global financial crash yay!

padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
vimothy said:
Doesn't that rule out everyone?
Click to expand...

well I mean there's a difference between having the fantasy of living forever & actually pursuing it, if you see what I mean. realizing you're going to die is a part of growing up.

I read somewhere that one of the reasons science fiction appeals so strongly to adolescent boys - and men in arrested development (no offense to anyone, bit of one myself) - is that the characters can cheat their way out of death with teleportation or time travel or what have you, thus they never have to actually come to terms with death...

vimothy said:
What does it mean to believe in something? I do not know. Moreover, what does it mean to mean something? I do not know that either.
Click to expand...

I guess I opened the door to such abstractions.

it's certainly true that technology is important - equally true that it is a mixed blessing. I think where I fundamentally differ from the Yudkowskys & Kurzweils is in their belief that, ultimately something like The Singularity is not just inevitable but desirable. The former I doubt - insinctually mostly, obv it's not my expertise - & the later I strenuously disagree with. perhaps instead of trying to become transhumans we should just try to be better humans.

for all their intelligence these Singularity dudes actually strike me (a la the Marxism thread) as ludicrously naive...I guess it's not surprising as the line they're peddling is just another form of good old-fashioned utopianism but updated...utopianism 2.0 maybe...
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Ah, but if you listen to Yudkowsky he is not at all convinced that the singularity is good by necessity, merely that the inevitability of the singularity necessitates trying to make it good.

And I agree with you that it is a strange kind of Marxism.
 
J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
I believe that you have to know, not fear, that you (and everyone you have known and loved, and hated and despised) is going to die.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The asset bubble theory of income inequality, by Justin Fox:

There's been a debate going on for a few years about whether the big rise in income inequality in the U.S. over the past three decades has been at least partly a political phenomenon or purely an economic one. The first camp, whose members include political scientist Larry Bartels and economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (pdf), argues that decisions about taxing and government spending made since the early 1980s have increased the disparity of incomes. The second ... contends that globalization and technological advance have increased the rewards to the most skilled and reduced pay for those whose work can be done by machines or lower-paid workers overseas. Since globalization and technological advance are good things, the increase in inequality thus isn't really something we'd want to stop.

Well now, after looking at the data about the country's 400 highest earners and reading the comments by pneogy and shepherdwong, I am ready to offer an important new theory (well, not entirely new): The rise in income inequality over the past 30 years has to a significant extent been the product of a series of asset-price bubbles. Whenever the market (be it the market in stocks, junk bonds, real estate, whatever) booms, the share of income going to those at the very top increases. When the boom goes bust, that share drops somewhat, but then it comes roaring back even higher with the next asset bubble. It's not the same people raking it in every time—there's lots of turnover in the top 400—but skimming the top off of asset bubbles appears to have become the leading way to get rich in these United States in the past three decades. ...
Click to expand...
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Up is down:

So the accounting rules say that a decline in the market value of a bank’s debt thanks to increased credit default swap spreads — that is, because investors think you’re more likely to fail — counts as a a profit. On the other hand, if your bank looks stronger, the spreads fall, and you book a loss.

FT Alphaville has the story. Citigroup reported

A net $2.5 billion positive CVA on derivative positions, excluding monolines, mainly due to the widening of Citi’s CDS spreads​

while Morgan Stanley reported

Morgan Stanley would have been profitable this quarter if not for the dramatic improvement in our credit spreads - which is a significant positive development, but had a near-term negative impact on our revenues.​

So Citigroup is profitable because investors think it’s failing, while Morgan Stanley is losing money because investors think it will survive. I am not making this up.
Click to expand...

http://socfinance.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/krugmans-latest-post-what-does-this-mean/
 
P

polystyle

Well-known member
In the *hit , daily and deeper ...
The banks stuff is crazy.
Here we just had the bill about the credit card - bank companies.
You can still hear them screaming "Well, you people will not get credit cards ...'
The fear and the horror !
 
J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
The Economist and the FT are both suggesting that the worst is now ever with regards to the financial crisis.
 
P

polystyle

Well-known member
I hear that Josef , even agree somewhat, but that's easier for those publications to say then for the people on the ground.
Raising $ for new ventures is very , very tight.
We can only hope things build back up in some way that doesn't divide people more then ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top