Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 494 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Back on Maggie's Farm
[Read the article: Trade and the price of food]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems to me, there's a great value in retaining some of the old labor-intensive farming practices, even though the idea is in direct opposition to capitalism's core tenets.
Farms are a way to provide subsistence-level existence to large numbers of incredibly poor people. Having an agricultural community base in the USA would likely serve us a lot of good, especially with all the damage the poor and working class see during market corrections.
A few years ago, I was totally broke, living in NYC. I'd have been glad to have the opportunity to go "work" somewhere for room and board, and perhaps a stipend income. It's interesting to consider what possible solutions there could be for the individuals who fail to integrate effectively into a capitalist service-based economy.
I'm not well informed about the effects subsidies have on the industry, but it certainly doesn't appear that any of our policies have done much to benefit the small, labor-intensive farm.
-
What's this "Mark to Market" Thing?
[Read the article: "The next time we have Black Monday"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I watched the Enron documentary, and they mentioned the phrase a few times.
In that context, I had the impression that Enron was allowed to use some "mark to market" accounting practice to put profits on the books that wouldn't be realized for years or decades.
Did I misunderstand that? What's the relation to "mark to market" for derivatives?
(If I should read a book before asking such a question, I'm open for title suggestions.)
-
What's the deal on that?
[Read the article: Vitter's prostitution headache about to get worse?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you're An Important Guy, you can ignore subpoenas?
-
A-yep, Sucks
[Read the article: "The next time we have Black Monday"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]<<blockquote>>The Fed can't plug the gap between the inflated valuations and market valuations because that much money doesn't exist. Instead, it's trying to throw enough money at the markets to support confidence in asset valuations, including confidence in grossly inflated credit derivatives.<</blockquote>>
So shouldn't we just have nationalized Bear-Sterns?
To sum up for blunder-simple readers:
We've got a huge boatload of paper which banks claim is worth tons of money, but which cannot be liquidated, because no one believes the paper is worth what the banks say it is.
But the banks can't write down ALL the paper, because then they'd be insolvent.
That covers it, right?
Looks like there's no solution here, at least not amongst the "serious" thinkers.
Thank goodness I'm poor and have nothing.
When does the revolution start? I'm stocking up on coffee and cigarettes. What else would be good? Sugar, maybe? Chocolate?
-
That Article was Crap
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It could've been something, really, if Wilentz had actually gone to the trouble to explain:
1) WHY we've got the absurd system we have today
2) what the concerns are about direct "winner-take-all" approaches
3) how his favored system is superior
Instead, he just argued that this system is bad because HIS CANDIDATE ISN'T WINNING.
Pathetic, really. The guy has an education. He's written books. This is unacceptable.
And thanks so much to all the posters who pointed out, "well, I don't really get how it all works, but it needs to be changed!"
Duh. If you don't get it, maybe you need to address your lack of understanding BEFORE demanding changes that *might* have favored your preferred candidate in one single campaign.
Just a thought.
-
I Almost Agree
[Read the article: The silver lining of the credit crunch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I basically agree that everyone should suffer a little, if by "everyone" you mean the international financiers and speculators who run the financial markets, and if by "a little" you mean they all lose enough of their own money that they have to get straight jobs with the rest of us low-lifes.
-
Sauce for the Goose
[Read the article: Bush's dumb move on trade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't it possible that Bush himself just doesn't care?
At this point, he's got to be considering the fact that he's out in January, and the repercussions of anything he does isn't going to affect his life much. (As a side note, this is the main reason I'm concerned he's dumb enough to bomb Iran.)
His "pushing for" a treaty he's not going to negotiate may be exactly the same political posturing that anyone else might engage in over this issue.
-
How Long's Joan been a Media Star?
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's on TV with enough frequency to qualify as a talking head, I think.
I was just wondering how long one can be subject to the whims of the TV spotlight without losing perspective and beginning to think it really MEANS something.
I'm sure there's much more horrible video to montage on every sensitive topic imaginable.
There's a lot of sexism in politics, including that tiny fraction of the total which is directed at Hillary, but if she doesn't have a campaign to beat it, she doesn't deserve the nomination.
-
Ayep
[Read the article: McCain's lack of candor on reproductive rights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope concerned citizens are capturing many of these moments on video for eventual publication on YouTube.
This guy has no business being President.