1. In the February 11th entry, '
Rhetorical questions...', this blogger wondered re the multiple calls to make the shareholders of institutions that get government aid in this downturn "take a haircut."
Per Paul Krugman we apparently have the following choice: rescue the banks either by
"(a) giving a HUGE handout to current stockholders or (b) effectively taking ownership on the part of we, the people."
One problem with this and much other discussion on this topic is the unstated but implied notions that these are completely two separate groups, and that the shareholders who own bank shares are responsible for the current state of affairs and don't deserve 'bailing out.' Unfortunately, all (millions if not tens of millions, via ownership of mutual funds, 'direct' and via pension funds) of these shareholders are tax-payers and most are not the "fat cats' that excite popular outrage... Politicians can posture re saving taxpayers at the expense of shareholders with relative impunity, because most people think of themselves as 'taxpayers' rather than as 'shareholders,' even though they are both.
OK, so consider taxpayer Suzy Q. Public. Every day she hears from the politicians the false dichotomy - the government needs to pour billions into these institutions to make them whole, and to protect SQP the shareholders need to "take a haircut" (because otherwise they would be given a huge handout). Well, post haircut the value of SQP's wealth and retirement funds are reduced, and even if the banks eventually pay back the entirety of the loans they received plus interest, SQP is unlikely to see one penny of this money. On the other hand, without the haircut the value of SQP's retirement increases as the financial institutions recover... (Note: we are assuming for both scenarios that the government bailout succeeds in turning the economy around) Why does it have to be an either/or (shareholders win vs. taxpayers win) rather than sum-sum?
3.
'Axelrod: Effects of stimulus will be seen soon'- Having passed the "stimulus" package the discussion moves on to how effective it will be, something this blogger regards as a somewhat sterile argument. How will anyone know if the stimulus "works?" Proponents will claim success no matter who happens. Things turn around in the next 12-24 months... thank goodness for the perspicacity of those who proposed and passed the stimulus! The economy continues to be in recession and unemployment continues to rise... thank goodness for the perspicacity of those who proposed and passed the stimulus, because without it things would have been worse! A "no-lose" set of circumstances (note: the Obama team was smart enough to say they would save or create 4 million jobs... one can always claim jobs were 'saved', no matter what happens!) The opposite for opponents.
4. NYPD learns lessons from Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 174 -The NYPD is conducting drills based on lessons learned from the recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Good move. The article goes on to say that the new training was ordered "... because in the Mumbai incident, casualties mounted as local police were outgunned and unable to engage the terrorists..." Hah, no lessons to learn here.
Of course the Mumbai police were outgunned! Most ordinary Mumbai police are "armed" (if you can call it that!) only with lathis, 6 to 8 foot iron-tipped canes (generally bamboo). And their main use of these is in lathi charges on unarmed civilians.
Over four ago Rafik Hariri assassinated (Feb 14th, 2005) "By early afternoon on February 14, 2005, the elegant facades of the hotels, fish restaurants and smart artisan shops along West Beirut’s seafront had been blasted beyond recognition. Pictures from the time show the bomb site like an asteroid crater, and surrounding buildings looked more like giant piles of charred matchsticks than the chic spots they had been hours before."
Minimal posting for the next few days (through February 28th). However, Tosk's daily tweets will continue to be posted...
1. In the February 11th entry, 'Rhetorical questions...', this blogger wondered re the multiple calls to make the shareholders of institutions that get government aid in this downturn "take a haircut." Per Paul Krugman we apparently have the following choice: rescue the banks either by "(a) giving a HUGE handout to current stockholders or (b) effectively taking ownership on the part of we, the people."
From Pew Research's 'Darwin Debated: Religion vs. Evolution.' Quote: "Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Americans are still fighting over evolution. If anything, the controversy has recently grown in both size and intensity. In the last five years alone, for example, debates over how evolution should be taught in public schools have been heard in school boards, town councils and legislatures in more than half the states." and "According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 63 percent of Americans believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom."
Shows the relative energy intensiveness of various modes of transport, as gallons of fuel necessary to go 350 miles... For a clearer, better sized version please go to the source at Good magazine.