Cramer Melts Down

See all the drama on You -tube from ITulip.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd5zAbDKZEg

or

http://tinyurl.com/2pd9lx

I saw this yesterday (the original clip).

I don't think the average American is going to be too keen to have the Fed or Washington bail out Wall Street -- any more than it's keen on having those two institutions bail out Detroit.

The upside is that domestic manufacturing and productive goods and services companies are set to get a major boost from this when all is said and done!

Cheers,

Brian

Philip Berg <philip@...> wrote:
See all the drama on You -tube from ITulip.com.
  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd5zAbDKZEg
  
or
  
http://tinyurl.com/2pd9lx

This is excellent Phil....I thought this group on the list might also be
interested in the article by the iTulip president on homelessness. What
a mess the Fed has wrought.

See below

Mike

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image002.gif is missing)

(Attachment image007.gif is missing)

(Attachment image008.gif is missing)

(Attachment image009.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image010.gif is missing)

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

(Attachment image002.gif is missing)

(Attachment image008.gif is missing)

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image009.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image007.gif is missing)

(Attachment image010.gif is missing)

I doubt that sign is accurate. I've been in SFs poorest neighborhoods and the incidence of obesity seemed too high to be consistent with lack of food. I've also been in supermarkets were many of the customers used food stamps and they were often 1) obese and 2) buying the worst foods and least economical foods with them.

Derek,

  You make a very valid point, and I strongly agree that relocating should be treated as a more legitimate option. One reason more people don't consider moving is the degree to which parochialism dominates peoples' thinking. The common assumption is that "we" (the people in whatever geographic locale is being discussed) should take care of "our own" (i.e. anyone else who happens to reside within that geographical area). Both the recipients of aid and those who pay for it tend to believe this to a large degree, despite the fact that most of those who pay resent the scale of their involuntary contributions. So powerful is the mindset that people should be taken care of where they are rather than leaving for a better life elsewhere, that your post to this list is about as close as anyone gets to publicly advocating that people in desperate financial straits leave an area in order to improve their personal circumstances.

  Those who do seek to improve their lot by relocating despite the consensus of their peers, also typically face a significant loss of status when they relocate. Movers are often treated as second-class residents in their new locales for long after they move, with their views, lifestyles, and interests considered less legitimate than those of "natives" or people with longer residency in the location. They often face resentment and hostility, and sometimes even legal oppression, from those who've been in the area longer.

  Nationalism is by far the most virulent strain of this parochialism, but it happens all the way down to the municipal and even the neighborhood levels. Just think about the ugly wave of bigotry against "gentrification" that surfaced during the dot.com boom here in San Francisco (and never entirely went away). It wasn't just wealth-hating, although that played a part; it was outsider-hating.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

You are right Derek....and I would move too.

Mike

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image002.gif is missing)

(Attachment image003.gif is missing)

(Attachment image004.gif is missing)

(Attachment image005.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image006.gif is missing)

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Great discussion.

I'd only add that this sense of parochialism is encouraged by government politicians -- you cannot have a "them" to oppose, without an "us" to "defend" from "them." Whether the "them" is "Yankee carpetbaggers," or "southern bumpkins" or "Mexican illegals" or "wealthy investors" or "poor blacks" is largely irrelevant. Build up the threat of the "them," create the myth of the "us," and place yourself as the "defender" of "us," and you have a long career in politics ahead of you.

Cheers,

Brian

Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote: Starchild:

As usual you've expanded my thoughts into even more insightful ones. I will add again for the record, that I'm not advocating anything differently than what I would do myself. I've moved my family from Chicago to London to San Francisco, all in search of greener pastures. As much as I love San Francisco, when I'm done riding this wave, I'll probably move in search of the next best opportunity. That's because money and income matter a lot to me. If being part of a community mattered more to me, then I may be unwilling to make that tradeoff. This is a point that Sowell brings up over and over - that life (like economics) is a series of tradeoffs. Humans have potentially unlimited wants. Maybe living in Golden Gate park in a tent around their friends is so fulfilling to some people that they would rather do that than to start a new life in some other less desirable locale but with better employment prospects. I'm being totally serious. It's all about tradeoffs and not
expecting others to pay your way.

Have you noticed the billboards in the Bay Area lately that show a busybody soccer mom next to the words "our neighborhood, our rules"? I could go on and on about why this irritates me.

On 8/5/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote: Derek,

You make a very valid point, and I strongly agree that relocating should be treated as a more legitimate option. One reason more people don't consider moving is the degree to which parochialism dominates peoples' thinking. The common assumption is that "we" (the people in whatever geographic locale is being discussed) should take care of "our own" ( i.e. anyone else who happens to reside within that geographical area). Both the recipients of aid and those who pay for it tend to believe this to a large degree, despite the fact that most of those who pay resent the scale of their involuntary contributions. So powerful is the mindset that people should be taken care of where they are rather than leaving for a better life elsewhere, that your post to this list is about as close as anyone gets to publicly advocating that people in desperate financial straits leave an area in order to improve their personal circumstances.

Those who do seek to improve their lot by relocating despite the consensus of their peers, also typically face a significant loss of status when they relocate. Movers are often treated as second-class residents in their new locales for long after they move, with their views, lifestyles, and interests considered less legitimate than those of "natives" or people with longer residency in the location. They often face resentment and hostility, and sometimes even legal oppression, from those who've been in the area longer.

Nationalism is by far the most virulent strain of this parochialism, but it happens all the way down to the municipal and even the neighborhood levels. Just think about the ugly wave of bigotry against "gentrification" that surfaced during the dot.com boom here in San Francisco (and never entirely went away). It wasn't just wealth-hating, although that played a part; it was outsider-hating.

Love & Liberty,
    <<< starchild >>>