Author Topic: Banks  (Read 1154 times)

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Banks
« on: September 15, 2008, 01:04:42 pm »
another one bites the dust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7425308.stm

and another one gone
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7503109.stm

and another one gone
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7616068.stm

hey, I'm going to get you too, another one bites the dust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7615931.stm

Will the markets recover?  Is this the end of an empire? Who will fall next? 

The end is neigh!

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2008, 01:53:12 pm »
Of course the market will recover, though it will take a while. We have had worse, after all. Indeed, because we've had worse, the situation now isn't as bad as it could be (imagine if the government didn't have ANYTHING in place to deal with failing banks).

I wonder if we'll just have to put up with this sort of thing; after decades of "good times" (more or less), people got careless again and invested in amazingly idiotic ventures (though this time it was in real estate rather than the stock market).

Having so many national disasters one after another certainly isn't helping, either. The economy just keeps taking a beating. 9/11, Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike. Earthquakes, tornados, floods. War, famine, pestilence. It's like the Fall of Rome all over again (minus the Germanic invasions on our northern boarders).

But chances are the economy will begin to rebound in a year or two, the new president will be credited despite the fact that the government has precious little control over the economy, and in another 50 or 70 years it will happen again in some market or another (I predict... the widget bubble will burst). Hopefully the government will have a few more, and better, controls in place so it will be less drastic next time, as this time was better than the last time.

If it didn't suck so much to be in the middle of it, all this would be incredibly fascinating.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 01:55:18 pm by Thought »

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Banks
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 02:32:23 pm »
Another possibility in the near future is always total systemic failure of the entire modern industrial complex leading to mass starvation and ending in war, followed by a renaissance of small-scale technology after massive depopulation and destruction of existing institutions makes the highly centralized and coordinated industrial system we know today impossible to function.

Most people have some vague idea of this possibility, which is why everybody is always on edge these days and the media seems to be in a state of massive denial half of the time.

That's also why we should focus more energy on developing more decentralized, smaller-scale technologies, so such a catastrophic event won't send us screaming back into the stone age.

And yes, I'm using Theodore Kaczynski's terminology when I say small-scale technology.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 02:34:06 pm by Ramsus »

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 07:11:07 pm »
Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote
I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.

I'd get a tremendous thrill if he were suddenly resurrected, rode bareback from D.C. to Wall Street, and began cracking heads with his big stick while spewing vulgarities at the perpetrators.

Oversight.

Oversight.

Oversight.

Oversight.

The college of business indoctrinates you that the free market completely works, and the finance classes laud the great hedge fund pirates of our day. Hah. All my Economics classes failed to take into account human greed. Along with the absence of education on how to "fail" or exit a business, and the dangers of unchecked markets, it's one of the failings of my university classes.

Temporal Knight

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • Roar through the flames of time...
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2008, 08:18:19 pm »
Another possibility in the near future is always total systemic failure of the entire modern industrial complex leading to mass starvation and ending in war, followed by a renaissance of small-scale technology after massive depopulation and destruction of existing institutions makes the highly centralized and coordinated industrial system we know today impossible to function.

Most people have some vague idea of this possibility, which is why everybody is always on edge these days and the media seems to be in a state of massive denial half of the time.

That's also why we should focus more energy on developing more decentralized, smaller-scale technologies, so such a catastrophic event won't send us screaming back into the stone age.

And yes, I'm using Theodore Kaczynski's terminology when I say small-scale technology.

My, that sounds like a plan to me! Perhaps an overthrowing of the US government during this? Hmm...

Of course, I am joking. Very well it seems that there is a throwback in our modern systems of banking.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Banks
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2008, 02:58:39 am »
Having so many national disasters one after another certainly isn't helping, either. The economy just keeps taking a beating. 9/11, Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike. Earthquakes, tornados, floods. War, famine, pestilence. It's like the Fall of Rome all over again (minus the Germanic invasions on our northern boarders).

Who's to say the Germans aren't secretly massing within Canada for some great new conquest?

And I must add... I don't think the Roman empire had to content with either Tornadoes or Hurricanes (though the others were all prevalent... well, except for 9/11. I don't recall any of the ancient authors speaking of planes hitting the temple of Janus or anything... though I'm not too well read in late Roman works... you never know... :) )

Jutty

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 614
  • The Most In-Frequent Poster Ever
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2008, 03:10:58 am »
Having so many national disasters one after another certainly isn't helping, either. The economy just keeps taking a beating. 9/11, Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike. Earthquakes, tornados, floods. War, famine, pestilence. It's like the Fall of Rome all over again (minus the Germanic invasions on our northern boarders).

Who's to say the Germans aren't secretly massing within Canada for some great new conquest?

And I must add... I don't think the Roman empire had to content with either Tornadoes or Hurricanes (though the others were all prevalent... well, except for 9/11. I don't recall any of the ancient authors speaking of planes hitting the temple of Janus or anything... though I'm not too well read in late Roman works... you never know... :) )

Because Canadians don't like Nazis I have no evidence to back up this claim... but it sounds accurate.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2008, 10:33:15 am »
Who's to say the Germans aren't secretly massing within Canada for some great new conquest?

And I must add... I don't think the Roman empire had to content with either Tornadoes or Hurricanes (though the others were all prevalent... well, except for 9/11. I don't recall any of the ancient authors speaking of planes hitting the temple of Janus or anything... though I'm not too well read in late Roman works... you never know... :) )

Ah, operation Angriffvomnordenmitwaffenstein. It is just a contigency plan, though, in case the Huns start invading Germany.

Another possibility in the near future is always total systemic failure of the entire modern industrial complex leading to mass starvation and ending in war, followed by a renaissance of small-scale technology after massive depopulation and destruction of existing institutions makes the highly centralized and coordinated industrial system we know today impossible to function.

To be fair, though, it would take a lot more than the collapse of major financial institutions or war to really set humanity back that far; one would really need a massive drop in population beyond what either of those are capable of. And we are just about due for another major pandemic.

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2008, 10:39:10 pm »
Money as Debt.  Only 47 minutes...very interesting

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

.......

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2008, 10:58:00 pm »
Quote from: placidchap
Will the markets recover?  Is this the end of an empire? Who will fall next?

Your first and last questions are simply answered: Will the markets recover? Yes, the markets will eventually recover. Who will fall next? Just look at the news. By the time you read this, whoever I may write here might already have been supplanted.

Some nuance may be worthwhile: While the markets will “recover,” that isn’t to say that this is simply a matter of up and down. Much of what is being destroyed now isn’t going to come back from the abyss. It will eventually be replaced by other wealth.

Your question about “the end of an empire” is an observant one. The US economic position had already been in relative decline as other countries and unions developed their economies. That much is inevitable. We will eventually be outclassed no matter how well our economy performs.

Of more concern is the absolute position of the economy, which had also been in decline, due primarily to irresponsible spending by citizens and irresponsible profiteering by business and their allies in the government. This financial crisis has accelerated that trend. When taken together with an incompetent energy policy and no apparent infrastructure policy, it is clear that our position as an economic superpower has been compromised. Over the past several years we have squandered many opportunities to reverse the damage. Now there are fewer options left open to us.

Reasonable people can disagree, but I don’t think America will be able to hold it together. I predict a Britain-style soft collapse of our “empire” even as American lifestyles in itself remain much the same as they have been. At this point in time it would behoove us, I think, to strengthen our alliances, as conventional powers must do to safeguard their interests.

Quote from: placidchap
The end is neigh!

That’s very cute! Did you do that on purpose? Who cares!


“Excuse me! You haven’t finished painting me!”


Quote from: Thought
But chances are the economy will begin to rebound in a year or two, the new president will be credited despite the fact that the government has precious little control over the economy, and in another 50 or 70 years it will happen again in some market or another (I predict... the widget bubble will burst).

I disagree. I expect our economic situation to continue to deteriorate for at least another two years, followed by a long period of a very slow recovery. In fact, one of my chief political worries is that the Democrats, after taking power next year, are going to get stuck with all of the blame and then booted out, with the American people flying right back into the arms of the same economic conservatism that has brought us all down to such depths of humility. I hope they are candid with the American people right from the onset. So far, I don’t see signs of that.

On the other hand, you may be right about the cyclic nature of history. During the Great Depression, and afterwards, many safeguards and checks were built into the system to prevent another financial disaster. Republicans, with the aid of conservative Democrats, have now spent over a generation trying to dismantle those safeguards so as to allow greater profiteering. That worked for a while, but eventually the thing unraveled as it had to do, and now we’re stuck with another major crisis. No doubt there will be new safeguards built back into the system under the next administration, and it seems quite plausible that they will eventually be threatened again in the future by the forces of commercial avarice.


Quote from: Ramsus
Another possibility in the near future is always total systemic failure of the entire modern industrial complex leading to mass starvation and ending in war, followed by a renaissance of small-scale technology after massive depopulation and destruction of existing institutions makes the highly centralized and coordinated industrial system we know today impossible to function.

What the hell is this?

Ramsus, what you describe is not literally impossible, but it is extremely improbable. In the event of a global economic crash—itself very unlikely when we define a “crash” to entail the debilitating macroeconomic breakdown of which you speak—what we would see is a lot of industrial partitioning as companies revert from worldwide commerce and logistics to national, regional, or local practices. Money, assets, capital, labor, and resources would be diverted to new use. Not all of it. Some would sit idle or disintegrate. Social unrest would develop. Plenty of wealth would be wiped out. Living conditions would probably deteriorate slightly to moderately for most people. But, enough of it would remain intact to prevent the destruction of the modern world as we know it.

To get to the point of apocalyptic war and all that would require a system so seized up that it remains dysfunctional. I can’t think of any scenario under which that would happen. After a major disaster, economies always reorganize and move forward. There has never been an economy that went down to zero. Even Japan and Germany in the last year of World War II, and the Soviet Union or China under totalitarian communism’s darkest days, and, more recently, countries like Argentina, Sudan, the Palestinian Territories, and even friggin’ Zimbabwe, have all sustained continuously operational economies.

Life continues. Even in Zimbabwe, the “massive depopulation” that media reports would lead us to expect have yet to occur. Do you really think that the developed world, with its centuries of accumulated knowledge of economics and engineering, would fare worse? Well, obviously you do. There have always been people who have predicted the downfall of civilization. Usually they do so out of religious reasons, but, hey, some people are just bitter in general. Honestly, the rest of us have better things to do with our time than humor these anarcho-libertarian wet dreams of yours, Ramsus.

That came out harsh, which wasn’t my intention. I just don’t have a lot of tolerance for 1970’s style survivalist bullshit. It occurs to me that you may have been speaking hypothetically or tentatively, so, if you were, don’t take the above personally.

Only a global environmental catastrophe capable of physically destroying an economy or humanity itself, could plausibly bring about an abrupt end to the modern world. And if you think about how likely those various possibilities are, you should rest a little easier.

Quote from: Ramsus
That's also why we should focus more energy on developing more decentralized, smaller-scale technologies, so such a catastrophic event won't send us screaming back into the stone age. And yes, I'm using Theodore Kaczynski's terminology when I say small-scale technology.

You’ve got guts for subscribing to the ideology of a terrorist. Then again, it’s not much different than people who believe all that laissez-faire crap, now is it?

In economic development, decentralization progresses into centralization as societies merge and grow and undertake new ventures that require extensive collaboration. Then, centralization tends to progress into decentralization again as it becomes not only possible but sometimes more efficient to distribute systems. I expect we’ll see something like that happen with our electrical power grid in this century, with more end-users generating some of their own power in addition to the enormous main power stations that can most efficiently provide a base load.

However, drawing an economic development arrow immediately to decentralization is always a bad idea. You can’t skip the centralized steps, nor would you ever want to do away with centralization entirely. By definition, some development will only be possible at that level. You can’t decentralize commercial jetliner production, for instance. You can spread production to companies around the world, as Boeing has done, but you can’t have small individual companies independently working to manufacture comparable machines. Unless you’re viciously rich.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2008, 10:24:25 am »

“Excuse me! You haven’t finished painting me!”

There really is only one response to that: Bad Horse!

I disagree. I expect our economic situation to continue to deteriorate for at least another two years, followed by a long period of a very slow recovery.

I suppose it would depend on how one looks at things; the events going on will certainly have consequences for some time still (increased unemployment, though I doubt to Great Depression levels, for example), but I think now is the the origin point. So insofar as things will be worse for more people, I'd agree, but insofar as the economy will reach the depth before healing begins, I think will start to see hints of this by this time next year.

However, to be fair, my estimations are in part influenced by the belief that technology has helped speed up economic cycles. So saying that the economy will be recovering nicely in two years, I might be making a similar claim to those who said we'd have flying cars and colonies on the moon by 2000.

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Banks
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2008, 09:58:46 pm »
Quote from: Ramsus
Another possibility in the near future is always total systemic failure of the entire modern industrial complex leading to mass starvation and ending in war, followed by a renaissance of small-scale technology after massive depopulation and destruction of existing institutions makes the highly centralized and coordinated industrial system we know today impossible to function.

What the hell is this?

Ramsus, what you describe is not literally impossible, but it is extremely improbable. In the event of a global economic crash—itself very unlikely when we define a “crash” to entail the debilitating macroeconomic breakdown of which you speak—what we would see is a lot of industrial partitioning as companies revert from worldwide commerce and logistics to national, regional, or local practices. Money, assets, capital, labor, and resources would be diverted to new use. Not all of it. Some would sit idle or disintegrate. Social unrest would develop. Plenty of wealth would be wiped out. Living conditions would probably deteriorate slightly to moderately for most people. But, enough of it would remain intact to prevent the destruction of the modern world as we know it.

To get to the point of apocalyptic war and all that would require a system so seized up that it remains dysfunctional. I can’t think of any scenario under which that would happen. After a major disaster, economies always reorganize and move forward. There has never been an economy that went down to zero. Even Japan and Germany in the last year of World War II, and the Soviet Union or China under totalitarian communism’s darkest days, and, more recently, countries like Argentina, Sudan, the Palestinian Territories, and even friggin’ Zimbabwe, have all sustained continuously operational economies.

Life continues. Even in Zimbabwe, the “massive depopulation” that media reports would lead us to expect have yet to occur. Do you really think that the developed world, with its centuries of accumulated knowledge of economics and engineering, would fare worse? Well, obviously you do. There have always been people who have predicted the downfall of civilization. Usually they do so out of religious reasons, but, hey, some people are just bitter in general. Honestly, the rest of us have better things to do with our time than humor these anarcho-libertarian wet dreams of yours, Ramsus.

That came out harsh, which wasn’t my intention. I just don’t have a lot of tolerance for 1970’s style survivalist bullshit. It occurs to me that you may have been speaking hypothetically or tentatively, so, if you were, don’t take the above personally.

Only a global environmental catastrophe capable of physically destroying an economy or humanity itself, could plausibly bring about an abrupt end to the modern world. And if you think about how likely those various possibilities are, you should rest a little easier.

Quote from: Ramsus
That's also why we should focus more energy on developing more decentralized, smaller-scale technologies, so such a catastrophic event won't send us screaming back into the stone age. And yes, I'm using Theodore Kaczynski's terminology when I say small-scale technology.

You’ve got guts for subscribing to the ideology of a terrorist. Then again, it’s not much different than people who believe all that laissez-faire crap, now is it?

In economic development, decentralization progresses into centralization as societies merge and grow and undertake new ventures that require extensive collaboration. Then, centralization tends to progress into decentralization again as it becomes not only possible but sometimes more efficient to distribute systems. I expect we’ll see something like that happen with our electrical power grid in this century, with more end-users generating some of their own power in addition to the enormous main power stations that can most efficiently provide a base load.

However, drawing an economic development arrow immediately to decentralization is always a bad idea. You can’t skip the centralized steps, nor would you ever want to do away with centralization entirely. By definition, some development will only be possible at that level. You can’t decentralize commercial jetliner production, for instance. You can spread production to companies around the world, as Boeing has done, but you can’t have small individual companies independently working to manufacture comparable machines. Unless you’re viciously rich.

What are you getting so worked up about? I simply described the worst-case scenario -- and even then, yes, life eventually goes on for the survivors. Pretty obvious shit, I think, which is why I left it out; same goes for most of what you said about centralization.

You're view of economics is a bit too abstract though. Massive global conflict involving the large-scale use of nuclear weapons isn't something we can just ride off as so unlikely to be laughed at. Our history as a modern society is far too short to be so smug. All it takes is a few billion starving people who want to survive, and everything can go downhill.

Economies don't have to go down to "zero" for that. Stop the global food or fuel supply for several weeks, for any reason, and we're all screwed. Everyone could be employed, businesses could be booming, and people could be getting rich, but if the food or the gas isn't there, shit hits the fan. Unlikely, maybe, but only if we keep it that way. After all, shark attacks are unlikely, but that's no reason to feel safe diving into shark infested waters. And that's the real reason why we need to regulate all this financial free-for-all shit and punish these reckless corporations.

And what does Zimbabwe have to do with 5 billion people getting vaporized? You can't scale what happens in a local scale to a global scale, because on a global scale we're all stuck. That's why long term survival depends on our ability to colonize space.

Finally, what does making sustainable technologies that you can keep in your backyard have to do with violent overthrow and destruction of our modern industrial system? Apparently you think advocating finding new ways to put solar and wind energy in your backyard, reducing the need for heating and cooling, or help people save money and grow more of their own food is the same thing as advocating the destruction of power plants, industry, and eventually all authority and sending the world into anarchy. After all, you said I subscribed to Kaczynski's ideology. Or is that your idea of adding flair to your argument? Go on, just try to vilify me some more, but be careful how you do it.

Maybe if you weren't so focused on pandering to your ego by arguing so damn much, you would see that the only real difference between your diarrhea of words and the person you're arguing with is often so small as to make most of your arguments pointless. For example, our only real disagreement is over just how likely massively destructive, global war is. Most everything else is just more obvious shit stated to make you feel smart and imply the other person disagrees because they didn't state it first.

Honestly, I doubt you consciously pick up on this habit of yours, but that's how I've always read what you post. It's also what constantly pisses me off about your "arguments," and why I try to ignore you, since I don't feel like writing a 50+ page concession every time I want to make a point.

For fuck's sake, what the hell? You know?

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2008, 02:51:13 am »
Quote from: Ramsus
For fuck's sake, what the hell? You know?

Being a hardass against me is a waste of your time.

Quote from: Ramsus
Massive global conflict involving the large-scale use of nuclear weapons isn't something we can just ride off as so unlikely to be laughed at.

The threat of nuclear holocaust is a serious one, and I didn’t mean to imply that the odds of it happening are comparable to the odds of something like an asteroid impact. However, basing an economic policy—or, in your case, espousing the survivalist mentality—on the premise that such an event is going to happen, is preposterous. You said, given the possibility of full-scale nuclear apocalypse:

Quote from: Ramsus
That's also why we should focus more energy on developing more decentralized, smaller-scale technologies, so such a catastrophic event won't send us screaming back into the stone age.

Well, here’s the problem: “Small-scale technology” will do you exactly jack shit good when the entire surface of the planet is either blown up or radioactive. I’m sorry, but that is the end of that particular discussion.

Quote from: Ramsus
All it takes is a few billion starving people who want to survive, and everything can go downhill. Economies don't have to go down to "zero" for that. Stop the global food or fuel supply for several weeks, for any reason, and we're all screwed.

Quote
Finally, what does making sustainable technologies that you can keep in your backyard have to do with violent overthrow and destruction of our modern industrial system?

Hrm, let me check and see where I wrote that. Ah…as I suspected. I didn’t. You, on the other hand, did. You were the one who raised the idea of society collapsing in on itself after some cataclysmic event. I share your confusion as to how putting solar panels on your roof has anything to do with the collapse of society. Maybe you can explain it for the class. Good luck with that. Almost nothing could “stop the global food or fuel supply for several weeks,” and the few things that could have such an impact are so serious in themselves that we’d all be toast anyway if they actually happened.

Quote from: Ramsus
After all, you said I subscribed to Kaczynski's ideology. Or is that your idea of adding flair to your argument? Go on, just try to vilify me some more, but be careful how you do it.

You specifically came out and made that comparison yourself. It takes guts to ally oneself with an unpopular figure, especially a terrorist, and sometimes it’s even the right choice to make, so I don’t begrudge you for doing so. I just happen not to think all that highly of Mr. Unabomber’s political views in particular. If you want to tie your balloon to his, fine. You’d better not expect the audacity of it to earn you a free pass, though.

Quote from: Ramsus
Maybe if you weren't so focused on pandering to your ego by arguing so damn much, you would see that the only real difference between your diarrhea of words and the person you're arguing with is often so small as to make most of your arguments pointless. For example, our only real disagreement is over just how likely massively destructive, global war is.

As it is, there happens to be a very important difference here between us today—one that I forgive you for not recognizing. Like I said before, I don’t have much patience for survivalist bullshit. I have a hard time in general respecting people who wash their hands of social responsibility, but survivalists are the worst of the lot.

This difference between us isn’t about putting some sustainable technologies in the ol’ back yard. As you pointed out, we don’t have any differences to speak of on that count. What this is about is our respective attitudes on the nature of society. Your language gives you away. You have some anarchist in you, Ramsus, and when you talk about people taking responsibility for their own circumstances, what you are really saying is that people can trust no one but themselves. Continue that line of thought, and what it gets to is that you have little or no respect for the very same social institutions and governmental organs that have afforded us our modern quality of life and granted opportunity to so many people. In other words, you don’t know a good thing when you see it, and in fact you actually resent it. That makes you a part of the problem, which exhausts my patience quite swiftly I assure you.

That’s not the end of it, though. Your framing consistently derides the human species. You don’t give much consideration at all to billions of people dying in the event of a catastrophe. Your language implies that this is inevitable, and you seem unmoved by that. In fact, you almost seem to tacitly approve of such a future. But mostly you focus on the romantic notion of the hardy survivors of doomsday, their hair whipping in the wind, with their homegrown tomatoes on the vine and their solar panels hoisted high up on the roof, as they pick up the pieces left by humanity’s folly, and heroically soldier on toward a brave new tomorrow. How wonderful. Also disgusting. You and I are similar enough in our disapproval of the abundance of human mediocrity in our world, but we differ substantially in our appraisal of the inherent worth of humanity and its attempts at civilization.

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Banks
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2008, 05:23:05 am »
Quote from: Ramsus
For fuck's sake, what the hell? You know?

Being a hardass against me is a waste of your time.

Quote from: Ramsus
Massive global conflict involving the large-scale use of nuclear weapons isn't something we can just ride off as so unlikely to be laughed at.

The threat of nuclear holocaust is a serious one, and I didn’t mean to imply that the odds of it happening are comparable to the odds of something like an asteroid impact. However, basing an economic policy—or, in your case, espousing the survivalist mentality—on the premise that such an event is going to happen, is preposterous. You said, given the possibility of full-scale nuclear apocalypse:

Quote from: Ramsus
That's also why we should focus more energy on developing more decentralized, smaller-scale technologies, so such a catastrophic event won't send us screaming back into the stone age.

Well, here’s the problem: “Small-scale technology” will do you exactly jack shit good when the entire surface of the planet is either blown up or radioactive. I’m sorry, but that is the end of that particular discussion.

Quote from: Ramsus
All it takes is a few billion starving people who want to survive, and everything can go downhill. Economies don't have to go down to "zero" for that. Stop the global food or fuel supply for several weeks, for any reason, and we're all screwed.

Quote
Finally, what does making sustainable technologies that you can keep in your backyard have to do with violent overthrow and destruction of our modern industrial system?

Hrm, let me check and see where I wrote that. Ah…as I suspected. I didn’t. You, on the other hand, did. You were the one who raised the idea of society collapsing in on itself after some cataclysmic event. I share your confusion as to how putting solar panels on your roof has anything to do with the collapse of society. Maybe you can explain it for the class. Good luck with that. Almost nothing could “stop the global food or fuel supply for several weeks,” and the few things that could have such an impact are so serious in themselves that we’d all be toast anyway if they actually happened.

Quote from: Ramsus
After all, you said I subscribed to Kaczynski's ideology. Or is that your idea of adding flair to your argument? Go on, just try to vilify me some more, but be careful how you do it.

You specifically came out and made that comparison yourself. It takes guts to ally oneself with an unpopular figure, especially a terrorist, and sometimes it’s even the right choice to make, so I don’t begrudge you for doing so. I just happen not to think all that highly of Mr. Unabomber’s political views in particular. If you want to tie your balloon to his, fine. You’d better not expect the audacity of it to earn you a free pass, though.

Quote from: Ramsus
Maybe if you weren't so focused on pandering to your ego by arguing so damn much, you would see that the only real difference between your diarrhea of words and the person you're arguing with is often so small as to make most of your arguments pointless. For example, our only real disagreement is over just how likely massively destructive, global war is.

As it is, there happens to be a very important difference here between us today—one that I forgive you for not recognizing. Like I said before, I don’t have much patience for survivalist bullshit. I have a hard time in general respecting people who wash their hands of social responsibility, but survivalists are the worst of the lot.

This difference between us isn’t about putting some sustainable technologies in the ol’ back yard. As you pointed out, we don’t have any differences to speak of on that count. What this is about is our respective attitudes on the nature of society. Your language gives you away. You have some anarchist in you, Ramsus, and when you talk about people taking responsibility for their own circumstances, what you are really saying is that people can trust no one but themselves. Continue that line of thought, and what it gets to is that you have little or no respect for the very same social institutions and governmental organs that have afforded us our modern quality of life and granted opportunity to so many people. In other words, you don’t know a good thing when you see it, and in fact you actually resent it. That makes you a part of the problem, which exhausts my patience quite swiftly I assure you.

That’s not the end of it, though. Your framing consistently derides the human species. You don’t give much consideration at all to billions of people dying in the event of a catastrophe. Your language implies that this is inevitable, and you seem unmoved by that. In fact, you almost seem to tacitly approve of such a future. But mostly you focus on the romantic notion of the hardy survivors of doomsday, their hair whipping in the wind, with their homegrown tomatoes on the vine and their solar panels hoisted high up on the roof, as they pick up the pieces left by humanity’s folly, and heroically soldier on toward a brave new tomorrow. How wonderful. Also disgusting. You and I are similar enough in our disapproval of the abundance of human mediocrity in our world, but we differ substantially in our appraisal of the inherent worth of humanity and its attempts at civilization.

I don't plan on seeing this world fall apart in my lifetime. My family, my society, my species -- even life itself, is something I'll protect at all costs. That's the reason I advocate making society more resilient against paralyzing, systemic failure and collapse and moving towards sustainable technologies.

Just because I connect that belief with a passing thought about the world having to survive the worst-case scenario doesn't mean that's the core of my reasoning, you ideological twit. It makes it a passing thought.
 
You're a fucking idiot for always assumes everyone you disagree with falls into some pre-conceived stereotype that you've concocted. I'm so damn sick of it.

You're so convinced that I'm full of this survivalist bullshit that you can't even see how nothing I've said would put me in agreement with the Unabomber's ideology and its conclusions. By saying I'm following his ideology, you've equated this advocacy of small scale technology of mine with advocating the INTENTIONAL violent overthrow and destruction of our modern society to end the cogs of industry so that we can go live like animals. That you can't see this shows how full of shit you are.

Have you ever even read the Unabomber manifesto? Do you even have any clue what you've compared my beliefs to, you asshole? I made a concession that I'd used some of his terminology and ideas, not that I was aligning myself with him.

The two quotes of mine you've used don't even make sense as you've used them against me -- not if you know what you're talking about. When I say:

Quote
Finally, what does making sustainable technologies that you can keep in your backyard have to do with violent overthrow and destruction of our modern industrial system?

"violent overthrow and destruction of our modern industrial system" means, within the context of the Unabomber's ideology, advocating and intentionally trying to destroy our modern world in order to allow men to live as they were meant to with nature. You failed to fill in the intentional part yourself, because you're full of shit and you obviously don't know Kaczynski's beliefs.

Just because I discuss the possibility of social collpase:

Quote
All it takes is a few billion starving people who want to survive, and everything can go downhill. Economies don't have to go down to "zero" for that. Stop the global food or fuel supply for several weeks, for any reason, and we're all screwed.

Doesn't mean that I'm advocating causing it in the least. You're the one who equated the two, whether by ignorance or in hope of slyly vilifying me in a way that few would notice if left uncalled.

And why? Because you assumed I was all about independence and freedom, I must also be all into this survivalist bullshit, right? That I might mention any thought even slightly survivalist in nature is enough to secure you in this image of me. I suppose, now you think I dream about that nonsense? That I relish the day when me and my 50 years supply of food and water, my generator, and my guns and ammo and my underground shelter help me survive proves me right? That I want to live in a world of chaos and disorder where people have to worry about fending for themselves to survive?

Sorry, but that image you've built is all in your head. It's not me in the least, and that's why you're so full of shit. Then you go on to paint the image of this stereotype as me with your long ramblings, and I'm forced to reply to clarify myself and prove that you're thoughts are completely wrong. I'm so damn sick of it.
 
You're so pre-occupied with arguing that you're now incapable of exploring new ideas. You've thought everything out yourself, so that you can see clearly what everyone else thinks about everything by just hearing a few thoughts or ideas and knowing their inclinations on a few things, but really you've just locked yourself into a damn rut, where you can't see past the handful of stereotypes you've created.


As a result, you live in a world of limited thought -- your own ideas with nothing more -- and that's just fucking sad. Not disgusting, just sad.


Go die in stereotype hell, you ideologue slut. I'm never going to reply to you again, except to simply quote or repeat this same post over and over again. You're just a waste of time.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 05:25:28 am by Ramsus »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Banks
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2008, 05:57:36 pm »
Quote from: Ramsus
Go die in stereotype hell, you ideologue slut. I'm never going to reply to you again, except to simply quote or repeat this same post over and over again. You're just a waste of time.

That is why you failed.

Tootles, Ramsus. I never much liked you either, but you were always good for a counterpoint.