Pure Twaddle

What I want to know (and what you’re ignoring):

1. What exactly is Obama’s health plan. Yeah, I’ve seen the sound bytes. I’ve watched the Daily Show interview. I see the Republicans bitch about it. But what exactly is the plan? You haven’t once talked about the details. If there are none, tell us so!

2. What the hell is going on in Iraq? Obama got elected and suddenly there’s nothing important to report from our first major war since Afghanistan. Which brings me to:

3. What the hell is going on in Afghanistan? The Economist is reporting we’ve had one of the worst months of casualties in the EIGHT YEAR CONFLICT. Why the hell isn’t this a nightly discussion?

4. What the hell is going on with the economy? Ok, ok. Every economist disagrees with every other economist. That still doesn’t explain whether I’m going to have to temp for the next five years. Sure, it’s impossible to tell the future, but for God’s sake at least tell us what the possible outcomes are.

5. How much is the TARP and stimulus money helping? You were all over the debates like a fat kid on chocolate last October. Now the whole thing is treated like an amorphous blob that hangs without our periphery. There MUST be some kind of metric that can determine whether what was enacted EIGHT MONTHS AGO is having an effect.

6. What’s happening in Iran? You’ve had one night of passion with the temporary revolution and now you won’t call her back. Huge things are happening there still; you’d never know by your coverage. Is she not sexy enough for you?

7. Why are you ignoring China? The Uighurs have been rioting against one of our largest trading partners, lenders, and governmental opposites. Why is this almost completely ignored?

You want to save journalism and the newspapers? Start reporting the news, you idiots! I don’t give a damn about Sotomayor. I couldn’t care less about Goldman Sacks. Just explain to me what the hell is happening in the world!

Popularity: 7% [?]

The Gothamist reports that the NYC unemployment rate hit 9%, especially “in the areas of ‘communications media, advertising and other information services…”

I chose a sweet time to move North and start my career in writing. I am currently looking for abandoned construction sites in Brooklyn in which to squat.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Senate has just announced they have come up with a bipartisan deal for a staggeringly gigantic stimulus package that they hope to vote on by Tuesday. Naturally, they released this news about two hours after most respectable journalists have packed up for the weekend and gotten themselves nicely plastered at Applebee’s happy hour.

This whole charade of discussion is disgusting and has brought out the worst of both sides; mainly from the Republicans, who have shown extreme weakness and disorganization in making a stand. After a few whiney calls to fairness, they have tentatively agreed to a slightly-less-than-$800 billion spending bill. They have shown the requisite opposition to it and are trying to wash their hands of the deal, but not too much in case it actually works. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement right after the announcement on Friday, “ultimately this bill should be judged on whether it works, and 90 percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea.”

So he thinks 90% of it is wasteful spending and pork, but he is willing to try a wait-and-see approach to it? Is this really the kind of leadership we’re going to get out of the opposition in the next four to eight years?

What is most disturbing is that none of the major networks or major pundits have clearly broken down and laid out the components of this bill. Conservative critics scream it’s mostly waste which won’t help anybody, while Liberal cheerleaders degrade the Republicans as Neros who would rather play fiddle than put out the fire. The less-biased reporters ignore the thoughtful approach, instead calling the blows to each side as if they were ringside at a Holyfield fight. Whatever happened to “we report, you decide?”

Of course the Democrats are going to produce a bill chock full of government-expanding programs. Since most of America voted for them that’s what we are going to get. And who is blames them? That’s their platform and they’re sticking to it. But arguing over what money goes where is wasted breath.

There is a more insidious problem here that is overlooked by nearly every media organization (except the Wall Street Journal). Whether the bill is filled with pork or not is a moot point. No matter what form a giant stimulus package takes, be it infrastructure overhaul, massive education spending, or stimulus checks, we are going to severely increase inflation.

When you dump trillions of fabricated dollars in the economy, inflation will rise. There is no escaping it. With the ridiculously poor returns on investments and bank accounts, the last thing we need is our current cash supply to decrease in value. What good is “saving or creating” 2.5 million jobs when their salaries are paid in a worthless currency?

And yes, “borrowing from our grandchildren” is a euphemism for printing money. And we all know how that worked for the Weimar Republic. From Wikipedia:

Since striking workers were paid benefits by the state, much additional currency was printed, fueling a period of hyperinflation. The 1920s German inflation started when Germany had no goods with which to trade. The government printed money to deal with the crisis; this allowed Germany to pay war loans and reparations with worthless marks and helped formerly great industrialists to pay back their own loans. This also led to pay raises for workers and for businessmen who wanted to profit from it. Circulation of money rocketed, and soon the Germans discovered their money was worthless.

Sound familiar?

So the next time you listen to your favorite commentator, see if he mentions inflation. He will not. While everyone is ogling the familiar kabuki play on the floors of the House and the Senate, we are implicitly agreeing that the only way to get ourselves out of this self-made debt hole is to borrow and spend more. Pure lunacy.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Lots of people I talk to, especially young, white, male 20-somethings, enjoy the movie Fight Club. It’s not just the fine acting from Pitt and Norton they like, it’s the anti-establishment, anti-Ikea, anti-consumerist ideas that appeal to them. Who doesn’t want to throw all of his posessions away, move into a disused house on Paper Street, and start a club to fight other people?

As the movie shows, the natural end to all this is to form a nation-wide group whose only goal is to force everyone else to do the same. How is this accomplished? Destroy the credit card companies, of course. There is, I believe, a subtle flaw to the entire plan.

Though Tyler Durden’s planning and execution of a massive attack on finance was well done, he never really thought past the point of explosion. He naively says, “if you erase the debt record, we all go back to zero.” Sure, that sounds great in theory, but in reality chaos would ensue. If suddenly tomorrow all of our credit institutions disappeared, America would be screwed.

How much cash do you keep on hand? A few hundred at the most? Imagine if you suddenly didn’t have access to your credit card or debit card; and neither did anyone else. There would be pandemonium. Riots and looting would break out almost instantaneously as people try to obtain goods to keep their family going.

The government would immediately move in the National Guard to stop the rioting. Ah, but how to keep the troops loyal when their paychecks are worth a damn? Bribe them with food. The government would immediately nationalize all farms in the country to supply this army and hold the power. While they are at it, they would probably nationalize every other producer in the country, creating a massive, government-controlled economy.

From what I gather, converting a capitalistic republic to a military socialist dictatorship overnight is not going “back to zero.” Quite the opposite, the people would be beholden to the government and you can sure as hell guess where that will end up.

I’m sure none of his follower’s thought all this through. Otherwise, I’m sure they would gladly put up with a bunch of cheap goods from Ikea if it means also being able to eat and live in a free society.

You may ask yourself why the plot of a 9-year-old film is worthy of discussion now. In light of recent events, I propose that Mr. Durden was doing it all wrong. If he really wanted to destroy our consumerist culture without taking everything else out at the same time, he should have offered cheap credit to everyone, no matter what their financial situation. Over a period of several years, our populous would be forced to borrow more and more to cover costs, and financial institutions would push bad securities all over the globe. Eventually, this would all come tumbling down, like the painful collapse of financial institutions that we are seeing now. Slow enough to “go back to zero,” but not too fast in which we have to become slaves to the government, at least not yet.

Sure, it’s not as glamourous as destroying high-rise buildings, but it keeps with the spirit of the movie.

Popularity: 9% [?]