When would the cover be possible?

Posted on by TheLastPsychiatrist and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Under what circumstances would such a cover be possible?




Extra credit:  Under what conditions is this cover possible?

Note: “The trouble with Obama’s plan” referenced above is that government involvement was not extensive enough.

Related posts:

  1. “I blame the press”
  2. Does Facebook make your brain bigger?

26 Responses to When would the cover be possible?

  1. geerussell says:

    I’m going to say B to both questions because a crisis opens space to upset the status quo. Coming out of the 70s, that’s how we got deregulation to begin with.

  2. JohnJ says:

    “All of the above”

    There’s never a wrong time to push an agenda.

  3. barrkel says:

    Bonus question: what country do you have to be in to conflate stimulus spending and over-regulation as (im)morally equivalent government involvement?

    The very question pre-supposes a political bias.

  4. John R says:

    Low Market => Gov’t needs to help
    High Market => Big Brother needs to get out of the way

    If you would just get out of the way, I would be fine all by myself.
    If you would just support me when I need it, I could make it through.

    I get all credit, you get all blame.

    This is the face of progress.

    • JonnyVelocity says:

      a) I think you mean ‘progress’*

      b) “This is the face of deception.” (And people actually believe it)

      c) It’s all Obama’s fault… Until we switch hi out for the next guy who has high hopes of being powerful and changing things then gets into office and is handed the sign that says ‘I’m it for the next four to 8 years’ on it. Rinse, repeat.

      * Registered Trade Mark of the American Dream Association. Legitimacy pending.

  5. Nachlasse says:

    Hmm. I believe the first answer is D.

    To my knowledge, the only reason for government intervention in the market is to protect incomes of suppliers, create stability and to hold for inequality in times of crisis, famine, war. Government intervention restricts efficient allocation of resources because of their methods that are contrary to free market approaches.

    Once stability and all is resumed, the government’s policies are a hindrance to a growing economy; they are not needed anymore and if left there, it will increase inefficiency. Let free markets do their business when times are better.

    About the second cover, I guess it might be point C. Since ‘help’ is not extensive enough, it could mean they’re bouncing back from trouble. Point B is trouble. Point C is the rebound. Point D is when Uncle Sam is complacent enough to play with fire.

    • JonnyVelocity says:

      “Once stability and all is resumed, the government’s policies are a hindrance to a growing economy; they are not needed anymore and if left there, it will increase inefficiency. Let free markets do their business when times are better.”

      So true. Which is why unregulated (by the government) ‘free’ markets almost caused the downfall of the United States.

      But don’t worry about it, the big Other (the market) loves you and would never let it get bad enough so the government (satan?) can’t fix it.

      • boeotarch says:

        “Once stability and all is resumed, the government’s policies are a hindrance to a growing economy; they are not needed anymore and if left there, it will increase inefficiency. Let free markets do their business when times are better. ”

        The point of Keynesian economics is exactly that you can’t have both huge booms and moderate recessions. You sacrifice a little of that exuberant boom so that when it finally goes bust, we don’t get stuck with 15% unemployment and/or a world war. Every generation of investors acts like theirs is The Boom That Shall Never End but it invariably busts, and in most cases there’s a lot government could have done to prevent the worst of the damage. We had regular panics before the Federal Reserve System, the Great Depression was the inevitable doppleganger for the Roaring Twenties, and the current recession started because Bush made it legal for investment banks to turn absolute garbage debt into investment-grade product.

        In other words, yes, the government is a “hindrance” on the growth of a healthy economy, but it’s also a hindrance on the implosion of the unhealthy economies that we irrational humans are so efficient at creating.

        • boeotarch says:

          Sorry about the whole post coming out bolded, I have no idea how I did that o_O

        • JohnJ says:

          So how do you explain the fact that the Federal Reserve was created BEFORE the Great Depression, not to mention all the recessions that we’ve had since?

          Damn Bush for going back in time and creating all those recessions, and stopping the Federal reserve from preventing the first Great Depression! It’s all BusHitler’s fault!!!!11!eleventy!

          • boeotarch says:

            Because the federal reserve isn’t bulletproof, it just resolved a lot of problems caused by wildcat banks? And because the Federal Reserve prevents fiscal crises and the Great Depression was caused by a stock market crash, and contributed to by the UK returning to the gold standard? And that recessions are INEVITABLE, I was arguing that the right kind of government intervention makes them less damaging?

            Seriously dude, you don’t have to be so infantile here. I don’t know how you got from “government has a place in the economy” to “Bush is responsible for all our problems ever and I hate him.” Projecting much?

          • boeotarch says:

            To be fair, I do think the Federal Reserve contributed to our latest boom by keeping interest rates so idiotically low. Just goes to show you shouldn’t let sycophants handle monetary policy.

          • JohnJ says:

            Ha. The guy who says “Bush made it legal for investment banks to turn absolute garbage debt into investment-grade product.” calls me infantile.

            Ya, that was the problem, genius. It takes a seriously deranged mind to believe something that infantile.

          • boeotarch says:

            It is a fact that the kind of swaps used to repackage those garbage mortgages were legalized in 2001, during the Bush administration. As part of Bush’s general push for deregulation. Is it infantile to say Obama passed the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare?

          • JohnJ says:

            No, but it’s a lie to say that they were legalized in 2001. The government pushed banks to participate in the Credit default swap system back in the 1990’s. Get your facts straight. That’s the reason why banks were so deep into the system. The government thought that the cds system was a perpetual motion machine of free money. Push banks to give housing loans to poor people, housing prices go up, credit default swaps pay out, wash, rinse, repeat, forever and ever, amen.

            Worked great until the housing bubble popped. Then the chain of debt between the banks threatened to collapse the whole system, just like the bank runs of the 1930’s, only with debt. That’s how the housing crisis became the debt crisis.

            The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is what you’re referring to. 2000, huh? Damn that BusHitler for signing law before he even became president!

            You’re either deranged or a liar.

            Probably both.

          • JohnJ says:

            And the Commodities Futures Act of 2000, which was signed by BusHitler disguised as Clinton in December of 2000, didn’t legalize credit default swaps. Credit default swaps were never illegal. (As noted, banks were pressured into participating in the cds system to get “free” money to finance home loans for poor people in the 1990’s.) What that act did was exempt them from SEC regulation.

            But I have no doubt that an ignorant, deranged liar such as yourself has absolutely no concern about real facts.

          • operator says:

            Have you been checked for memetic parasitosis?

            Argumentum ad hominem is a common symptom.

          • boeotarch says:

            I took two things away from those replies:

            1), I was wrong about both the year the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed, and its contents.

            2), you’re an asshole.

            But I must just be thinking that because I’m deranged.

          • JohnJ says:

            When your opinions fail to change as the facts change, that means your opinions are the result of derangement and have absolutely nothing to do with facts.

            This is what pisses me off most about lying jackasses like you. You get proven wrong six ways from Sunday, and all you can do to defend yourself is call names. At least when I call names, I have the facts on my side.

            “I may have been completely wrong in the falsehoods I was spreading, but I’m a nice person!”

            No, you’re not. If you were a nice person, you wouldn’t be spreading falsehoods in the first place.

            As the Last Psychiatrist says, there’s never any guilt.

          • boeotarch says:

            So, let’s follow the course of this argument: I say I think government can have a positive role in the economy. I give three examples of why I feel that way. One of my examples was based on wrong information that I was confident was right. You said otherwise, I double-checked my info and found out you were right, I admitted I was wrong and I haven’t said anything ideological since then.

            You’re not a dick because you proved me wrong, you’re a dick because you jumped into ad hominems immediately. There’s plenty of reasons why I would’ve said something untrue without being insane or compulsively dishonest. Like, maybe I was mislead by a trusted source? Or maybe I used to know the truth, but I remembered wrong? Maybe I just don’t spend that much time arguing on the internet so I sometimes get my facts crossed? But it seems like it’s pretty important for you to believe I’m a terrible person.

            Basically, you’re being an asshole because you’re not treating me as an individual, you’re treating me as “every liberal you’ve ever been mad at ever.” I said I thought Bush was responsible for reckless deregulation and you threw “BusHitler” at me? So what, I’m the same as the people who call him a war criminal or a Nazi? I never said any of those things and it’s ridiculous for you to try to put that on me.

            And nice job invoking Alone on me. I get that the temptation to psychoanalyze everybody you encounter here is hard to resist, but… shit, dude. How do I win this one? Just proclaim how wise and great you are and what scum I, your rival, truly am? I’m just defending myself from an insult here, if anything you’re the one asking for the validation.

          • JohnJ says:

            Aristotle said that he enjoyed losing debates because it meant that he learned something, and learning was more important to him than winning a debate. Needless to say, I’ve had a lot of debates where I’ve been on the learning side.

            I just admit I was wrong (which you’ve already done), and try to not make the same mistakes again. I don’t see how anyone could ask for more than that.

          • boeotarch says:

            Agreed, that’s all you can really ask of a person. An apology was all I needed, so no harm no foul as far as I’m concerned. Hopefully we get along a little better in the future.

        • JonnyVelocity says:

          My problem with the model you’re presenting as ‘the way’ is that it actually destroys a lot of the the lives of people who only play the smallest part possible in it, while those who take part in it (and are ultimately responsible for it) skate through it. The objection I make is just that.

          I don’t think the government is the ultimate answer to this problem, but as long as there is a semblance of representational government left (for now), people who are at the bottom can have some sway in the minds of those who can pull some of the reigns of the market.

          What I mean is that decisions made with profit as the bottom line and not people are evil. I know that makes me a heretic in the eyes of the priests of the Market – that mysterious thing out there that no one can really understand or know personally – but I’ll risk going to whatever ‘hell’ they promise (communism?) to say it.

          • boeotarch says:

            “Evil” might be a strong word. I think the market is “amoral” or “dispassionate.” Like the laws of physics, or Cthulhu. It very efficiently pursues outcomes that make internal sense but can apply pretty poorly to actual human beings. If we mess with the market too much it stops working, but if we don’t mess with it at all it careens into plutocracy followed by riots followed by a different plutocracy. So I think the best way to handle things is to look carefully at the data and make decisions on a case-by-case basis instead of just slinging generalities around.

          • operator says:

            On the other hand, one could argue that the market has evolved into an entity which is often directly at odds with human rights, ecological conservation, and even human life as a result of the nuanced interplay of domestic regulation (or lack thereof) and international trade.

            The market rewards those that transgress the law where doing so is likely offer a positive return on investment. Entities willing to break from ethical behavior when profit outweighs penalty are rewarded – and those that can conceal or legitimize their activity risk very little.

            Cthulhu may seem indifferent, but, as a human, you should never turn your back to anything that allows betting on human misery in a game that’s easy to throw.

  6. Screwed says:

    I don’t think this is a multiple choice question. The answer is that both of those covers are only possible, or necessary, when there is nothing left but confidence games. That’ll be 40 bucks I accept paypal