February 2010
Monthly Archive
Deluded
| Posted by Chill on 28 Feb 2010 |
The contentions of of this column are just as dubious as those it’s arguing against.
Environmental degradation and no miraculous last-minute save by technology will make quite the opposite true.
Lehmans and cliffs
| Posted by Chill on 28 Feb 2010 |
Good article by Joseph Stiglitz that also serves to further destroy the still-cherished notion that if Lehman hadn’t failed, everything would’ve turned out A-OK.
The argument is that, if only the Fed and Treasury had rescued Lehman Brothers, the whole crisis would have been avoided. The implication—seemingly taken on board by the Obama administration—is, when in doubt, bail out, and massively so. To skimp is to be penny wise and pound foolish.
But that is the wrong lesson to learn from the Lehman episode. The notion that if only Lehman Brothers had been rescued all would have been fine is sheer nonsense. Lehman Brothers was a consequence, not a cause: it was the consequence of flawed lending practices and inadequate oversight by regulators. Whether Lehman Brothers had or had not been bailed out, the global economy was headed for difficulties.
Lehman wasn’t inconsequential. It merely accelerated, like a mild catalyst, what would’ve happened anyway.
Wisdom of sorts
| Posted by Chill on 28 Feb 2010 |
When I was younger, I used to think everyone was stupid, except me.
Now, I think everyone is stupid, including me.
Every new thing is bad and can’t work
| Posted by Chill on 26 Feb 2010 |
Why the internet will fail, from 1995.
Down and out
| Posted by Chill on 26 Feb 2010 |
TV shown
| Posted by Chill on 26 Feb 2010 |
I’ve gotten used to watching great TV shows — which only started existing in the early- to mid-90s or so — that now TV shows which would’ve seemed absolutely amazing in 1983 now only seem mediocre.
It’d be an interesting cultural and sociological study to find out exactly why TV is now in its golden era.
Because, special effects aside (which are quite minimal, anyway), Lost could’ve been made in 1950 — but no viewer could’ve handled its complexity then, and it would’ve been booed off the screen.
It takes most art forms about 40-60 years, it seems, to develop to their potential. Maybe this alone explains why TV is in its belle epoque right now.
Sachs tax
| Posted by Chill on 26 Feb 2010 |
Goldman Sachs paid only $14 million in taxes for 2009. Why is no one now burning down their headquarters?
The future
| Posted by Chill on 26 Feb 2010 |
The electric motor was invented in 1837
Notice that its inventor died in poverty, and his idea wasn’t seen as worth a damn until nearly 50 years after his death. This is common in the history of technology; more likely than not, actually.
That is one reason why I am, unlike most folks, unlikely to condemn any novel invention as being “totally worthless!” All ends can’t be seen. Advances are hard to predict. What’s utterly useless today may become completely indispensable in combination with one other small, unforeseeable thing.
Shorts off
| Posted by Chill on 25 Feb 2010 |
It’s become a sort of idiotic shard of conventional wisdom that what toppled Bear Stearns, AIG, et al., were short sellers.
This is insanely wrong.
What brought those companies down had nothing to do with short selling, and everything to do with the terrible, disastrous risks they took — with no collateral, little to no reserves, and no good sense.
Amazing how many otherwise-smart people buy this, because they have been deliberately misled by the common narrative that benefits the plutocrats.
Time travel
| Posted by Chill on 25 Feb 2010 |
Bossy, bossy
| Posted by Chill on 23 Feb 2010 |
I’ve never understood this, either.
Often, people think that if somebody is very good at what they do, this automatically qualifies them to be promoted to a leadership position. This, of course, could not be farther from the truth. It works the same in academia and in the corporate world. Somebody can be a top performer, or a fantastic scholar and teacher, but when promoted to be the leader of the group (the manager, the departmental Chair, the Dean, etc.), they turn out to be completely inept in this new position and end up destroying the team, the company, or the department.
The Peter Principle in action, I guess. What it takes to be a good, say, chef and what it takes to run a restaurant are completely different skills. Same in the IT world, in the medical arena, anywhere.
Skill at a job, any job, is completely incommensurate with leadership potential. But yet the “best” performers keep getting promoted into leadership roles for which they are often wholly unsuited.
Bielicious
| Posted by Chill on 23 Feb 2010 |
This woman looks quite a bit like Jessica Biel when she was 19 or 20, except her face is longer. Both are clickable for much larger images:
Model and photographer unknown.
