Squashed

13:36 12th Apr 2008

notes: 1

Wealth shifting

Government mandated wealth transfers from the rich to the not-so-rich used to bother me. While I have enough of a socialist in me to morally agree in more equitable resource distribution, I have enough of a capitalist to be worried that a transfer from the most successful to the least successful could screw up the markets.

Over the past year I’ve become aware of mechanisms where we effectively transfer money from the poorest to the richest by reducing the risks associated with investment. Limited liability and bankruptcy laws put a limit on losses. But there is no corresponding limit on gains. When stocks head south we put together a ridiculously gigantic stimulus plan to try to turn things around. It won’t be enough to save anybody’s mortgage—but it should be enough to keep the corporations going. At the same time, we’re very hesitant to do something about outsourcing or minimum wage because, hey, it’s the market.

I haven’t pieced together a take-away lesson from this except that when ifcomplain about government intervention in the freem market we should be aware of the various ways regulations serve to ameliorate certain risks while ignoring others. I’m still not anti-Wall Street or pro-Main Street, but it does seem like work should be safer and more consistent than investments.

14:34

A lack of systemic responsiveness weakens democracy; our system, partly due to its structure and partly due to the accidental qualities of our media (its digestion, its ‘cycles,’ and so on), is fairly unresponsive, although better than most.

—

Mills Baker

Electoral unresponsiveness—or the delay between when you want a change and when you get to vote for it—is sort of like a mandatory waiting period. In some cases, it makes a lot of sense. When Chinese pet food kills a few puppies, I’d like a bit of a cooling of period before the populace makes irrevokable foreign policy decisions. In other cases, the mandatory waiting period has a repressive and chilling effect.

Because of the way our media works to bring one aspect of a story very quickly and the context more slowly, I’m happy with some unresponsiveness. Or electoral system should not be faster than our information system. We need time to collectively think before we collectively decide. Even if we can speed up information distribution, we need time to speed up information processing. This processing needs to happen both on an individual level and a societal level. The national dialog needs to keep speed with the national decision making.

17:18

Her Sex was not so much as suspected by any Person on Board till Anne Bonny, who was not altogether so reserved in point of Chastity, took a particular liking to her; in short, Anne Bonny took her for a handsom young Fellow, and for some Reasons, best known herself, first discovered her Sex to Mary Read; Mary Read knowing what she would be at, and being very sensible in her own Incapacity that Way, was forced to come to a right Understanding with her and so to the great Disappointment of Anne Bonny she let her know she was a Woman also; but the Intimasy so disturb’d Captain Rackam, who was the Lover and Gallant of Anne Bonny, that he grew furiously jealous, so that he told Anne Bonny, he would cut her new Lover’s Throat, therefore, to quiet him, she let him into the Secret also.

—

Johnson, Charles, A general history of the pyrates, from their first rise and settlemnt in the island of Providence, to th epresent time (1724)

And yes, this does appear to be a historical account about lesbian pirates. I don’t want to exoticise history. Then again, I sort of do.

18:43

notes: 1

These are the stories currently on CNN’s political ticker. To me, the story is sort of a non-starter. Obama said that a lot of Pennsylvanians were feeling bitter about broken economic promises and thus were voting more for gun rights and religious expansionism or anti-immigrant sentiment than they were for economic policy because the pro-gun, extra-church, no-Mexicans people were at least trying to keep their promises once they got into office office. He could have worded this more carefully—but it definitely doesn’t deserve this sort of trumpetting.

Is CNN trying to prove that it doesn’t favor Obama by blowing one statement and its reaction grossly out of proportion or is this an all out media assassination attempt like the Dean Scream?

18:48

notes: 8

reblogged from: marco

In regards to my previous post, perhaps I spoke too hastily against CNN. Perhaps I should have restricted my criticism to the CNN political ticker—which, as a political blog, has an excuse to get hung up on trivialities and make mountains out of molehills. Here’s an actual CNN clip, which zetahydrae analyses better than I:

Holy balls. I can’t believe that they aired this on mainstream television; it’s way too sensible and accurate for them.

Wolf Blitzer gets three pundits on the air to discuss the latest political spectacle, Clinton and McCain ganging up on Obama for “belittling” the people of Pennsylvania. This was after a speech wherein Obama said that the people of Pennsylvania were bitter at Washington, left behind in economic frustration. It’s an utterly ridiculous situation, and Clinton and McCain get thoroughly served, especially by Cafferty at the end.

Maybe there’s hope for “news” TV after all.

(thanks, Marco.)

21:43

notes: 14

reblogged from: marco

I was just going to post this video, but Marco beat me to it. This is Obama’s response to the whole “bitter” controversy. He basically repeats what he said but elaborates it enough that it will be harder to take out of context.