I always thought that was what the free-marketers also triumphed.

"The market will also be more or less perfect," so the arguement went, "Because the rationala ctors won't do things that will allow it to be destroyed."

Well...the arguement goes something along those lines.

And yet we can see that huge numbers of people -- major players -- all did things that were really, really crazy. Why? Why would they loan out billons of dollars in home loans to people with no jobs? Why would other companies then insure those bad loans?

Obviously I'm not economics expert...but the whole concept of "rational actors" seems to have been disproven, hasn't it?

No one at any point acted rationally.

Even now no one seems to be acting rationally.

To what degree the crisis is financial and to what degree it is excaserbated by psychology seems debatable to me.

Obviously the banks are in a REAL crisis. No doubt. But the ripple effects extending out from that seem to be reaching into a gray area wherein otherwise rational actors are acting somewhat...irrationally.

People act on incentives....but the incentives can be real or illusionary. And can't the same be said of the dangers?

People bought $3,000 dollar shares in dot coms in the 1990's because they were chasing the incentive of making money. That there was no logical, rational or sane proft model for the dot coms was beside the point. A lot of people wasted a ton of money.

Can't it be argued that the "fear" of investing in anything these days could be largely psychological?

That is to say someone with $250 million who COULD open up a new Subway sandwhich shop in a prime location for $20,000 decides against it because he has an irrational and unfounded fear that now "isn't a good time."

The success or failure of a Subway shop is largely removed from the economic crisis. But the investor irrationally believes that it will all end in failure.

(shrug)

Ah, no one else seems to believe what I'm saying. But I just can't get past the dot com stocks. Billions of dollars in value were created solely in the belief that they were valuable. Surely the reverse could be occuring too. Everyone thinks everything is "worthless" and refusing to invest because of a shared belief that may or may not be grounded in quanitfiable reality.

Are we seriously supposed to entertain the idea that otherwise virginal and upstanding men would see this scene....and then go out and date rape a woman?

And as the cops are hauling them away are we supposed to believe these men will be shouting to the cops, "But Seth Rogen's fictional character vaguely implied it was okay! Aren't you listening? He vaguely implied it was okay!!"

Really?

Rapes are going to happen. Look at the Catholic preists. They studied the Bible every fracking day for decades and then....raped the kids anyway.

So apparently reading only "moral" books didn't influence their decisions at all.

So if reading the Bible every single day had zero impact on the pedophiles...I find it hard to believe that Seth Rogen's 2min scene in a B flick will radically rewrite the social mores of 21st century society.

I don't believe this film will "create" more rapists nor will it someone how return America to a "blame the victim" mentality that existed in the 1950's.

Prosecutors rarely play the "blame the victim" card anymore and no one in society (outsie of the rapists themselves) ever think it's "okay" to force themselves on women.

I think we're giving old Seth waaaay too much credit and power.

I love the armchair psychology.

Alec Baldwin lost his temper and called his kid a name. But surely it couldn't just be that, could it? Surely there was some deep psycho-sexual dynamic brewing beneath the surface.

Why?

Because he is a male and the object of the anger was a female.

Dude, c'mon! When I was a pissy snot-nosed teenager I got in fights with my Mom all the time. One time I called her a bitch. She called me an asshole. Annnnd....so what? It's a typical exchange that happens between 99 percent of all families 24hrs a day. There was no deeper meaning and neither of us decended into madness and/or crippling depression because of calling each other names while angry.

I just can't stand people who write with such hyperbole! She went on and on about how "shocked" and "horrified" that Alec would dare call his own daughter a pig! Fetch the swooning chairs! Heavens!

Lady, in my family we'd call each other shit that would turn your hair white when we were mad. Is it the healthiest way to communicate or de-escalate a tense situation? No, of course not. But, c'mon, get off the high horse and stop rating Alec's angry voicemail as equal to or worse than than the Holocaust.

I assume you're trying to be clever? It's hard to tell.

"A" for effort at being snarky, but unfortunately a "D-" for actually being entertaining/enlightening.

Screenwriters are shockingly lazy.

How is it that, oh, 90 percent of all movies ever made involve the leads working in publishing, advertising or the fashion industry?

Literally no one ever sits at a desk and does actual work (though obviously some movies are the obvious exception).

The point being that if your a screenwriter you should feel guilty as hell for cashing that $2 million check for writting such hackneyed shit. It's stealing (at the very least you stole two hours of my time with a script it took you 2 days to write. You simply cut and paste the plot/dialogue from a dozen other RomCom's....nearly verbatum)

Handsome Leading Man falls for Beautiful Leading Lady and they both work at glamourous/exciting jobs. Smash cut to happy ending, cue pop song as leads kiss and fade to credits!

EARN the money and write something that has been written 57 times before.