Skip to content
thepete.com - » capitalism thepete.com

TheAdvertising:
:gnisitrevdAehT

Reuters: Everything Good is Bad Again

by ThePete 1:13 pm 2008-11-19

Spotted this article on Reuters.com this morning called "October consumer prices and home starts plummet" and found it really fascinating.  If you read it, it talks about things like housing prices dropping and deflation as bad things.  Think about that for a moment.

Houses dropping in price means more people can afford houses and fewer new loans will be defaulted on.

Isn't that good for the economy?

It's certainly good for people who want to buy homes.

But the Reuters article insists that the economy is weakening even further than it has.

The article also mentions deflation as another example of an ever-sinking economy.  The thing is, what do we mostly bitch about when it comes to money? 

Inflation.

So, shouldn't deflation be a good thing to us?

I say yes.

While the article also reports on consumer prices dropping and a few other things that generally the economy is weakening, I say prices dropping are part of the system working.  Yep, that's right–this is ThePete saying capitalism and free market economics both work just fine when not abused.  Leaving them be, letting losses and crashes occur means that things were getting to big for the system to support.  Now we can rebuild on more stable footing. 

Prices dropping is a natural function of the law of supply and demand.  We American consumers have stopped spending as much as we used to–THIS IS A GOOD THING.

This fills my heart with hope for humanity that we're not just a bunch of dumb sheep doing what we're told.  This is proof we can react to what is really happening and do the right, logical thing.

So, we stop spending, prices drop to entice us to buy, to a certain degree we do, and slowly but surely, the economy builds back up again.

Color me malfunctioning, but my memory circuits tell me this is how things are supposed to work.

Bailouts now would just delay our economy's recovery.

Tell me I'm wrong–please–and tell me how so I can learn.  Thanks.

One last thing about this article.  Since it puts everything in terms of its level of badness for the economy, despite those things being good for consumers and really the stability of the whole system, doesn't this article end up coming off like an advertisement for the corporate greed mindset?  That we all need to be buying and borrowing at all times to keep the economy moving and growing and dominating (despite it's complete crashing and bleeding out recently)?  It reminds me of how the media isn't liberally biased, it's biased toward money–and the furthering of the belief that "greed is good."

Gordon Gecco is dead.  Let's leave him buried, shall we?

Posted by email from thepete’s posterous

John Edwards and Poverty, the Lost Cause #bad08

by ThePete 2:48 pm 2008-10-15

So, it’s Blog Action Day and so all of us bloggers taking part are supposed to be writing about poverty today. The thing is, I’m in politics-mode until November 4 (and probably after) so I’ve been wrestling with what to write. While pondering, I remembered John Edwards.

He was the first politician to make me feel like there was hope for the future. How did he do this?

By talking about poverty.

They always say that you can tell the moral strength of a nation by how they treat their prisoners. Well, I think they should change that saying to refer to poor people.

Our country hates the poor and strangely, John Edwards, back, during the 2004 presidential campaign was talking about poor folks and poverty. Yep–a rich, successful white man was talking about poverty. The thing is that he wasn’t just talking about how poor people needed help, he was talking about how it was impossible for them to get it because there were two different Americas–one for the rich and the other for the poor.

Notice he didn’t have a third America for the middle class. I think he understood that the middle class was dwindling and ultimately didn’t account for anywhere near as many votes as the poor people did. Or it could have been that he just cared about people who lived every day below the poverty line. When ever I hear any leader (especially white leaders) talk about poverty I get excited because I know it’s the biggest crime that continues to occur on our planet.

Just yesterday I read on CNN.com (here: www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/10/14/world.health.report/index.html ) about how the World Health Organization is freaking out because so many people are suffering, unable to get the health care they need. Just the article’s summary points are scary enough:

# Health care disparities make world “neither stable nor secure,” WHO director says
# Report: 43 percent of women giving birth this year will do so without medical help
# Tajikistan, Sierra Leone have 40-year gap in life expectancy despite expenditures
# Report applauds Iran, Cuba for finding ways to improve health care

It’s disgusting how we let profit run everything because it’s letting so many people suffer and die every day. Poverty isn’t just a problem in other countries, either. It’s a problem right here in the US. When I lived in the Carolinas back in the 90s, I discovered the existence of a community that lived inside a junk yard. Called The Blackmon Road Community, these people have had a generation be born and grow up there. APlaceForHope.Net is the website of a non-profit that delivers services to the people in this neighborhood and has done so for years. On the site’s history page they explain more about the Blackmon Road Community:

The Blackmon Road Community is comprised of approximately 20 families (75-100 individuals) living along Archer Dr., Joe Louis Blvd., and Blackmon Rd., just off of SC 72.

The neighborhood area has drawn York County’s poor and destitute for several decades, harboring those unable to find affordable housing, as well as those suffering from the afflictions of alcohol and drug addiction. Many of the residents today live without electricity or indoor plumbing, and in a number of cases, are literally homeless squatters. The past efforts of the county to address the extreme poverty of the community have been hindered by complicated property ownership issues, and have ultimately resulted in little significant support for the area. Residents of the community have depended upon the compassion of churches and faith based initiatives, concerned individuals, and community organizations to help them meet their most immediate needs.

So, having been touched by the plight of these people, hearing John Edwards run for president on a platform that would address the issues facing these people made me very happy. I saw him talk at an event televised on C-SPAN (yay C-SPAN!) and immediate went to Edward’s campaign site and donated $20.

To this day, that is the only money I’ve ever donated to any campaign ever.

When he announced he was running again in 2008 I was excited. I was really pulling for him again. Sure, I didn’t agree with him on a lot of fronts (and he is a YAWG - Yet Another White Guy), but he cared about poor people!! This was huge! Hell, the last guy who did that and ran for president was Bobby Kennedy. We all know what happened to him.

Lucky for Edwards, no one assassinated him. Though you could easily argue that he assassinated himself.

When he dropped out of the race for president, I was disappointed. However, for a while there, it looked like Obama might pick Edwards as his running mate. This got me excited all over again. But as it turned out, there was already something in Edwards’ past that would assassinate his career.

We all know how that story ended now.

But flashback to when Edwards dropped out of the race–he spoke with Obama and Clinton and then assured his followers that both had promised to pursue poverty in their platforms.

Since then, I haven’t heard anything about poverty from either Clinton or Obama.

So, with Edwards’ lost political career so is his favorite cause lost in the shuffle–poverty.

What’s so wrong with helping people out? I don’t get it.

It kills me every time I hear the phrase “get a job” because not only does it mean that someone has no compassion for their fellow human, but it means there’s another person who buys into the system and the idea that everything is equal and that everyone’s on their own (and that this is OK).

We’re NOT on our own. None of us are–we’re on a planet with 6 billion other people, yet too many of us starve every night. Too many of us are homeless. Too many of us feel alone.

And for what? For an ideology–capitalism is best! The free market rules!

Well, the free market left 90,000 people homeless in Los Angeles according to statistics I remember hearing a few years back. Those numbers are disgusting.

Where do 90,000 people “get a job”?

Where do wages for 90,000 people come from?

Government programs (if properly funded) could help these people train for jobs (if any can be found). But oooh, no! We can’t have government programs! They’d be too expensive!

Instead, what do we spend our tax dollars on?

Two failed wars.

A monstrous bailout of companies that violated the rules of the free market in order to get rich.

Ah well, Happy Blog Action Day ‘08!

Got a poverty post? Link to it in the comments. I’d love to check it out!

OH yeah and one least thing: If you’re a good person and you think you’re a good leader (or if people tell you that you are) don’t cheat on your spouse. Just don’t.

Thanks.

Can We All Agree that Any Extreme is Bad?

by ThePete 9:00 am 2008-09-20

This is just a quick post because the thought occurred to me while considering the blatant hypocrisy of the Federal Reserve and the USG bailing out/taking over banks.

See, we need banks in order for our monetary system to function. Without them we’d all be carrying too much cash or we’d make our homes a magnet for home robberies. Banks also allow for a much smoother and faster (believe it or not) transfer of money from one person or corporation to another.

Sure, they also allow for quite a bit of money laundering (read: crime) but there’s essentially no modern tool of society that can’t be repurposed for corruption and greed. The point is, we need the banks.

So, the USG and The Federal Reserve effectively nationalizes a bunch of them. Now the Fed is not really part of the government–the USG pretends to oversee it but really, the Fed chairmen over the years have been so good at obfuscation that I blame no politician for not wanting to exert force over these guys. Of course, I DO blame politicians for not doing it despite not wanting to–but I’m getting off-topic.

OK, so here the USG/Fed are, taking over banks–essentially owning said banks. So, now our tax dollars (and any investments in the Fed) make each of us (and investors in the Fed) partial owners of these banks. You know what this looks like, right?

Communism.

Or even Socialism.

Or both!

So, isn’t this completely hypocritical of a government whose excuse for not nationalizing health care is that government-run health care would be too much like socialism?

Doesn’t this make the government completely full of shit when it gives us any reasons for anything (especially after losing all credibility in stating facts about “enemy” countries)?

Let’s also consider how nationalized health care benefits would help hundreds of thousands of people–possibly millions of people–who don’t have health care insurance (like yours truly).

Yes, banks are important, too.

But which is more important to prop up?

1) America’s financial health
2) Americans’ actual health

I say both. Instead, we worry about “isms” and assume that they’re all bad except for the one the rich folks practice: Capitalism.

The catch is, that we can see that no regulation on banks has gotten themselves into this predicament. Our economy is failing and some people are calling for even LESS regulation. It’s unchecked greed that caused this problem.

Surely, as with complete socialism, you can see that complete capitalism is also dangerous. Leaving everything to the “free market” means greed and power can rule all things.

Only a just set of regulations can keep the power-brokers from abusing their power.

This is especially obvious when you consider that sometimes socialism is OK. The USG/Fed and the rich folks of America are happy to see the banks be bailed out. Meanwhile, I would like to see health care be free for all Americans.

So, once you realize that in some cases socialism is OK, why do so many people insist that we stick to one “ism”? Surely, ANY extreme is bad–so why not regulate socialism AND capitalism and any other “ism” that will help America and the American people be stronger?

Why is Muslim extremism bad and Christian extremism not?

Why was Soviet extremism bad and American extremism not?

Why is Socialism bad, except when it helps the rich?

How can you say your way is better or best and assume that other folks who say the same thing about their own way are wrong?

What if you’re both right and in some ways bits of all ways just might be the best way of all?

Mythbusters Censored by Credit Card Companies

by ThePete 2:38 pm 2008-09-02
utterz-image

The above screencap comes from an Engadget.com post which you can find here: http://www.engadget.com/…company-l/ and it reports on Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage’s admission that the Discovery Channel caved under pressure from the credit card companies not to air an episode profiling the extreme hackability of RFID chips that are now appearing in credit cards.

The story originally comes from a video posted on Wired.com here: http://blog.wired.com/…ch-my.html which was previously posted on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-St_ltH90Oc, which you can watch to the left.

So, now the truth is effectively been banned. This kind of thing pisses me off to no end–as the Engadget post points out, rather than spend money on finding a more secure solution to RFID’s problems, these companies would rather spend money on lawyers to stop people from talking about RFID’s problems.

In other words, rather than keeping our money safe, they’d rather be able to advertise the latest bell and whistle to get more customers.

This is why I don’t have a credit card. This is why I wish I could function without a bank account–because banks aren’t keeping my money secure. Remember that company that made a bunch of electronic balloting machines that were super easy to hack? They used to be called "Diebold" and guess what other kind of machine they make: Automated Teller Machines. Yep, the company that couldn’t prove they could count our votes we’re trusting to count our money.

Meanwhile, banks think RFID is the wave of the future. However, it’s anything but. While the credit card companies won’t let Discovery Channel show that Mythbusters episode (or let them even MAKE the episode), Engadget.com previously posted a video that details how easy it is to hack RFID. I reposted it here: http://thepete.com/…vulnerable

I’m all for technology (DUH!), but anyone who thinks that technology can be trusted not to fail hasn’t used technology enough to know what they’re talking about.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterzreply-count Replies.

UPDATE 20080905: I just came across a CNET article reporting on how Savage had to clarify what he meant when speaking at the convention. It seems that the real story is convoluted and bizarre but that generally what he said was accurate–aside from the fact that it wasn’t Discovery Channel who shelved the episode idea, but the show’s production company.

Either way, it still sounds like lawyers got involved and freaked producers out a bit–not that I blame them.

Wal-Mart Hates America (but loves your money!)

by ThePete 11:18 am 2008-08-05
utterz-image
I grabbed this screencap a couple days ago from WSJ.com, though the article was originally posted on August 1, 2008 (here: http://online.wsj.com/…03381.html ). It’s all about how Wal-Mart is concerned about a Democratic win in November. They’re worried that laws might be passed that would make forming unions easier.

Has Obama even said anything about unions or Wal-Mart? I’m pretty sure he’ll be in the same boat as McCain and any other politician in the back pocket of TheBigBusiness. They’ll say unions are good, but won’t do anything to help them.

Personally, this isn’t even why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. I saw the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" where they make the claim that the family behind the mega-chain has their own nuclear fallout bunker.

To date I haven’t found anything that denies the existence of this bunker.

So, if the anti-union stance isn’t enough and the insanely low prices guaranteed by exploited workers in foreign countries don’t stop you from shopping at Wal-Mart, how about the thought that Wal-Mart will build a nuclear-proof bunker for themselves, but won’t mobilize their billions of dollars on protesting the existence of nuclear weapons?

They’ll take your money but when the shit comes down, they don’t give a crap about anyone but themselves (their low prices at the cost of exploited workers should prove this already to you).

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterzreply-count Replies.

Bizarre Health Statistic from NYT Labor Reporter

by ThePete 7:20 pm 2008-07-29
utterz-image
So, I’m finally getting back to listening to my podcasts after moving to NYC and I’m listening to Democracy Now today when I hear the guy who wrote the book "The Big Squeeze" say something in an interview with Juan Gonzales. Check it out: "And another, you know, health statistic that surprised me when I was researching the book was, United States spends about $6,500 per person for health coverage, which is more than twice what France and Germany spent, about two-and-a-half times what Japan spent, yet, you know, they have universal health coverage." (source: http://www.democracynow.org/…enhouse_on )

I found this pretty damn surprising. If true, it would mean that, put it simply, the capitalist model (vs. the "socialist" one everyone says is bad) delivers crappier health care for most people and costs more, as well.

Our leaders are *seriously* letting us down, it would seem. (In another way, I mean.)

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterzreply-count Replies.

TheBlurb: "How can one talk about life without saying sometime it's going to end? It makes the value of life all the more precious."
updated on 11/01/08 14:45:18 Change it! Archives