I'm a simple guy. I like things that are straightforward and clear (which of course makes it amazing that I've been following this election period so intently). One of the things I've noticed over time is that other people like simple things, too.
As I've mentioned in the past (if I was a hot-shot blogger, I'd have a link here back to when I said it before, but I'm doing good to say 'it was probably this year'), when I used to read performance or capacity planning articles, I noticed that a lot of them used words like 'simple' or 'three-step' or 'back of the envelope' to suggest that their article would give you a method to do whatever it was in a straightforward, quick manner. Sometimes they'd pan out; usually they'd have steps like 1. Gently mix two eggs into the batter which you've previously arranged according to fenq shui principles and placed in a refigerator for a week after baking at 450 degrees for one hour and then cooled overnight in an ice water and glycerin bath thats been..... Un huh.
So simple doesn't always mean simple.
That thought is coming back now as I read articles about this massive bailout. This morning, for example, I came across an article on the Wall Street Journal website titled "Taking Revenge on the Rich Will Not Bring Recovery". The tenor of the article is that while this problem might have been caused or exacerbated by people doing legal but extra-clever things, we shouldn't limit their ability to do that, because that won't fix this, so whats the point? Move on, move on, don't think about it, we'll handle it. Whereas I sort of think that its like saying that putting a stop sign up at the intersection won't fix the wreck thats just occurred, so obviously, one's not needed. The same page has an article titled "Let's Get The Bank Bailout Right", which brings to mind old Eb sitting at the stove in the country market, puffing on his pipe and offering down-home, plain-sense solutions to complex problems. Waal, that there whatchamacallit, that Large Hadron Collider, you can just dump some WD-40 in there, it'll cool down that overheating magnet array, no problem.
Somehow, I don't think life is that simple, but the people who are running things hope that we are.
As I've mentioned in the past (if I was a hot-shot blogger, I'd have a link here back to when I said it before, but I'm doing good to say 'it was probably this year'), when I used to read performance or capacity planning articles, I noticed that a lot of them used words like 'simple' or 'three-step' or 'back of the envelope' to suggest that their article would give you a method to do whatever it was in a straightforward, quick manner. Sometimes they'd pan out; usually they'd have steps like 1. Gently mix two eggs into the batter which you've previously arranged according to fenq shui principles and placed in a refigerator for a week after baking at 450 degrees for one hour and then cooled overnight in an ice water and glycerin bath thats been..... Un huh.
So simple doesn't always mean simple.
That thought is coming back now as I read articles about this massive bailout. This morning, for example, I came across an article on the Wall Street Journal website titled "Taking Revenge on the Rich Will Not Bring Recovery". The tenor of the article is that while this problem might have been caused or exacerbated by people doing legal but extra-clever things, we shouldn't limit their ability to do that, because that won't fix this, so whats the point? Move on, move on, don't think about it, we'll handle it. Whereas I sort of think that its like saying that putting a stop sign up at the intersection won't fix the wreck thats just occurred, so obviously, one's not needed. The same page has an article titled "Let's Get The Bank Bailout Right", which brings to mind old Eb sitting at the stove in the country market, puffing on his pipe and offering down-home, plain-sense solutions to complex problems. Waal, that there whatchamacallit, that Large Hadron Collider, you can just dump some WD-40 in there, it'll cool down that overheating magnet array, no problem.
Somehow, I don't think life is that simple, but the people who are running things hope that we are.
8 comments:
"but the people who are running things hope that we are."
That is exactly the truth, Bill. They are really hoping that we won't realize what they're doing. And I'm getting madder by the day about all this.
Network, and televisions crashing through windows, occurs to me.
I think that Obama's cerebral approach is the correct one, but I honestly don't know. Its for certain that McCain has blown all of his credibility with me.
I like that there is a groundswell of resentment toward the idea that big businesses can't be allowed to fail, but small ones -- well, as Obama says, "You're on your own". And I resent the idea that we shouldn't cap the salaries of people getting bailouts, because then the brightest won't want to participate. I think that having the brightest was much of what got us here in the first place.
Neither McCain nor Obama has a clue in my eyes. And they're both members of congress, and both have received donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Obama even hired the former CEO of Freddie Mac to head up his VP search committee. So they're both guilty of turning their heads while this was going on. Those campaign donations were bribes. They knew something like this was coming. And if they didn't then they're just too stupid to be elected to anything again.
Oh, AND!....I just now heard on CNN that McCain's campaign manager's firm has been receiving money from Freddie Mac for several years now.
So yep....they're all guilty in this.
I agree that they're all complicit in it. Question is, which is most likely to resolve it? (Ignoring the not-so-minor question that it's Bush's problem to resolve, though apparently McCain is faced with a dilemma: he wants to distance himself from Bush, but he wants to be seen as on-board with a solution.)
I'm very surprised by your 'not a clue' comment, though.
Don't be surprised. Just because I like Palin doesn't mean I'm on the McCain wagon. I'm more on his than I am Obama's, but it's not like I'm raring to jump on and go for a ride. I don't believe either one them very much.
I do think Palin is a cool chick, and if she were running for president, I'd vote for her and be excited about it. Actually, if a regular John Q. Public that had never been in public office before, but had an proven accounting background was running, I'd probably vote for him or her. Just as long as they also weren't spineless about national security.
Oops, I guess my disenchantment is showing.
By the way: take a look at the movie "dave" some time, and in particular his interview with the accountant who he asks to review the federal budget. Its short, but intriguing. Would that it were so simple.
I've seen that and I love it! I wish we could do that. I swear to you I'm at the point of thinking that it couldn't possibly cause any more damage than what's already going on.
Post a Comment