but how does the word "antitrust" not exist in this conversation? if the banks are unanimously agreed to be too big, why is there no discussion of busting them down?
i honestly don't care if anybody goes to jail or not. what's important is reforming the system. but, the debate is centered around the perceived fairness or unfairness of government as an arbiter of retributive violence.
sometimes, it's just crystal clear to me that (on balance) we live in the socio-political reality we deserve.
hey, maybe the sinking ferry hit the missing airplane.
*rolls eyes*
it's always startling to me just how badly scientists have a grasp on public policy and economics. i think it's easy to trace it to this self-perception of themselves as bearing this kind of burden of being the world's real thinkers, although people looking in on the outside realize how laughable that perception of themselves really is. yet, if you're operating under this bizarre perception (enforced by a lot of things: plato, asimov, star trek, hollywood) that government's role is to carry out the dreams of the intelligentsia...
maybe a little marx might help? there's so many methodological flaws, i can see the push back. but, it could pull their head out of the clouds.
the united states didn't spend trillions in iraq to build a better society. they spent trillions in iraq because it was profitable. they wouldn't spend a dime on bettering the planet...
....and, so the crux of this debate needs to change drastically. we live in a society where governments are controlled by banks. public policy is collective action that maximizes profits for shareholders and investors. if you want them to listen, you need to speak their language.
that's probably not going to happen. yet, as i've mentioned a few times before, it probably won't be particularly hard to get a construction firm to pick up a trillion dollar project building floodwalls across the eastern seaboard.
yeah, well, join the revolution then. that's how shit works...
in the economic reality we live in, flashing around estimates that suggest a higher financial cost of not acting is actually an argument for not acting.
if it's expensive for the state, somebody in the private sector profits. that's why the private sector controls the state...
austerity is just cutting out state investments that have demonstrated low returns and have poor forecasts.
the function of the state has always been and remains to transfer tax money into private hands.
so, adaptation is big business and we'll see movement on that. prevention doesn't present any revenue streams, so we won't.
kidnapped by extremists or disappeared by nato?
it's always impossible to say.
yup. i just booted into windows, and i'm happy about it. another save for the bus pirate.
now i need to figure out how i'm going to reconstruct it. i should be back up and recording by the end of the weekend.