đź”· Open Thread

Lurker said:
"If people were to behave before the bubble started, the economy could be recovering a little faster"

People no longer have unlimited easy credit to buy things they shouldn't can't afford in the first place. Nor do people have jobs to spend at the same levels they could before, even excluding credit. It doesn't help either that the rule of law has been eroded to scare off investors, given that the government is now breaking all existing legal precedent in bankruptcy court for politically connected entities.

The constant meddling of the government and uncertainty of the future is what's killing the economy. Government interference in the market created the mess and is only making it worse. Mind you this is before hyperinflation, or even worse a spiral indexed deflation across the board, kicks in thanks to the government borrowing itself into oblivion. Remember what happened to the USSR? We are on our way there economically if the trend continues.
Click to expand...

I remember, way back in about 2005 (maybe 2006), an article in Forbes talking about how the dollar was losing value very quickly, and that we could see an entire collapse of the American economic system if we didn't change things. Something about gold, I didn't really understand economics at the time (still don't, really). But pretty prophetic, I guess, even though it was only 4 years ago.

Anyhow, I highly suggest picking up this month's edition of Wired magazine, it talks about the economy, the new "socialism," and the future of Detroit and how they're related. How Detroit should emulate the computer industry, and the car companies should be at the center of a wheel, using parts from hundreds of different independent suppliers, rather than doing almost everything in-house (a model leftover from the pre-internet days, when communication between suppliers was far more difficult.) The article on "socialism" was focused on the proliferation of social networking and the internet (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and it's affect on society and the workplace. The "Googlenomics" article was about Google's advertising algorithms, haven't gotten through that one yet.

Here's a link to the online article, not sure if it includes everything, but poke around and I'm sure you'll get most of it.

"The New New Economy: More Startups, Fewer Giants, and Infinite Opporunity"
 
I will not be voting for Marian Walsh in the next election.
 
Since I do not see her mentioned anywhere on the last few pages of this thread, I'm not sure where that came from. What did she vote for (or against) that upset you?
 
underground said:
Massive economic sabotage conducted by the US? Yeah, I remember that.
Click to expand...

Closed currency, meaning there is a major issue with creditors to buy debt

+

Massive spending without abandon

=

Collapse

At the rate China and everyone else is viewing the country's credit rating erode, that very well could happen.

The speed at which the USSR collapsed also had a lot to do with the inherent gross inefficiency of centrally planned economies. You have no idea what a pain in the ass it was just to buy basic things at stores parts of the year. Shopping was always an ordeal of waiting in line, with customer service, which made the RMV look like a slice of Heaven.
 
I'm no economist, but could the growth of responsible businesses, banks, and consumers within the US, which at present is the wide minority, survive an almost complete collapse of our business system? Sort of like a phoenix metaphor?

Say, for example, that while the Big Three are going under (and bringing the US debt with them,) that smaller companies like Coda, Tesla, and Smart set the precedent for the American auto industry (except Smart, I don't think they're American?) As the massive giants of industry, in every industry, fail to innovate, doesn't it make sense to assume that out of their failures the new economy will consist of all the companies that did innovate?

I guess the pessimistic view is that, without the big companies succeeding, the small ones can't get any funding from the banks. I like the optimistic view, though.
 
Last edited:
Your humor escapes me. Please, with layman's terms, come again?
 
Murray Hill

450px-Murray_Hill_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
 
It's crunch time John, what do you have up your sleeve? How can I help out?
 
Unrelated, but if you think Boston has bad NIMBYs, listen to this. A guy in Old Town Marblehead, in the 'Historic District,' had his request to put in double-paned windows put into his 1950s home because they weren't historically accurate. They had a 3 hour Board of Selectmen meeting to hear his appeal, where residents voiced their concerns about how they are the stewards of these homes. All because the windows were 'simulated divided light' rather than 'true divided light' windows. It was pitiful, and I really wished I had gone down to Abbot Hall to tell them to knock it off and focus on something more important.

One Selectmen joked that he had learned more about windows in the last few hours than he ever knew in his entire lifetime.
 
I think that is actually fairly common in historic districts. They are a real double-edged sword for homeowners.
 
I wouldn't think that a 1950s building in Marblehead could be considered historic?
 
I would say it could be an example of a mid-century modern home, which are just now starting to fall under historic guidelines, but if it had divided light windows that is probably not likely.:confused:

If it is just a plain 1950's house that happens to be in an historic district and they are trying to make them put in divided light windows because the other (older) houses have them then that is beyond stupid.

If the divided light windows are actually an original, unique feature to the house *shrug* that's the price you pay for living in a historic district I guess. But I don't think many homes in the fifties were built with true divided light windows.
 
Older house (1800s), but the current, divided light windows were put in place in the 1950s. It's really not a historic window, it's huge. Probably about 8x8'. Historic homes never saw that much glass in their life. It's almost mocking the colonial homes around it. The changes the owner proposed actually managed to make it look more historically accurate, as it was changed to a bay window. I'll try to find a picture.
 
Briv, I never said "thanks" for the offer. At this point, it seems that it's up to the voters, few that they are. I was in the North End tonight, not hostile, but very few votes to be had. South End is the unknown. I believe it will turn out for me. Chinatown and Roxbury, too. This weekend could make all the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top