Bitterness on Ham Radio Websites / Thankful for This Site

Started by RadioRay, June 27, 2013, 05:29:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Geek

Quote from: KC9TNH on July 08, 2013, 10:02:09 PM
I show up (still) for every election, even dog-catcher if it were an elected office.
That said, and given the figures Geek put forth which are solid, there must be a change in the electorate's view if that is to be the desired method. And that will not happen until some tipping point, which has not yet been reached. The "little" tipping points are being managed very well from a propaganda perspective; and people who've lost their history do not have a sense of what "a long train of abuses" looks like.*

This is still the greatest successful experience in governance (to my knowledge) thus far. For those not in a position to see a "gulch" in their lifetime or move off-shore, but who recognize the need, then they need to keep pounding a message that resonates. It doesn't have to have a perfect SWR, but it needs to resonate sufficiently to get more folks off the couch before guillotines come back in style.

I like Gil's analogy of the "bi-partisan" system.
:)


* In my opinion Vermont should be called the First State because they did that on their own with land grants from a rather congenial NH & bucked the old King while the others were still busy getting their stuff in order. (Because of whiny-arsed NY they didn't become one of "our" states until 1791.) How would such an act work out these days?

To answer your final question, it would look like secession and to have it actually be implemented, a state would have to choose secession by popular vote, not an act of the legislature as was done in 1861.


KC9TNH

Quote from: Geek on July 09, 2013, 08:52:29 AM
The government made money on that deal.
Concur. Therein lies a core problem; they are not supposed to be "in business."
Whenever they see any revenue it goes back to feed their trough. If they can't find any because of their "ways & means" of operating, they will cast about for a new one. How about a new "room tax" on local lodging, or a new "fuel tax". Too many local governments do not see that treating their Chamber of Commerce as the enemy does no one any good.

I saw that in DoD through decades of the latest re-invention of the original Lockheed Zero Defects program (which worked because of the horizontal dynamics of the company). They keep trying to invoke new productivity measures that strangle by distracting from operational issues. If gov't agencies would get off this fad of trying to emulate profit centers in a draconian vertically-oriented structure and go back to regarding them as work centers they would, in my view:

a.  cost less
b.  be less willing to foray into areas that are out of their lane and foster...
c.  a public intolerance of such adventures unless absolutely necessary.  (This runs the gamut from sticking your neck too far up some anti-energy non-profiteer's rectum, to making the decision to go to war.)

Might also foster a public examination of those agencies that could completely go away. There are many, and I'm willing to read about the temporary unemployment spike - boo-hoo, but in a non-grumpy kinda way.  8)

Is it an alternative to gut an entire corporate division (Congress) for cause, to wit:

Failure to achieve a core Constitutional performance objective for which they were hired, i.e., budget management, while they use company time to explore areas that are only their concern because they gave themselves the latitude, rather than their boss?

Or maybe the boss needs to wake up from their long lunch.

Thanks for the comment on Vermont, which is why Vermont worked - there was not yet a monster Federation to tell them no.  Popular vote or not I believe the glacier in the beltway today would call that sedition. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.  One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter kinda thing.

:)

Geek

My point was that referring to "Bailouts" and accusing bankers of controlling the government, when what actually happened was using a crisis as an excuse to fleece the banks, is not only incorrect, but leads one to desire the exact opposite of the changes needed.

I am not as familiar with the other industries mentioned similarly, so I restricted my comments to banks.  However, I suspect those industries are no more in control than the banks.  Looking at BP and how their horrible accident has been used to take money out of the company looks to me like another government extortion scheme, but as I said I am less familiar with that industry than banking.

KC9TNH

Quote from: Geek on July 09, 2013, 02:30:50 PM
My point was that referring to "Bailouts" and accusing bankers of controlling the government, when what actually happened was using a crisis as an excuse to fleece the banks, is not only incorrect, but leads one to desire the exact opposite of the changes needed.
OK, trackin' your thought I believe. "Never let a crisis go to waste" kinda thing?

Geek

Quote from: KC9TNH on July 09, 2013, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: Geek on July 09, 2013, 02:30:50 PM
My point was that referring to "Bailouts" and accusing bankers of controlling the government, when what actually happened was using a crisis as an excuse to fleece the banks, is not only incorrect, but leads one to desire the exact opposite of the changes needed.
OK, trackin' your thought I believe. "Never let a crisis go to waste" kinda thing?
Yes.  The government completely screwed up the economy, blamed the banks for idiotic government policies that caused the crisis, then pulled off an extortion scheme and blamed the victims of that scheme for the whole thing!

Machiavelli would be proud.

White Tiger

Quote from: Geek on July 09, 2013, 02:30:50 PM
My point was that referring to "Bailouts" and accusing bankers of controlling the government, when what actually happened was using a crisis as an excuse to fleece the banks, is not only incorrect, but leads one to desire the exact opposite of the changes needed.

Hence the governmental response to the "crisis" which actually creates so much regulation that only the folks intended to profit from fleecing - profit from fleecing.

While Caveat Emptor springs to mind (as does the line my grandmother used to repeat often: "if something is too good to be true, it usually is")...I cannot tell you how I marveled at the unbelievable sight of:

Tim Geihtner - President of the NY Federal Reserve - the regulatory body in charge of behavioral oversite of the Wall Streets trading houses at the time of the financial meltdown - was named Treasury Secretary immediately after Obama took office.

Geihtner put forward a name for his top aid for congressional approval - Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive - with the appointment, Gensler was put in charge of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Jack Lew - current Treasury Secretary - was the COO of Citigroup during the financial meltdown. Citigroup got bailed out after it's investors lost $65 billion in write-downs for troubled assets and charges to account for future losses. More than half of that amount stems from mortgage-related securities.

The deeper you go - the more "regulators" that were supposed to warn the public about any looming financial crises - completely whiffed during the meltdown - are all over the economic advisory councils and the treasury. They've written or advised On the policies that became law.

...so following the money on this thing kinda drove home the point that folks - who are betting their life's savings on the rise & fall of some etherial stock portfolio - either aren't paying attention, or are completely ignorant about how the stock market actually works.

Quote from: Geek on July 09, 2013, 02:30:50 PMI am not as familiar with the other industries mentioned similarly, so I restricted my comments to banks.  However, I suspect those industries are no more in control than the banks.  Looking at BP and how their horrible accident has been used to take money out of the company looks to me like another government extortion scheme, but as I said I am less familiar with that industry than banking.
Exactly, with the exception that - while I agree it wasn't the "little" private banks that caused this - the culprits are banks. Central banks - those that were built to manipulate cash to fight inflation. The Federal Reserve's accumulation of power caused this - and since they have all this power laying around...its a good bet that they're still at it...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
If you're looking for me, you're probably looking in the wrong place.

White Tiger

#51
In order to finish a revolution, you have to have money. My bet is, if you could follow the "shorts" you'd know what happened.

The stock market was ginned-up, getting every poor Slob with a 401k, money market fund, etc.,to go "all in", and siphoning off the wealth these folks invested - by betting against the market and the dollar.

Someone - or more precisely, groups of someone's - made trillions...in 2008.

It's my belief, that after running the market back up in 2013 - without any statistical economic data to support the "Dow15k" - its about to happen, again.

It's just supposition on my part - after two previous "market corrections" which found me losing all of my 401k, we made a decision to invest in stuff that was easier to understand...I didn't get hurt the last time (unless you count the resulting loss in  equity in my home, 40% price increases on everything we need for our daily existence over the past 5 years) - as I've decided the real financial security is not to hold any debt.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
If you're looking for me, you're probably looking in the wrong place.

KC9TNH

Quote from: White Tiger on July 09, 2013, 06:53:21 PM- as I've decided the real financial security is not to hold any debt.
Check.  ;)  For the average person, probably pretty instrumental factor in being able to retire & not end up stocking produce the following Monday.  ;D

Geek

Quote from: White Tiger on July 09, 2013, 06:53:21 PM
In order to finish a revolution, you have to have money. My bet is, if you could follow the "shorts" you'd know what happened.

The stock market was ginned-up, getting every poor Slob with a 401k, money market fund, etc.,to go "all in", and siphoning off the wealth these folks invested - by betting against the market and the dollar.

Someone - or more precisely, groups of someone's - made trillions...in 2008.

It's my belief, that after running the market back up in 2013 - without any statistical economic data to support the "Dow15k" - its about to happen, again.

It's just supposition on my part - after two previous "market corrections" which found me losing all of my 401k, we made a decision to invest in stuff that was easier to understand...I didn't get hurt the last time (unless you count the resulting loss in  equity in my home, 40% price increases on everything we need for our daily existence over the past 5 years) - as I've decided the real financial security is not to hold any debt.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Speaking of shorts, in 2007 the uptick rule, originally put in place during the Depression, was removed.  This was one reason why the housing collapse was able to transmit into the stock market so quickly and why we still have so much volatility in the stock market.

It would be beneficial to long term investors, such as those investing via 401(ks) to have less volatility.  However, the SEC has been on a single minded quest since the mid-1970s to force "better prices", without recognizing that the cost of "better prices" is volatility.  Removal of the uptick rule was an example of this thinking.