Johnathan;
I've been trying to get Safeway to donate flowers for the ghostbike across the street memorializing Eric Davidsons' death at the hands of a drunk driver leaving their parking lot. So far I've been met with open hostility and a lot of ambivalence. I don't think it is too much to ask for a multi-billion dollar corporation to spend <$10/week to show respect for a death that occurred outside their door. I understand of course that Safeway has no obligation to do anything at all about this, but I feel strongly that it would be the right thing to do on their part. As I am sure you are aware, big-box corporate stores like Safeway are part of the reason why development that is so antithetical to neighborhood livability occurs and I am hopeful that you might help highlight this issue if only to embarrass Safeway into doing the right thing here. I'm not sure your aware, but my neighborhood has seen 2 bike deaths in the past few months (within 5 blocks of my house), and our neighborhood committee has been pushing for the city to pay attention the traffic concerns we have in our area with very little success thus far. The ghost bike for Eric has been there for about 2 weeks and in that time the wheels have been stolen. Just today, while trying to exit the Safeway parking lot with my 1 year old daughter on-board my bike I had to wait several minutes for a break in traffic which never came until two opposing cars kindly stopped for me (exiting onto Fremont at ~70th). As I started to cross with a friendly wave of thanks a car pulled violently around the east-bound car that had stopped and bore down at me and my daughter while accelerating at a high rate of speed. What is wrong with people!!!! Thankfully, even though my momentum had already gotten me partly across the intersection, the car missed us, but it left me very shaken and frankly more than a little depressed about the livability of my neighborhood.
I know that you have been trying on your blog to avoid these sorts of negative stories to highlight the positive developments in our city, but I hope that you might lend some space to this issue. There are a lot of cyclists that live or pass through this area (Roseway); I watch them from my front porch everyday. We as a neighborhood are trying to get organized, but it is slow and we are met only with resistance from the city and the businesses on Sandy Blvd. We as community members fighting for a safe neighborhood could really use the publicity that your blog can provide. Please help turn the tragedy of the death of Eric Davidson (as well as the many other individuals injured or killed by poorly designed car-centric streets in our neighborhood) into something positive.
I wish I was more eloquent, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. Thaks again for everything you do for our city.
Sincerely,
Matthew Hickey (hickeymad)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
My Wall-to-Wall with Shannon Tipton Hayes
Matthew is formulating a new rule; if you were an advocate of de-regulation in the 1980's or 1990's, your opinions on the current economy shall be ignored.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
Matt should try and access additional sources for his information if he truly wants to seek bi-partisan opinions......
Matthew Hickey wrote
Perhaps you could point out a few that you believe are worth reading.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
Anything I would suggest - you would regard right of center. By the very nature of what a media outlet does will support more liberal views. New York Post is slightly less left. Wall Street Journal is slightly less left. But if you look at things without a pre-conceived opinion, sometimes you can get a more accurate picture. Obviously Matt - we have very different view points. Perhaps instead of trying to garner support for your own, you could try and learn more about why other people feel differently.
Matthew Hickey wrote
I don't mind reading a right-of center opinion if it is rationally presented. The Wall Street Journal, etc. are fine news sources and I read these when I come across them.
Shannon; am confused about your statement "By the very nature of what a media outlet does will support more liberal views". Given the corporate ownership of most news outlets, I would think the opposite is very obviously the case. I have seen evidence that a larger number of journalists vote Democratic than Republican, and would not debate this fact, however, in the end it is not the Journalists who shape the news - rather the editors who are influenced by advertisers (usually corporate in any national outlet) and owners (who are increasingly corporate as well). I posted a link to the Wiki article a few days ago about Media Bias. You should give it a read - it is an excellent discussion of Bias in the media and you might be surprised at the conclusions.
Matthew Hickey wrote
In spite of what you might think, I am reader of many news sources. Many are outright biased liberal, and many are not. The Economist magazine for instance does an excellent job of presenting world events in a non-partisan fashion. BBC radio, and many PBS programs (Frontline, Washington Week in Review, Newshour, McLaughlin Group (one of my favorites), Nightly Business Report, NOVA, etc.) all do very fine jobs of presenting both sides of whatever topic they are covering. Seriously, if you've any outlet for news that you believe I should be watching or reading, I'd be all ears. I will say however that people like Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, are nothing but windy gasbags who present nothing but propaganda, usually in the form of misinformation.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
I have no doubt that you read many sources Matt - the problem is that every one you listed is notoriously left. None of them do a good job of presenting the views of the American public. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are commentator's - not news sources and it would be an insult to you if I suggested them.
Matthew Hickey wrote
Frontline and the Mclaughlin group are notoriously Left? Could you present some evidence of this?
Matthew Hickey wrote
Hey Shannon;
I think this is an interesting discussion and would like to move it over to a Venue where others can view it (if they are not your friend they will not be able to view your wall). I've got to go right now (Madeline needs to be fed), but I'm going to port our discussion over to our notes, or my Blog when I've got a chance.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
With all due respect Matt - I have better things to do. Let's just agree to disagree.
I am getting irritated and that really isn't what I want to waste my time on. Interesting discussion - depends but we have very different view points and you have no more chance in changing my mind then I do changing yours.
I did not intend anything I said to be "Wild" or "Accusing" or "Inflammatory". If I offended you - I am sorry.
I deleted our conversation of my wall and with that - I have zero interest in continuing it.
Go feed your daughter. She needs your time more than me.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
Matt should try and access additional sources for his information if he truly wants to seek bi-partisan opinions......
Matthew Hickey wrote
Perhaps you could point out a few that you believe are worth reading.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
Anything I would suggest - you would regard right of center. By the very nature of what a media outlet does will support more liberal views. New York Post is slightly less left. Wall Street Journal is slightly less left. But if you look at things without a pre-conceived opinion, sometimes you can get a more accurate picture. Obviously Matt - we have very different view points. Perhaps instead of trying to garner support for your own, you could try and learn more about why other people feel differently.
Matthew Hickey wrote
I don't mind reading a right-of center opinion if it is rationally presented. The Wall Street Journal, etc. are fine news sources and I read these when I come across them.
Shannon; am confused about your statement "By the very nature of what a media outlet does will support more liberal views". Given the corporate ownership of most news outlets, I would think the opposite is very obviously the case. I have seen evidence that a larger number of journalists vote Democratic than Republican, and would not debate this fact, however, in the end it is not the Journalists who shape the news - rather the editors who are influenced by advertisers (usually corporate in any national outlet) and owners (who are increasingly corporate as well). I posted a link to the Wiki article a few days ago about Media Bias. You should give it a read - it is an excellent discussion of Bias in the media and you might be surprised at the conclusions.
Matthew Hickey wrote
In spite of what you might think, I am reader of many news sources. Many are outright biased liberal, and many are not. The Economist magazine for instance does an excellent job of presenting world events in a non-partisan fashion. BBC radio, and many PBS programs (Frontline, Washington Week in Review, Newshour, McLaughlin Group (one of my favorites), Nightly Business Report, NOVA, etc.) all do very fine jobs of presenting both sides of whatever topic they are covering. Seriously, if you've any outlet for news that you believe I should be watching or reading, I'd be all ears. I will say however that people like Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, are nothing but windy gasbags who present nothing but propaganda, usually in the form of misinformation.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
I have no doubt that you read many sources Matt - the problem is that every one you listed is notoriously left. None of them do a good job of presenting the views of the American public. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are commentator's - not news sources and it would be an insult to you if I suggested them.
Matthew Hickey wrote
Frontline and the Mclaughlin group are notoriously Left? Could you present some evidence of this?
Matthew Hickey wrote
Hey Shannon;
I think this is an interesting discussion and would like to move it over to a Venue where others can view it (if they are not your friend they will not be able to view your wall). I've got to go right now (Madeline needs to be fed), but I'm going to port our discussion over to our notes, or my Blog when I've got a chance.
Shannon Tipton Hayes (Hartford, CT) wrote
With all due respect Matt - I have better things to do. Let's just agree to disagree.
I am getting irritated and that really isn't what I want to waste my time on. Interesting discussion - depends but we have very different view points and you have no more chance in changing my mind then I do changing yours.
I did not intend anything I said to be "Wild" or "Accusing" or "Inflammatory". If I offended you - I am sorry.
I deleted our conversation of my wall and with that - I have zero interest in continuing it.
Go feed your daughter. She needs your time more than me.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
More insular dogma of the idealogue
Vance:
"House republicans warn of socialism under Obama". Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Matthew:
Why would you believe anything that House Republicans have to say about anything at this point?
Vance:
Matt, I totally believe that house republicans are trying to warn America of socialism under Obama. I don't see a problem with social programs designed to help those in need. Are you coming here for the EcoLiving event?
Matthew:
Would that be the sort of socialism that you moved back to Canada for? - you know the kind; the type that provides for decent health care for your children.
And no; I think those sort of eco-events are stupid.
Vance:
...yes, I went from spending 5-6k a year in the States on healthcare for my boy to $330 CDN last year. When you consider the current exchange rate that's about five dollars U.S.
Matthew's Reply:
I wish we could stop with the talk of socialism and instead speak of building an economy that works for people instead of corporations. Dumbing down the conversation with loaded (and outdated) terms like socialism serves the interest of the later rather than the former. The ground has shifted and we as a nation finally have a chance to confront a lot of the problems with our economy. My question for you is - do you want to be a voice for change or stuck in the same paradigm that got us into this mess in the first place.
As far as climate change is concerned; individual actions on the part of citizens, though laudatory, are not what is going to solve the problem. We need coordinated global actions that support for the emerging technologies that will take us into the new century.
Vance's reply:
It's unfortunate that so many people do not understand the value of having
access to extremely important social programs and that when the word "socialism"
is mentioned they immediately overreact and think in the extreme case. It is this extreme lack of understanding
between the balance of politics, economy and support that has put society where it is today. This may likely be
cause by growing up in an environment where they know no better and their experience to difference and change
is limited. I am fortunate to grow up healthy in a place with affordable healthcare and then raise a family
where there is none. I have a unique and holistic perspective shared by few enlightened people.
To suggest that important social programs such as healthcare benefit corporations and not people without
understanding that the "lack" of certain social programs have an extremely negative impact on the economy
is not just glib but irresponsible. The healthcare system in the U.S. is not designed to provide and
create a healthy environment but yet is there to make insurance and pharmaceutical corporations wealthy
beyond belief. There are 50 million Americans without healthcare. There is a percentage of those that
do have healthcare and have serious health problems. Those people have have to renegotiate debt, bury
it their homes that they will never own, file bankruptcy, do not pay for emergency visits. This debt is
then passed on to the consumer as higher interest rates and higher premiums. Society encures debt,
our populace in their sunset years do not have money to retire and there is a greater draw on welfare
which impacts the economy even more and subsequent spread of poverty.
There is really no place for the insular dogma of the idealogue anymore. Things are not that black and white.
It's this myopic exclusionary elitism that has drained the economy and created such hardship. It is time to effect
change by leading, changing how we do things, and having a voice and supporting those who choose to join together
to be heard. Its not time to be an armchair critic it's time to get involved. My question to you is
are you going to be galvanized into action to create a better world for your kids or post political
diatribes on facebook. When you have sacrificed your financial future and your health as I have for your
children you'll understand. Until then I look forward to your next political commentary. (P.S. hope all is with
everything)
Matthew's reply:
Firstly; I believe you misunderstood my statement about corporate interests when I stated "I wish we could stop with the talk of socialism and instead speak of building an economy that works for people instead of corporations". My intention was to highlight the damage that loaded (and outdated) terms like socialism does to the movement for universal healthcare in the USA. Just listen to the Republicans in congress throwing around this term-sickening. I whole heartedly agree that the "lack" of certain social programs have an extremely negative impact on the economy. This focus on short term profits has not lead to a healthcare system that promotes the needs of our citizenry. By keeping the focus on socialism vs. Capitalism you are playing right into the republican/corporate strategy.
Secondly; could you please explain how "myopic exclusionary elitism () has drained the economy and created such hardship." Unless you are speaking of the elitism of the self-described "Masters of the Universe" (wall street), in which case I agree. Certainly the hardly ever heard rumblings of the political left in this country are not to blame for our current fiscal and environmental crisis!
As far as being "galvanized to action"...methinks you doth assume too much. Facebook is not the entirety of how my family and I affect positive change. Your assumption otherwise is more than a little condescending and frankly quite irritating. If you want to get into a "dick measuring contest" (in the words of our friend Tom) over who leads the lifestyle with the smallest carbon footprint (or any other measure of sustainability), I'd be happy to oblige, but I think it would be a bit immature.
And I do think it is necessary and important to understand how we got into our present predicament. To that end, understanding who has placed greed, stupidity and short-term thinking above concern for and actions that promote a peaceful and sustainable future for our children is important. The libertarian tendencies in government and industry since Regan should be once and for all put to bed. They do not work. Period. I'll keep shouting this from the rooftops, thank you very much.
It is not hard to understand why those who have promoted the values that have lead to this crisis keep pushing for the citizenry to forgive and forget. It's also not hard to understand why there are many of us who reject this.
I wonder, why is it that "so many people do not understand the value of having access to extremely important social programs and that when the word "socialism" is mentioned they immediately overreact and think in the extreme case"? What's your take on why this is so? Think FOX news has anything to do with it? For that matter, perhaps the supposed "left wing bias" in the media is really a bunch of hooey...
You know, the same biases and tendencies that have led to "The healthcare system in the U.S. is not designed to provide and
create a healthy environment but yet is there to make insurance and pharmaceutical corporations wealthy beyond belief" has also allowed us to create communities that are unlivable, corporations to get away with polluting and avoiding responsibility, and a nation that is dependent on resources that are warming our planet and compromise our national security. When I hear the republicans, wall street (and some right-leaning democrats) continue to push for these broken policies, it makes me feel sick.
"House republicans warn of socialism under Obama". Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Matthew:
Why would you believe anything that House Republicans have to say about anything at this point?
Vance:
Matt, I totally believe that house republicans are trying to warn America of socialism under Obama. I don't see a problem with social programs designed to help those in need. Are you coming here for the EcoLiving event?
Matthew:
Would that be the sort of socialism that you moved back to Canada for? - you know the kind; the type that provides for decent health care for your children.
And no; I think those sort of eco-events are stupid.
Vance:
...yes, I went from spending 5-6k a year in the States on healthcare for my boy to $330 CDN last year. When you consider the current exchange rate that's about five dollars U.S.
Matthew's Reply:
I wish we could stop with the talk of socialism and instead speak of building an economy that works for people instead of corporations. Dumbing down the conversation with loaded (and outdated) terms like socialism serves the interest of the later rather than the former. The ground has shifted and we as a nation finally have a chance to confront a lot of the problems with our economy. My question for you is - do you want to be a voice for change or stuck in the same paradigm that got us into this mess in the first place.
As far as climate change is concerned; individual actions on the part of citizens, though laudatory, are not what is going to solve the problem. We need coordinated global actions that support for the emerging technologies that will take us into the new century.
Vance's reply:
It's unfortunate that so many people do not understand the value of having
access to extremely important social programs and that when the word "socialism"
is mentioned they immediately overreact and think in the extreme case. It is this extreme lack of understanding
between the balance of politics, economy and support that has put society where it is today. This may likely be
cause by growing up in an environment where they know no better and their experience to difference and change
is limited. I am fortunate to grow up healthy in a place with affordable healthcare and then raise a family
where there is none. I have a unique and holistic perspective shared by few enlightened people.
To suggest that important social programs such as healthcare benefit corporations and not people without
understanding that the "lack" of certain social programs have an extremely negative impact on the economy
is not just glib but irresponsible. The healthcare system in the U.S. is not designed to provide and
create a healthy environment but yet is there to make insurance and pharmaceutical corporations wealthy
beyond belief. There are 50 million Americans without healthcare. There is a percentage of those that
do have healthcare and have serious health problems. Those people have have to renegotiate debt, bury
it their homes that they will never own, file bankruptcy, do not pay for emergency visits. This debt is
then passed on to the consumer as higher interest rates and higher premiums. Society encures debt,
our populace in their sunset years do not have money to retire and there is a greater draw on welfare
which impacts the economy even more and subsequent spread of poverty.
There is really no place for the insular dogma of the idealogue anymore. Things are not that black and white.
It's this myopic exclusionary elitism that has drained the economy and created such hardship. It is time to effect
change by leading, changing how we do things, and having a voice and supporting those who choose to join together
to be heard. Its not time to be an armchair critic it's time to get involved. My question to you is
are you going to be galvanized into action to create a better world for your kids or post political
diatribes on facebook. When you have sacrificed your financial future and your health as I have for your
children you'll understand. Until then I look forward to your next political commentary. (P.S. hope all is with
everything)
Matthew's reply:
Firstly; I believe you misunderstood my statement about corporate interests when I stated "I wish we could stop with the talk of socialism and instead speak of building an economy that works for people instead of corporations". My intention was to highlight the damage that loaded (and outdated) terms like socialism does to the movement for universal healthcare in the USA. Just listen to the Republicans in congress throwing around this term-sickening. I whole heartedly agree that the "lack" of certain social programs have an extremely negative impact on the economy. This focus on short term profits has not lead to a healthcare system that promotes the needs of our citizenry. By keeping the focus on socialism vs. Capitalism you are playing right into the republican/corporate strategy.
Secondly; could you please explain how "myopic exclusionary elitism () has drained the economy and created such hardship." Unless you are speaking of the elitism of the self-described "Masters of the Universe" (wall street), in which case I agree. Certainly the hardly ever heard rumblings of the political left in this country are not to blame for our current fiscal and environmental crisis!
As far as being "galvanized to action"...methinks you doth assume too much. Facebook is not the entirety of how my family and I affect positive change. Your assumption otherwise is more than a little condescending and frankly quite irritating. If you want to get into a "dick measuring contest" (in the words of our friend Tom) over who leads the lifestyle with the smallest carbon footprint (or any other measure of sustainability), I'd be happy to oblige, but I think it would be a bit immature.
And I do think it is necessary and important to understand how we got into our present predicament. To that end, understanding who has placed greed, stupidity and short-term thinking above concern for and actions that promote a peaceful and sustainable future for our children is important. The libertarian tendencies in government and industry since Regan should be once and for all put to bed. They do not work. Period. I'll keep shouting this from the rooftops, thank you very much.
It is not hard to understand why those who have promoted the values that have lead to this crisis keep pushing for the citizenry to forgive and forget. It's also not hard to understand why there are many of us who reject this.
I wonder, why is it that "so many people do not understand the value of having access to extremely important social programs and that when the word "socialism" is mentioned they immediately overreact and think in the extreme case"? What's your take on why this is so? Think FOX news has anything to do with it? For that matter, perhaps the supposed "left wing bias" in the media is really a bunch of hooey...
You know, the same biases and tendencies that have led to "The healthcare system in the U.S. is not designed to provide and
create a healthy environment but yet is there to make insurance and pharmaceutical corporations wealthy beyond belief" has also allowed us to create communities that are unlivable, corporations to get away with polluting and avoiding responsibility, and a nation that is dependent on resources that are warming our planet and compromise our national security. When I hear the republicans, wall street (and some right-leaning democrats) continue to push for these broken policies, it makes me feel sick.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bill Moyers discussing Media Reform
To support opening the radio airwaves to low-power FM broadcasters, sign the petition here.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Tired and worn...
The following is the text of a conversation between myself (Matthew), and a fellow alumni of Granby Memorial High School in Granby, Connecticut. Eric has expressed a number of opinions on Facebook that provoked me to initiate a the following conversation. Our first exchange was about the necessity of taking climate change seriously. This particular conversation was initiated after noting that Eric is a proponent of a brand of libertarianism advocated by the author Ayn Rand, known as objectivism. For background on objectivism, I recommend the following Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
Our conversation is in regards to the relevance of objectivism to the current economic meltdown and Obama's stimulus plan.
Matthew wrote:
Eric, how can an unabashed proponent of a philosophy (Ayn Rand style libertarianism) that is in no small part is responsible for bankrupting the country continue to speak out against "big-government"? Don't you feel the least bit shamed? Strong regulatory agencies could have prevented much of this mess!
Eric wrote:
I would argue that we are in the mess we are in because we haven't been following a philosophy like Objectivism, but instead have been working under some kind of hybrid system. Government intrusion into the capital markets is in no small part responsible for the mess we are in today. Go back and look at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's and much of the rest of congress's (both parties) push to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to push loans to those that couldn't afford to repay them. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make loans to inner-city residents. Wikipedia explains quite a bit about how that came about, and some of the consequences that resulted. All this is to say that when the government stepped in to tell the capital markets to make loans which were not necessarily in their economic interest, but were more out of a sense of altruism, we got a disconnect in the markets which has led us to where we are today.
Matthew Wrote:
Dang it; here I go breaking my own rule...
According to Wiki, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is blamed by some as part of the problem that led to our current financial crisis. Wiki however also points out that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. Wiki references a Federal Reserve survey that showed that 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. CRA or “government intrusion into capitol markets” can not really be blamed for more than a small portion of the mess we are in now. In fact; I would argue that it was not the loans themselves that was the crux of the problem so much as it was the investment banks who sliced and diced the loans until it was impossible to understand their quality. Why else would a seemingly American real-estate issue turn into a global financial crisis?
Speaking from my own experience; I bought my first house in 2005. I was one of the smart ones, and resisted the not inconsiderable pressure from my mortgage broker and realtor to spend more than I really could afford. They both tried to sell me on a variable interest-rate loan in order to afford a very tempting more expensive house that could easily have gotten me into financial trouble. I'm a white guy who pulls in a decent salary. My purchase was not associated with any government program. I had the resources and education to understand the consequences of overextending myself. I was lucky (hey; I grew up and was educated in Granby Ct. after all!). Not everyone has these same advantages. Human beings do not always make rational decisions for two reasons; they are greedy and they are lacking perfect knowledge. I agree that there needs to be market forces to encourage consequences for poor decisions, but there are also forces beyond the control or understanding of many folks as well. A moral society should take these two facts into account and devise a system with checks in place to protect both people and markets.
A similar argument can be made for many other life arenas. I can speak very intelligently about environmental degradation, as this is my own area of expertise. Capitol, minus regulatory pressure, will utilize resources to the maximum extent possible in order to turn profits, with no regard for societal or environmental consequences. We have seen a history of this prior to the environmental regulations enacted in the 1970’s. In fact, much of the work that keeps (well…kept) people like me employed is in dealing with the legacy pollution from this era. You would not believe the practices that were commonplace back then! You would also not believe the lines I have heard from Owners who question the science that to them threatens their profits. The same dang things that Climate change skeptics have been regurgitating for the past 20 years. Delay, deny, obfuscate. It’s getting old and frankly it’s getting more than a little criminal.
Tell me Eric; does your "tired and failed" philosophy (not my words; Obamas!) also explain the Enron debacle, or Bernie Madoff and similar scams? These are just two examples (amongst many) of markets malfunctioning due to lack of checks in the system. The oft-heard fallback position of “well we never really gave libertarianism/objectivism a real college try; if only we had removed all the regulations to markets then we would have seen a perfect utopian society” is a fantasy and is a cop-out. Markets need regulation. Society needs government. We all love to complain about taxes and regulation, but without them society would not be a place we would want to raise our children in.
How can conservatives complain about expansion of Government when they presided over the largest expansion of government in our recent history? Conservatives seem to have no problem with the big government so long as it is related to the military industrial complex. As Obama said in his speech tonight (I paraphrase from memory); the tired and worn philosophies of recent times have been tested in the last eight years and they have failed. It is time to out away our petty politics and rebuild this country with policies that work for the American people.
I find it hugely depressing that the republicans in Congress are so stridently opposing the very items in the stimulus package that progressives in this country believe make the most sense. Spending money on energy efficiency; rebuilding our infrastructure so that it is ready for a transition to a post-oil economy; stimulating production of the next generation of efficient vehicles from Detroit. I believe not only that these items are appropriate stimulus measures, but that they are also in fact hugely needed psychological boosts for our nation - “green lights” if you will for the next generation of entrepreneur engineers and scientists. I sincerely hope that Republicans come to their senses. I fear the consequences if they do not. The world is getting pretty darn tired of our stonewalling. If we do not lead, someone else will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
Our conversation is in regards to the relevance of objectivism to the current economic meltdown and Obama's stimulus plan.
Matthew wrote:
Eric, how can an unabashed proponent of a philosophy (Ayn Rand style libertarianism) that is in no small part is responsible for bankrupting the country continue to speak out against "big-government"? Don't you feel the least bit shamed? Strong regulatory agencies could have prevented much of this mess!
Eric wrote:
I would argue that we are in the mess we are in because we haven't been following a philosophy like Objectivism, but instead have been working under some kind of hybrid system. Government intrusion into the capital markets is in no small part responsible for the mess we are in today. Go back and look at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's and much of the rest of congress's (both parties) push to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to push loans to those that couldn't afford to repay them. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make loans to inner-city residents. Wikipedia explains quite a bit about how that came about, and some of the consequences that resulted. All this is to say that when the government stepped in to tell the capital markets to make loans which were not necessarily in their economic interest, but were more out of a sense of altruism, we got a disconnect in the markets which has led us to where we are today.
Matthew Wrote:
Dang it; here I go breaking my own rule...
According to Wiki, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is blamed by some as part of the problem that led to our current financial crisis. Wiki however also points out that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. Wiki references a Federal Reserve survey that showed that 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. CRA or “government intrusion into capitol markets” can not really be blamed for more than a small portion of the mess we are in now. In fact; I would argue that it was not the loans themselves that was the crux of the problem so much as it was the investment banks who sliced and diced the loans until it was impossible to understand their quality. Why else would a seemingly American real-estate issue turn into a global financial crisis?
Speaking from my own experience; I bought my first house in 2005. I was one of the smart ones, and resisted the not inconsiderable pressure from my mortgage broker and realtor to spend more than I really could afford. They both tried to sell me on a variable interest-rate loan in order to afford a very tempting more expensive house that could easily have gotten me into financial trouble. I'm a white guy who pulls in a decent salary. My purchase was not associated with any government program. I had the resources and education to understand the consequences of overextending myself. I was lucky (hey; I grew up and was educated in Granby Ct. after all!). Not everyone has these same advantages. Human beings do not always make rational decisions for two reasons; they are greedy and they are lacking perfect knowledge. I agree that there needs to be market forces to encourage consequences for poor decisions, but there are also forces beyond the control or understanding of many folks as well. A moral society should take these two facts into account and devise a system with checks in place to protect both people and markets.
A similar argument can be made for many other life arenas. I can speak very intelligently about environmental degradation, as this is my own area of expertise. Capitol, minus regulatory pressure, will utilize resources to the maximum extent possible in order to turn profits, with no regard for societal or environmental consequences. We have seen a history of this prior to the environmental regulations enacted in the 1970’s. In fact, much of the work that keeps (well…kept) people like me employed is in dealing with the legacy pollution from this era. You would not believe the practices that were commonplace back then! You would also not believe the lines I have heard from Owners who question the science that to them threatens their profits. The same dang things that Climate change skeptics have been regurgitating for the past 20 years. Delay, deny, obfuscate. It’s getting old and frankly it’s getting more than a little criminal.
Tell me Eric; does your "tired and failed" philosophy (not my words; Obamas!) also explain the Enron debacle, or Bernie Madoff and similar scams? These are just two examples (amongst many) of markets malfunctioning due to lack of checks in the system. The oft-heard fallback position of “well we never really gave libertarianism/objectivism a real college try; if only we had removed all the regulations to markets then we would have seen a perfect utopian society” is a fantasy and is a cop-out. Markets need regulation. Society needs government. We all love to complain about taxes and regulation, but without them society would not be a place we would want to raise our children in.
How can conservatives complain about expansion of Government when they presided over the largest expansion of government in our recent history? Conservatives seem to have no problem with the big government so long as it is related to the military industrial complex. As Obama said in his speech tonight (I paraphrase from memory); the tired and worn philosophies of recent times have been tested in the last eight years and they have failed. It is time to out away our petty politics and rebuild this country with policies that work for the American people.
I find it hugely depressing that the republicans in Congress are so stridently opposing the very items in the stimulus package that progressives in this country believe make the most sense. Spending money on energy efficiency; rebuilding our infrastructure so that it is ready for a transition to a post-oil economy; stimulating production of the next generation of efficient vehicles from Detroit. I believe not only that these items are appropriate stimulus measures, but that they are also in fact hugely needed psychological boosts for our nation - “green lights” if you will for the next generation of entrepreneur engineers and scientists. I sincerely hope that Republicans come to their senses. I fear the consequences if they do not. The world is getting pretty darn tired of our stonewalling. If we do not lead, someone else will.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Consumer Recourse
Letter to the Willamette Week (1/8/08):
I have a possible story for the "Rogue of the week" segment. The story highlights the plight of consumers when faced with unscrupulous business owners.
The story involves an incident that happened to my wife while filling up our diesel car at a local service station. The night of the first big snowstorm (12/16/08) my wife went to a station at 98th and SE Division (205 Gas). After asking for $14 worth of diesel, the attendant mistakenly put regular unleaded in the tank. The attendant is the one who pointed the mistake out to my wife. [As a side note, the manager and then the owner told us that any costs for repairs that they end up paying will come out of the attendant’s paycheck (is this legal?). The attendant in fact was the only person who showed any measure of human compassion or responsibility. He repeatedly approached my wife to say he as sorry, a move that seemed to enrage the station manager who repeatedly told him not to talk with us]. My wife, not knowing what to do, called me at home with my infant daughter and I did some research online and determined the wisest thing to do would be to ask for a letter from the manager describing the mistake and signed, and then have the car towed to have the fuel lines and tank flushed. Not doing so would risk up to $5000 in damage to our fuel injectors. However, the manager refused any responsibility, and even refused (until much later) to refund the cost of the fuel put into the tank. He requested that my wife wait outside in the snow for a tow truck, which she refused to do as the towing company we contacted said it could be up to 4 hours before he arrived and it was cold and snowing outside.
I packed my 9 month old infant daughter and drove to the station to help my wife. Upon arrival I asked the station manager politely to accept responsibility and give us a receipt describing the incident so that we would have something to show our insurance company. The manager was extremely rude, and walked away from me while I made this request. I brought a video camera with me and began to film in order to have some sort of evidence that the incident had occurred, but unfortunately the camera was out of battery power and I put it away. Much to my later embarrassment, I did call the manager an asshole, but I was beginning to get very angry over the trouble we were forced to go through and the unwillingness of the manager to do the right thing.
There are a lot of other details to the story, including a visit by the police (who was very sympathetic to our plight but was powerless to do anything), a man who (until the police arrived) would not identify himself violently beating our car (when the police arrived; he identified himself as Sal Musa, the station owner), and later threats by phone by the station owner to have me arrested.
It appears that they may get away with it as the cost for towing and fuel line/tank flushing was below our insurance deductible. Small claims court has a minimum that the costs of these repairs do not meet, so we are stuck paying for the repairs out of pocket.
Since Oregon does not allow individuals to pump their own gas, this sort of event (I am told by authorities as well as fuel distributors I've talked to) happens quite frequently. If you would like to hear the details, please fee free to call me. My cell number is 503-xxx-xxxx. Please help us obtain some measure of justice as well as warn other diesel vehicle owners out there of the risks of this sort of thing happening to them! My wife is a local physician and I am an engineer...we are not the sort of people looking for people to sue! In fact, the repair bill is not of any real concern; rather we are outraged that this sort of thing can occur without any real consequences.
Thank you.
Matthew Hickey
Letter to Space Age Fuels(1/8/08):
Please be informed that I am submitting a version of the following story to KATU news, Mayor Sam Adams office, and the Willamette Week if Mr. Sal Musa refuses to pay the costs of our car repair and tow (a total of $240). Though this incident involves an independently owned station, your business will be named as the distributor of the fuel and may be contacted by news organizations or state agencies. I am notifying you as a courtesy, and I hope that your organization will take measures to ensure that your retailers (independent or otherwise) treat their customers with respect and take responsibility for mistakes such as this. I have previously spoken with Mr. Dave Madu at Space Age about this incident.
The story highlights the plight of consumers when faced with unscrupulous business owners, as well as the need for the State of Oregon to better regulate the size of the dispensers for gasoline vs. diesel to prevent this sort of thing from happening at all (in other words; if the nozzle won't fit, it won't be an issue!).
The story involves an incident that happened to my wife while filling up our diesel VW Passat at a local service station. The night of the first big snowstorm (12/16/08) my wife went to a station at 98th and SE Division (205 Gas). After asking for $14 worth of diesel, the attendant mistakenly put regular unleaded in the tank. The attendant is the one who pointed the mistake out to my wife. [As a side note, the manager and then the owner told us that any costs for repairs that they end up paying will come out of the attendant’s paycheck (is this legal?). The attendant in fact was the only person who showed any measure of human compassion or responsibility. He repeatedly approached my wife to say he as sorry, a move that seemed to enrage the station manager who repeatedly told him not to talk with us]. My wife, not knowing what to do, called me at home with my infant daughter and I did some research online and determined the wisest thing to do would be to ask for a letter from the manager describing the mistake and signed, and then have the car towed to have the fuel lines and tank flushed. Not doing so would risk up to $5000 in damage to our fuel injectors. However, the manager refused any responsibility, and even refused (until much later) to refund the cost of the fuel put into the tank. He requested that my wife wait outside in the snow for a tow truck, which she refused to do as the towing company we contacted said it could be up to 4 hours before he arrived and it was cold and snowing outside.
I packed my 9 month old infant daughter and drove to the station to help my wife. Upon arrival I asked the station manager politely to accept responsibility and give us a receipt describing the incident so that we would have something to show our insurance company. The manager was extremely rude, and walked away from me while I made this request. The whole time he was on his cell phone with whom I can only assume was the station owner. I brought a video camera with me and began to film in order to have some sort of evidence that the incident had occurred, but unfortunately the camera was out of battery power and I put it away. Much to my later embarrassment, I did call the manager a nasty word, but in my defense I was very angry over the trouble we were forced to go through as well as the unwillingness of the manager to do the right thing.
There are a lot of other details to the story, including a visit by a police officer (Officer Bret Burton; who was very sympathetic to our plight but was powerless to do anything), a man who suddenly arrived and who refused repeated requests to identify himself and was violently beating our car (when the officer arrived; he identified himself as Sal Musa, the station owner), and later threats by phone by Mr. Musa to have me arrested for brandishing a walking stick from the drivers seat of my car. In retrospect, I am somewhat embarrassed about grabbing the walking stick, but in my defense both my wife and I were terrified.
It appears that Mr. Musa may get away with this sort of behavior, as the cost for towing and fuel line/tank flushing was below our insurance deductible. My wife and I may in fact be stuck paying for the repairs out of pocket. We are still awaiting a final decision from our insurance. Our final option is to file a claim in small-claims court, but my understanding is that there is a $750 minimum. If we decide to go this route we will have to put a value on the time we spent dealing with this issue.
Since Oregon does not allow consumers to pump their own fuel, this sort of event (I am told by authorities as well as fuel distributors I've talked to) happens quite frequently.
I ask that you please help us obtain some measure of justice by encouraging Mr. Musa to pay the nominal costs of the repairs.
My wife is a local physician and I am an engineer...we are not the sort of people looking for people to sue! In fact, the repair bill is really not the main issue here; rather, we are outraged that this sort of thing can occur without any real consequences and desire compensation to assist Mr. Musa in understanding that treating his customers in this way has consequences. Please help him understand that his customers are to be respected and treated with civility.
Thank you.
Matthew Hickey
I have a possible story for the "Rogue of the week" segment. The story highlights the plight of consumers when faced with unscrupulous business owners.
The story involves an incident that happened to my wife while filling up our diesel car at a local service station. The night of the first big snowstorm (12/16/08) my wife went to a station at 98th and SE Division (205 Gas). After asking for $14 worth of diesel, the attendant mistakenly put regular unleaded in the tank. The attendant is the one who pointed the mistake out to my wife. [As a side note, the manager and then the owner told us that any costs for repairs that they end up paying will come out of the attendant’s paycheck (is this legal?). The attendant in fact was the only person who showed any measure of human compassion or responsibility. He repeatedly approached my wife to say he as sorry, a move that seemed to enrage the station manager who repeatedly told him not to talk with us]. My wife, not knowing what to do, called me at home with my infant daughter and I did some research online and determined the wisest thing to do would be to ask for a letter from the manager describing the mistake and signed, and then have the car towed to have the fuel lines and tank flushed. Not doing so would risk up to $5000 in damage to our fuel injectors. However, the manager refused any responsibility, and even refused (until much later) to refund the cost of the fuel put into the tank. He requested that my wife wait outside in the snow for a tow truck, which she refused to do as the towing company we contacted said it could be up to 4 hours before he arrived and it was cold and snowing outside.
I packed my 9 month old infant daughter and drove to the station to help my wife. Upon arrival I asked the station manager politely to accept responsibility and give us a receipt describing the incident so that we would have something to show our insurance company. The manager was extremely rude, and walked away from me while I made this request. I brought a video camera with me and began to film in order to have some sort of evidence that the incident had occurred, but unfortunately the camera was out of battery power and I put it away. Much to my later embarrassment, I did call the manager an asshole, but I was beginning to get very angry over the trouble we were forced to go through and the unwillingness of the manager to do the right thing.
There are a lot of other details to the story, including a visit by the police (who was very sympathetic to our plight but was powerless to do anything), a man who (until the police arrived) would not identify himself violently beating our car (when the police arrived; he identified himself as Sal Musa, the station owner), and later threats by phone by the station owner to have me arrested.
It appears that they may get away with it as the cost for towing and fuel line/tank flushing was below our insurance deductible. Small claims court has a minimum that the costs of these repairs do not meet, so we are stuck paying for the repairs out of pocket.
Since Oregon does not allow individuals to pump their own gas, this sort of event (I am told by authorities as well as fuel distributors I've talked to) happens quite frequently. If you would like to hear the details, please fee free to call me. My cell number is 503-xxx-xxxx. Please help us obtain some measure of justice as well as warn other diesel vehicle owners out there of the risks of this sort of thing happening to them! My wife is a local physician and I am an engineer...we are not the sort of people looking for people to sue! In fact, the repair bill is not of any real concern; rather we are outraged that this sort of thing can occur without any real consequences.
Thank you.
Matthew Hickey
Letter to Space Age Fuels(1/8/08):
Please be informed that I am submitting a version of the following story to KATU news, Mayor Sam Adams office, and the Willamette Week if Mr. Sal Musa refuses to pay the costs of our car repair and tow (a total of $240). Though this incident involves an independently owned station, your business will be named as the distributor of the fuel and may be contacted by news organizations or state agencies. I am notifying you as a courtesy, and I hope that your organization will take measures to ensure that your retailers (independent or otherwise) treat their customers with respect and take responsibility for mistakes such as this. I have previously spoken with Mr. Dave Madu at Space Age about this incident.
The story highlights the plight of consumers when faced with unscrupulous business owners, as well as the need for the State of Oregon to better regulate the size of the dispensers for gasoline vs. diesel to prevent this sort of thing from happening at all (in other words; if the nozzle won't fit, it won't be an issue!).
The story involves an incident that happened to my wife while filling up our diesel VW Passat at a local service station. The night of the first big snowstorm (12/16/08) my wife went to a station at 98th and SE Division (205 Gas). After asking for $14 worth of diesel, the attendant mistakenly put regular unleaded in the tank. The attendant is the one who pointed the mistake out to my wife. [As a side note, the manager and then the owner told us that any costs for repairs that they end up paying will come out of the attendant’s paycheck (is this legal?). The attendant in fact was the only person who showed any measure of human compassion or responsibility. He repeatedly approached my wife to say he as sorry, a move that seemed to enrage the station manager who repeatedly told him not to talk with us]. My wife, not knowing what to do, called me at home with my infant daughter and I did some research online and determined the wisest thing to do would be to ask for a letter from the manager describing the mistake and signed, and then have the car towed to have the fuel lines and tank flushed. Not doing so would risk up to $5000 in damage to our fuel injectors. However, the manager refused any responsibility, and even refused (until much later) to refund the cost of the fuel put into the tank. He requested that my wife wait outside in the snow for a tow truck, which she refused to do as the towing company we contacted said it could be up to 4 hours before he arrived and it was cold and snowing outside.
I packed my 9 month old infant daughter and drove to the station to help my wife. Upon arrival I asked the station manager politely to accept responsibility and give us a receipt describing the incident so that we would have something to show our insurance company. The manager was extremely rude, and walked away from me while I made this request. The whole time he was on his cell phone with whom I can only assume was the station owner. I brought a video camera with me and began to film in order to have some sort of evidence that the incident had occurred, but unfortunately the camera was out of battery power and I put it away. Much to my later embarrassment, I did call the manager a nasty word, but in my defense I was very angry over the trouble we were forced to go through as well as the unwillingness of the manager to do the right thing.
There are a lot of other details to the story, including a visit by a police officer (Officer Bret Burton; who was very sympathetic to our plight but was powerless to do anything), a man who suddenly arrived and who refused repeated requests to identify himself and was violently beating our car (when the officer arrived; he identified himself as Sal Musa, the station owner), and later threats by phone by Mr. Musa to have me arrested for brandishing a walking stick from the drivers seat of my car. In retrospect, I am somewhat embarrassed about grabbing the walking stick, but in my defense both my wife and I were terrified.
It appears that Mr. Musa may get away with this sort of behavior, as the cost for towing and fuel line/tank flushing was below our insurance deductible. My wife and I may in fact be stuck paying for the repairs out of pocket. We are still awaiting a final decision from our insurance. Our final option is to file a claim in small-claims court, but my understanding is that there is a $750 minimum. If we decide to go this route we will have to put a value on the time we spent dealing with this issue.
Since Oregon does not allow consumers to pump their own fuel, this sort of event (I am told by authorities as well as fuel distributors I've talked to) happens quite frequently.
I ask that you please help us obtain some measure of justice by encouraging Mr. Musa to pay the nominal costs of the repairs.
My wife is a local physician and I am an engineer...we are not the sort of people looking for people to sue! In fact, the repair bill is really not the main issue here; rather, we are outraged that this sort of thing can occur without any real consequences and desire compensation to assist Mr. Musa in understanding that treating his customers in this way has consequences. Please help him understand that his customers are to be respected and treated with civility.
Thank you.
Matthew Hickey
A conversation about climate change with former school-mate Eric Shaw, VP Portfolio Manager, IndyMac bank, formerly of Lehman Brothers
In response to the question:
“So how would someone who is "not so liberal" balance the (
I would cut taxes to bring both people and business back to this state (hundreds of thousands of people have left CA in the last year, and scores of businesses have either left or are leaving for states with better business climates: TX and NV to name two). I would cut unnecessary state jobs like staff members to some of our termed out legislators and governor who now sit on do-nothing boards and are paid $100k+ salaries. I would re-negotiate union contracts with the state, starting with a bloated and politicized teacher's union that is more about funding non-education related propositions than it is about teaching children. There's no reason our state government's budget should have doubled in the last 10 years, yet we are now in the throws of this crisis. The governator has been an embarrassment as a republican. He failed to uphold his two campaign promises: reign in spending, and no new taxes.
The only thing he seems to be good at is pandering to the "global warming" alarmists to saddle CA with more regulations and restrictions that will further dampen our economy. Thanks
I know I'm going to get myself in trouble with a comment like this, but somehow I still feel compelled to ask;
With regards to the global warming "alarmists" you speak of; am I correct in assuming your one of those people that think that the vast majority of the scientists that study climate are wrong about the urgent necessity for the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I am curious; do you believe there is some sort of vast conspiracy by these folks? If so, what makes you so sure you are correct, given that this is not your own area of expertise?
Sorry, I've just got to know; we don't see many of your type here in "Little Bagdad" (
Eric
To answer your question, I believe that the climate is an extremely complex system, with many inputs. I know that there are many scientists that believe that the earth is warming, and that humans are the cause. I also know that there are many scientists who believe that solar activity contributes more to changes in the earth's temperature than does CO2. I don't know what the answer is, but I think more research needs to be done before we throw good money after bad treating a problem that may or may not exist. I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists that thinks that all scientists are banding together to preach a doomsday scenario in order to continue to receive government funding to research that very same issue, but I think we need to be sure we are looking at this scientifically, and are open to the hypothesis being proven incorrect.
Matthew
Would you be willing to have the debate on Climate change accessible to your public? I'm no expert by any means (I have however done some greenhouse gas accounting work professionally). I do follow the science from a layman's vantage point, and I believe it is an issue that merits open, honest discussion by two rational people. It could be fun, and who knows, I might learn something...
You know what, on second thought, after spending a bit of time reviewing some of the information available from both sides of the debate, I think that us having this debate publicly is actually a bit pointless. My reason for saying this is that the science is FAR to complicated to be in any way intelligently discussed by two laymen such as ourselves. The debate has been had in many other venues by far more schooled persons than we. This stuff is easy to find. We would just end up throwing conflicting web-sites at each other.
I do however, encourage you to be more than a bit skeptical about the sources of information you hear with regards to climate change skepticism. The Union of Concerned Scientists has published an excellent report detailing one of the disinformation campaign funded by industry. If you're interested, it is linked to in its' entirety here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
I guess in the end it just comes down to whether you believe that the scientific groups such as the intergovernmental panel on climate change and many other groups with expertise in the subject, actually represent a consensus or not. An interesting and very readable discussion of this debate is found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php
I've spent a little bit of time looking at the skeptics arguments. In all honesty, the science makes my head spin. However, what is most telling is that the majority of these skeptics are not being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much like the debate about evolution; the details of the mechanisms are still being debated, and you can occasionally come across a scientist with some level of expertise who doubts it's very existence (see for instance Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research - I once attended one of his lectures out of curiosity; holy cow...it's another story), but I just can not see how any rational person could continue to claim that there is any real debate on the issue of whether the climate change we are experiencing is anthropogenic in origin. The true debate these days is now centered on 1) to what extent is the changing climate reversible 2) if so, how to best do this, and 3) how can we minimize negative effects to our economy whilst restructuring our industries and societies to the extent required to maximize our long-term chances for peace and prosperity as a species (not to mention all the other species who share our little planet...).
On that last point. It is important to remember that with every change comes opportunity. I am not alone in the belief that there is a whole new page to our economy just waiting to be written if only given the right stimulus (from both industry and Government). A "green economy" is more than just a catch-phrase. We as a nation need to start looking more than 10 years into the future. We need to start planning for what sort of world we want our children to live in. The argument that "we need to do more research" has been tried for the past 20 years. Not that more research shouldn't be done, only that NOW is the time to act! Your Nation...heck, your Planet is calling you Eric. You're a smart man, and now you have a very vested interest in the future beyond your own years man!
OK, I'm proselytizing. Sorry about that. But really Eric, Take a look around you...is this the best we can do? Dang it, there I go again...
I agree that a public debate can very quickly turn into an intrenchment into ideology. I appreciate you sending me the above references. I want to do more reading about this issue, and it's good to see the opposing side of the debate. I will go back through the articles I've read and dig into the studies they've referenced and send you those links. I listened to a book on CD (the best use of traffic time here in LA!) by Michael Crichton called "State of
One thing that worries me these days is the "we've got to do something" argument. Our previous president and congress printed 700 billion dollars using the argument. Our current president and congress propose to print over 1 trillion dollars in the same name. Printing money and growing government in the name of "doing something" is a political solution to an economic problem. FDR's measures arguably prolonged the Great Depression rather than shortened it. Markets are self correcting, and "doing something" is a way for politicians to capitalize on mass hysteria. Left to their own, some people would lose their homes to foreclosure. However, many of those people probably should not have been able to purchase a home in the first place, and will have to go back to renting (at a lower price than their mortgage was), and save up to buy a house they can afford. Banks will, and should, go out of business for taking outized risks in the loans they made or the securities they purchased. Those banks leaving the market will open up the way for new banks to come in, and will reward those existing banks that were more fiscally sound. People will lose (and have lost) some of the savings that they invested in the stock market, but that's the meaning of "risk and reward". If we allow reward, but don't allow the possibility of loss, then people/institutions will just take greater risks with their money next time. Why not? Since I can expect to make money in good years, and the government will protect me from losses in bad years, I might as well take out the biggest bets I can. I win in either case! I just want to make sure that "global warming" or "climate change" aren't just another capitalization on people's fears, and another excuse to "do something" no matter the adverse consequences.
Great talking with you, and I've got some reading to do. I'll come back when I've got something for you.
I appreciate your thoughtful response Eric. I agree that the politicization of science is a dangerous thing. I'm sure you are aware of the left's complaints about how the previous administration has dipped into this dangerous territory on many, many occasions. With regards to climate science, I propose the anology of a scientist in a crowded theater noticing that the curtains are on fire. He might yell "there's a fire!" as a statement of scientific fact. Suppose a charismatic theater owner rises disputes the claim out of his own self interest (ok, this is getting to be kind of weak...but stay with me). Does the scientist have a moral obligation to sit down and shut up, or rather to organize those around him to do something about the problem? If he organizes, is this action a politicization of the reality of the fire?
Though I've been aware of Criton's stance on climate change I have not read his book. His stuff is usually a bit too "Steven King" for my tastes (i.e. pulp adventure fiction), but I'll give State of
I share your concern over the economic bailout for banks and individuals who have made poor real-estate and investment decisions. I became a believer in the power of markets to improve peoples lives during my experience in
I see your an Ayn Rand devote. I've read several of her novels, and enjoyed them at the time. I myself have many libertarian tendencies myself (mostly in the social sphere). Ayn Rand was a master storyteller; anyone who reads her books can identify with the protagonist. I strongly believe however that her ideas, unfettered, are dangerous and ill-suited to the situation that in which the world finds itself in the 21st Century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
