topics and with similar vehemence, but he tends to be fairly measured. |
dan
Username: dan
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2008 - 9:29 am: | |
I find the same thing with Monbiot - great sentiment, but hard to take entirely seriously. |
