Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nothing To Fear But Fearlessness Itself?

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-that-halloween-is-over dept.

Businesses 660

theodp writes "In a post last August, Robert X. Cringely voiced fears that Goldman Sachs and others were not so much evil as 'clueless about the implications of their work,' leaving it up to the government to fix any mess they leave behind. 'But what if government runs out of options,' worried Cringely. 'Our economic policy doesn't imagine it, nor does our foreign policy, because superpowers don't acknowledge weakness.' And now his fears are echoed in a WSJ opinion piece by Peggy Noonan titled 'We're Governed by Callous Children.' She writes, 'We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists — they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.' With apologies to FDR, do we have nothing to fear but fearlessness itself?"

cancel ×

660 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uhh... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29942938)

What a load of bollocks.

News for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29942948)

I think not.

Re:News for nerds? (0, Redundant)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29942996)

I think not.

Sure it is. Nerds like expensive toys. Expensive toys cost money. If our imperious leaders and Captains of industry take all our money away, nerds won't be able to afford their expensive toys.

Re:News for nerds? (-1, Offtopic)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943536)

I think not.

Sure it is. Nerds like expensive toys. Expensive toys cost money. If our imperious leaders and Captains of industry take all our money away, nerds won't be able to afford their expensive toys.

What do you mean, flamebait? Mods, get a grip.

Re:News for nerds? (3, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943110)

These are the people who (amongst other things) think offshoring technology is a good idea. They don't see the danger, and they don't worry about the implications. Money is money.

It's news that affects nerds at least.

Re:News for nerds? (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943114)

Stuff that matters.

Re:News for nerds? (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943424)

This article is the definitive proof that nerds are being governed by brash jocks with tunnel vision. I'd say this qualifies as a classic Slashdot article.

Come to California... (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29942956)

...to really see it in action. The state legislature approval rating was approaching single digits last I heard.

Do you think a single one of those scumbags give a gnat's fart about it?

They don't have to- not with district boundaries drawn like fractals and the vast majority of you voting the Party line.

Re:Come to California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29942968)

In capitalist america profit gives way to mediocrity

Re:Come to California... (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29942990)

And intellect gives way to mindless sloganeering. Congratulations. You are part of the problem.

It's not fearlessness that's the problem (0, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943054)

but sheer ineptitude, incompetence, and stupidity.

The way we do elections isn't helping. The media does sound bites, so sound bites are what people have to go on. The education system (run by the left wing for the past 30 years) has now raised two generations of people that don't even know how to balance their own checkbook, much less properly budget for a lifestyle that's within their means.

Mass media tells people "you deserve everything right now," and the masses buy right into it.

It's not so different on the top end. "Company X is too big to fail" means they have carte blanche to do what they want, and the government bails them out... so rather than having a proper market correction, the effects are hidden and come back to bite us in the ass in the form of a repeat of Carter-era Stagflation.

Letting one party have power is a bad thing. It happened with Carter, it happened with Clinton, it happened with Bush, and it's happening with Obama right now. One party in power = government spending like drunken sailors on a binge in shanghai.

If we had a line item veto, I'd say just to keep it split so that the checks and balances built into our system would work. As it stands, I want a republican legislature and a democrat president, simply because the republicans are slightly less likely to spend hog-wild when Congress gets around to writing the budget. If it's not in the budget, the President doesn't get a chance to sign off on it, but when the Democrats stick crap in the budget (see the 1980s and the last two years under Bush), the President's only current method of countering is to veto the whole damn thing and risk the media furor of "OMG HE SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT" to force them to write something reasonable.

Fire the whole damn government and start over, let businesses fail if they fail (otherwise yes, they get bloody fucking reckless and expect a bailout), and get things working as they should for a change.

Oh, and California? What a perfect example. The Granola State (home of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes) deserves what they got for electing who they elected.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem (0, Troll)

Capt_Morgan (579387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943264)

Actually almost all the spending of the last 30 years was done by the idiots reagan and bush jr. Please learn basic history or STFU

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem (0, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943352)

Please learn basic history or STFU

Says the person who obviously has lived in a cave for the last 30 years. Who was writing the budgets when Reagan was president? Are you aware how much money was wasted by Carter? How much bigger is the deficit of this year's budget (Obama's supposed "first" budget according to his supporters) than the supposedly "historic" one he signed last year and then blamed on Bush?

Please actually do the research on your answer.

Or, since you obviously have the IQ of your average supermarket-grade kumquat, follow your own advice and STFU.

California (4, Insightful)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943398)

Oh, and California? What a perfect example. The Granola State (home of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes) deserves what they got for electing who they elected.

That's callous and unreasonable. (1) We haven't had any good alternatives in a long time. (2) Everyone is too caught up on the lesser-of-two-evils mentality brought about by our first-past-the-post method of election (I'd be surprised if you lived somewhere different in this regards). Combine that with gerrymandering, and congress stagnates. (3) California is said to have the 5th largest economy in the world. Our government hurts our economy (without question) which ripples throughout the rest of the states. (4) The country as a whole has a tendency to follow California's lead. This doesn't predict the future, but it's worrisome. (5) Only the federal government is more beholden to a plethora of special interest groups, making real action nearly impossible to mobilize. (6) Not every Californian voted for these idiots. You're blaming a lot of innocent people. Yes, I've voted for third party candidates before. (I'd support an actual third party if any of them reflected my political views.)

I'm not asking for an apology. Just be careful who you lump in with the "Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes".

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem (2, Insightful)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943410)

The media is a reflection of the population itself. It gives what the population wants. Most people won't take the understand one issue, let alone several.

Which is why we are not a democracy, I'd bet that 75% of the population have not done any real reading on any single topic beyond what appears on the front page of their newspaper or in emails their like-minded friends send.

Unfortunately, the population can't really distinguish a leader from an orator like Obama. And many think that being famous gives someone insight into political wisdom. So we get mindless rantings and half-truths from the left and right, and most of the population follow it blindly depending on their own personal beliefs. When people with 'new ideas' like Ron Paul show up, the frustrated run to their half-baked ideas without any real analysis either.

Here is an example ... my son won't eat honey because it 'exploits' bees. I explained to him then that he had better stop eating many fruits, because the fruits are also pollinated by those same exploited bees. He simply grabbed onto an idea without really looking at what 'exploited' really means because it suited his purpose, not eating honey.

And that, my friends, is really what goes on. Most people latch onto ideas that prove the point of view they already have, and won't take the time to examine any opposing opinion. When presented with such opinions, they shut down or simply state 'you just a liberal/conservative sheep spouting talking points'.

Re:It's not fearlessness that's the problem (4, Insightful)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943524)

The education system (run by the left wing for the past 30 years)

As I'm not living in the US, could you expand on that a bit? Not living in the US anymore, the only time I hear about political fighting in the schools is when religions zealots [wikipedia.org] complain about not teaching their world view(creationism/ID) as fact. That, and not forcing everyone to adhere to their own religious practices in school. Neither of those sound very left/right to me, more sanity vs. disturbed.

Re:Come to California... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943014)

Wow, way to miss the point. The "mediocrity" you speak of is caused by "disinfranchised callous children" in government: which simply states that they may have "knowledge" of capitalism, but they do not "know" it. They have never experienced failure in their lives and therefor don't grasp the ways of capitalism.

Re:Come to California... (4, Insightful)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29942988)

No, Come to Michigan.

We've been in our own self-made depression for over a decade.

Re:Come to California... (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943288)

You should have elected the Republican. He was a businessman who, even in Michigan's power economy, managed to succeed and had plans to use his contacts to bring more business to Michigan, so everyone could get jobs.

Instead you re-elected Granholm, who had done nothing her first four years and hasn't done anything the second four years. She's just perpetuated the "do nothing and government will take care of you like a big daddy" welfare state. She's encouraged sloth not industriousness.

Re:Come to California... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943396)

Then we would have been the Amway of states, instead of just the home of Amway, which is embarrassing enough.

Re:Come to California... (1, Flamebait)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943588)

Instead you re-elected Granholm, who had done nothing her first four years and hasn't done anything the second four years. She's just perpetuated the "do nothing and government will take care of you like a big daddy" welfare state. She's encouraged sloth not industriousness.

A politicians main desire is to get elected, or reelected. Whomever they have to appeal to to make that happen.
The constituency that elected Granholm (and others) completely buys into the concept of "do nothing and government will take care of you like a big daddy". In other words, 'gimme free money'.

She's encouraging sloth only tangentially. The main purpose is to get (re)elected.

Re:Come to California... (2, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943008)

and how many of them will get re-elected? everyone hates incumbents except when its the one who's representing you. I've lived in the US since 1981 and the last time I remember that people voted out incumbents was the Republican Revolution in 1994. 2 years into Bill Clinton's presidency, a tax increase and the defeat of hillarycare

Re:Come to California... (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943332)

That's because the politicians encourage everyone to vote.
That's because the politicians know most people have no clue - they just pick the name they recognize.
Most of the time the name they recognize is the incumbent - "Hmmmm. Bush or Kerry. I never heard of Kerry, so I'll just pick Bush."

What we should be doing is encouraging people Not to vote, unless they feel very strongly about the person. It would weed-out those "I don't know who I'm gonna vote for" persons who really have no clue.

Re:Come to California... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943438)

Problem is the most politically motivated people who would vote in your system are the extremists. Our system is lousy, but that's not a good solution.

Re:Come to California... (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943032)

...to really see it in action. The state legislature approval rating was approaching single digits last I heard.

Do you think a single one of those scumbags give a gnat's fart about it?

They don't have to- not with district boundaries drawn like fractals and the vast majority of you voting the Party line.

All I can say is, the Founders got a lot of things right. Including the fact that sometimes leaders squeeze the citizen to the point where he feels he doesn't have options. The Founders tried to enshrine the ability to eliminate such leadership by any means necessary, when necessary, into the core of our legal system. The only remaining question is ... at what point do we have to replace them the hard way? Apparently just voting them out doesn't have very much of an effect anymore.

Re:Come to California... (4, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943106)

"Apparently just voting them out doesn't have very much of an effect anymore."

Oswald spengler wrote about this a while ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West [wikipedia.org]

Go down to "Democracy, media and money"

"Spengler's analysis of democratic systems argues that even the use of one's own constitutional rights requires money, and that voting can only really work as designed in the absence of organized leadership working on the election process. As soon as the election process becomes organized by political leaders, to the extent that money allows, the vote ceases to be truly significant. It is no more than a recorded opinion of the masses on the organizations of government over which they possess no positive influence whatsoever."

Re:Come to California... (4, Insightful)

GeckoAddict (1154537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943078)

the vast majority of you voting the Party line.

I think that's the real cause of a lot of problems with our elected officials.

Re:Come to California... (1)

thisisaccount2 (1647273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943136)

Political parties? Or politics?

Re:Come to California... (4, Insightful)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943414)

People who always vote for the same party. It is simple really. People go on about how votes for third parties doesn't count. But that is a pure lie.

The only vote that doesn't count is the vote that always stay the same, the predictable vote. Because no one has to make an effort to gain that vote. It is simply free.

Re:Come to California... (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943486)

This kind of mindless voting is what has enabled the Chicago Democratic Machine for over a century now. Too many sheep in Chicago will mindlessly vote for anyone with a (D) after their name, which explains the quality of our politicians.

Re:Come to California... (1)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943164)

But we can't vote for anyone else. Otherwise we split the party vote, and the worse evil get's elected...

Re:Come to California... (2, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943464)

Yes, the real problem is our voting system which encourages this lousy bi-partisan system.

Re:Come to California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943618)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:Come to California... (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943112)

So they have some form of Psychosis?
They seem much more like psychopaths to me.

Re:Come to California... (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943350)

No the fault is with the people themselves!

Is America a democracy, yes or no? Do Americans not vote who will represent themselves yes or no?

The issue here is that politicians have learned that it is easier to get people to agree to a hot button issue like abortion and distract them from the issues that matter. People themselves are faulted here! The politicians are only doing what they need to get re-elected.

Sarah Palin is an excellent example of a nitwit politician who knows how to play the hot button issues. She is smarter than most people give her credit for.

If people actually paid attention to the issues and stopped voting on emotions then politicians might change.

Re:Come to California... (1)

advertisehere (1384731) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943660)

But the legislatures aren't supposed to represent the country, they're supposed to represent their constituents, and the vast majority of them do and have done that with a few exceptions.

Money for Something (3, Insightful)

hachete (473378) | more than 4 years ago | (#29942966)

We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods. As a socialist, I applaud takeovers; they always lose money. As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.

Re:Money for Something (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943098)

We should stop putting value on the work of those who make money from money, from paper instruments, rather we should value money for goods.

Easier said than done. If you do, people stop giving loans, which is the most straightforward way of making money from money. That means no new small businesses, no student loans, no mortgages.

Right now, one of the most interesting ideas in improving life in poor countries is precisely to introduce making money from money. Small loans, with interest, help create vital services. The interest helps fund the continuation as some projects fail.

Capitalism is not the automatic win that the "laissez-faire" crowd presents it as; the problems are real and do not fix themselves (at least not without harming vast numbers of innocent people in the process). But neither is it the automatic evil socialists imagine it to be.

Re:Money for Something (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943208)

Capitalism is not the automatic win that the "laissez-faire" crowd presents it as

The "win" is not in the end result being to everyone's liking. The "win" is in the fact that everyone is left free to make his own choices and succeed or fail by them.

Re:Money for Something (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943346)

Capitalism is not the automatic win that the "laissez-faire" crowd presents it as

The "win" is not in the end result being to everyone's liking. The "win" is in the fact that everyone is left free to make his own choices and succeed or fail by them.

The problem is that one person's choice may cause other people fail. This is the point which usually is forgotten.

There are some choices which harm other people very directly, like just taking their money away (also known as stealing). Those obvious ways of succeeding on the cost of others are forbidden, and for good reasons. However, as soon as the connection isn't as direct, it often isn't any more forbidden to harm others for your own profit.

Re:Money for Something (2, Interesting)

css-hack (1038154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943506)

But we have a problem when the stability of the entire economic system relies on the stability of the debt/equity/commodities 'markets'.

We have a problem because the behaviour of the market is really the behaviour of millions of people around the world speculating on the future value of things (some better informed, others less so, none with a clear picture of the whole).

Them's as play the market for profit are gambling, and that's well accepted. But in this system, even those that choose not to gamble can be adversely affected by market fluctuations. eg1: When the market crashes, opportunities to do real work diminish, because everyone's afraid to spend. eg2: Without making interest, somehow the money you save for retirement will be worth almost nothing by the time you need it. eg3: The price of steel/oil/corn/housing/something-you-make-or-use fluctuates. All based on someone else's speculation.

You surely do succeed and fail by your own choices in the capitalist system, but so do you succeed and fail by your own choices in a game like poker. A good player will probably come out ahead. Probably.

Socialism and capitalism both suck. (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943390)

As someone who likes to get paid, I want a return to the time before the Masters Of The Universe ruled our financial institutions.

When do you think that was?

The Industrial Revolution with the Robber Barons who would hire "security" firms to shoot labor if they stepped out of line? When everyone worked 12 hour days 6 days a week to work to get behind?

Or back in the big landowner days when peons like me would be working the land and just working to get behind?

Or before that when we were hunter gatherers?

I don't think there's anywhere or anytime to back to when things were better. The only way things will get better is if we as a species progress. Our economic system won't improve until we humans improve. In other words, I think it's humanly impossible to have a better economic system than the quasi-capitalistic one that we have developed in the West. And no, I think Socialism is a bigger waste than capitalism.

So far, and I think for the rest of the time humanity exists, capitalism is the best economic system we are capable of having. Humans are just not emotionally capable of anything better.

Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943018)

Basically, the thesis of this piece is the same thing the right wing has been pushing since Reagan's time: government can't work. Nothing that comes out of government can ever be good. We might as well just give up.

Maybe she's right, but history isn't on her side. So this sounds more like sour grapes: Peggy has no hope, because her people have no relevance, and she doesn't like who's in power. So she hopes we will listen to her and lose hope as well, because that way nobody will have hope. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the independents, not the geeks. In that nihilistic world, her folks can waltz in and take over the government and keep pouring our tax dollars into their pockets the way they did under Reagan and both Bushes. Government doesn't work. Might as well send your tax money to Halliburton and Xe.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (3, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943118)

I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government when they've just been victimized by the last one. Massive corporate welfare, war and rampant waste. Bush was one of the greatest examples of government gone wrong and people actually believe that more of that is a good thing. These corporations are using the power of government to rob the people. Bush wasn't anti-government. After all, his administration passed the patriot act, instituted torture, started two wars, began a massive trillion dollar bank bailout, increased spending more than LBJ... What did he do exactly that makes people believe that he in any way represented the view that "government doesn't work." If anything, it's one of the examples of government that doesn't serve the people by violating rights and through sheer incompetence.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (0)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943148)

Because what the antigovernment people as a rule don't want to admit they want is to do away with the lower rung of it, not with the top.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943184)

That doesn't even make sense. Do away with "the top" and you'll just create a new "the top" to deal with. Your view is a caricature so strange I don't even know where you got it from. From what I can see, anti-government people (which right now also include "government is good in general but right now we've got too much of it") pretty much do want to cut at all levels. I for one could live with fewer czars.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943212)

And by "anti-government people" I mean the people who actually make the decisions, not the acclaiming plebe.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943342)

I think you'll find that the people who actually make the decisions are decidedly not strictly anti-government types. They're whatever benefits me at the moment types and if weaker government furthers that then they'll push for it and if stronger government furthers their goals, they'll push for that. Everyone to some extent is the same way, they try to further their own interests in the ways that they can. The problem comes when the two major power groups feed off of one another and screw the populace. The lesson here is that concentrated power in both its major forms is generally dangerous.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943318)

You say that like "government" is a dial that you can turn up and down. And that all the people who want "more government," as you put it, want, is to turn the dial up.

But that's not the case at all. There's another dial you can turn: competent versus incompetent. Because the Bush and Reagan narrative was basically "government can't work", they felt free to turn the competence dial down to zero. You're right that they also turned the "more/less" dial up to more. That's not what "government works" people want to do. Some of us want to turn it down, some of us want to turn it up. But the dial we're most concerned about is the competence dial. We want to turn that dial up.
 

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943382)

What did he do exactly that makes people believe that he in any way represented the view that "government doesn't work."

He campaigned on exactly that premise, in a party that supposedly represented that ideal. And people voted for him because of it. And it turns out he completely lied out his ass.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943420)

I always found it odd that people are pushing for more government when they've just been victimized by the last one.

What is it that most people seem to be only able to hold extreme views? Government handling everything and government handling nothing is both equally bad. There are things better handled by government, and there are things better not handled by government. If government handles things it shouldn't, it's bad. If government doesn't handle things it should, it's equally bad.

Now in many cases deciding whether it is better handled by government or not isn't easy. But the world just is complicated, live with it. Extreme positions are simply wrong.

Re:Yet another right-wing nihilism hit piece (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943584)

You have a lot of trouble with the facts don't you. Democrats in the house thought up, pushed for, lobbied, and passed the trillion dollar deficit, then made sure Bush understood that if he didn't sign it there would be hell to pay. The two main reasons why they did that? One, breaking a veto is difficult, and two, they wanted to make sure gullible fools like you would believe it was all Bush's fault. Grow a brain and turn off CNN please.

Why are they still employed? (5, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943040)

If any employee caused this kind of damage the customers/consumers would sue and employees would be terminated. Yet in this case, we have companies (and hence employees) that are "too big|valuable|important too fail" so they get bailed out.

If I did this at my company (I manage a large mainframe storage environment at a recognizable financial institution on WallStreet), say by blowing away a ton of customer data, I can guarantee I would be walked to the door before the end of the day.

People in peer departments of mine (like those than manage the networks, server admins etc) that have no input to the investment direction of this company's holdings, have lost bonuses, haven't been able to purchase equipment and staff has been cut. We had nothing to do with this bullsh!t, and yet us like the rest of American's are having to suffer while the MBAs reap in the dollars that the Federal Gov't is handing out.

I wish I could get a $200k bonus for blowing away a PetaByte of mainframe storage. Maybe I'll go power off the z10 and see if Obama will bail out my unemployed ass.

atlas yawned (4, Interesting)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943048)

i don't buy noonan's premise. most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization. it's true that the profoundly destitute among us, the homeless, the institutionalized etc rarely make it past the intention to run but this recurring conservative refrain that the country is held hostage by an arrogant and privileged elite (by definition "liberal") is nothing more than a constant whine from a group of philosophically bankrupt extremists who don't have the intellectual firepower to understand why we're not all in thrall to alissa rosenbaum and her fifty year old adolescent fairy tales.

Re:atlas yawned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943108)

Notice that she was talking about all of us who grew up in this country since 1950:
"They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008," and then
"We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance,"
- not class or privilege.

Re:atlas yawned (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943294)

Bullshit.

We have exactly three types of politicians: the ones who inherited money (didn't lift a fucking finger to earn it), the lawyers (the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things), and the racist fucks who get donations everytime they say something stupid (see also: Robert "KKK" Byrd, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc).

Ok, we have that one guy over there who isn't, but he's a used car salesman. Would you trust a used car salesman either?

Re:atlas yawned (1)

nemsis21 (1560479) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943594)

That word "lawyers" always annoys me. I'm Canadian and although not a Newfoundlander I find much to admire about them, especially the way they pronounce the word "lawyer". In Newfie it is pronounced as it should be. "Liar".

Re:atlas yawned (2, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943622)

the ones who make their living by making contracts so incomprehensibly complex that people have to hire lawyers just to read the damn things

Kind of like programmers right? Contracts have to be precise and often complex in order to express what is intended.

Re:atlas yawned (0)

eeth (1557089) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943478)

It's a well known fact that the ultra-rich "run" the country. It's also demonstrable that the gap between the "ruling" class and the "working" class is immense in magnitude, while the gap between the middle and the lower class is comparatively insignificant. Liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left is nothing more than a distraction.

Re:atlas yawned (4, Interesting)

Quothz (683368) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943520)

i don't buy noonan's premise. most elected officials i know (and i know hundreds) don't come from any so-called privileged "leadership class," whatever that is, they come instead from nearly all walks of life and bring with them the experience of extremely diverse backgrounds, including poverty and marginalization.

Every presidential nominee since 1988 has graduated from either Harvard or Yale. More than 25% of the 108th Congress was from the Ivy League. Twenty percent of Congress attended private schools before college. Fifteen current Representatives attended community colleges. No Senators did so.

The average Senator has more than $15,000,000 in disclosed assets; the average Representative, more than $5,000,000; in fairness, the wealthiest in Congress have hundreds of millions, while the poorest have millions in liabilities. (Most also have considerable assets they aren't required to report, such as private home values.) A few Reps come from backgrounds of poverty, and quite a few more are from blue-collar families. All current Senators, as far as I can tell reasonably quickly, have backgrounds of upper-middle-class or higher.

I'm sure state and local politicians have more diverse backgrounds, but at the federal level there's unquestionably a tendency toward lifelong wealth and privilege.

The people will have to make up for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943052)

Powers use (and abuse) their options up to the point where nothing goes any more.
The the people will have to make up for it.

Then they sheepishly could allow other powers to do the same.

Unless they finally organize themselves in a way no power is needed any more. Which needs a generalized will to act GOOD. Without this, chaos will definitely ensue.

They're not clueless, they just don't give a fuck (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943060)

I mean think of betting on a coin flip where you call heads. If it comes up heads, you get a billion dollars. If it comes up tails, the fed bails your bank out for a billion dollars and maybe your bonus this quarter is smaller, but you lose nothing directly, and your bonus is back to normal 3 months later. Kind of makes fearless and stupid betting par for the course.

Peggy Noonan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943074)

Who cares what Peggy Noonan says. It's just a dig at the youngish democrats around the president.

When the republican children of abundance get in the executive, they could appoint truly privileged twits: the Liz Cheneys, the Megan McCains and Peggy Noonan would have no problem with them.

Listen to Peggy Noonan ? (1, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943082)

I think not.

If she said the Sun was shining outside, I would grab my umbrella and raincoat and worry about flash floods.

V for Vendetta (3, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943084)

"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."

Conservative political piece (1, Interesting)

techmuse (160085) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943088)

This seems to be part of a rather wide ranging campaign on the part of the conservatives to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the current government. The previous administration was clearly in over its head. This one seems to have a clue...

Re:Conservative political piece (0, Troll)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943238)

I agree with you about the previous administration, but the current one is clueless. They don't even try to deny their lies.

Then maybe... (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943094)

In order to get one of those top bankers jobs you need to have:
  - Perfect credit rating
  - Clean criminal record
  - At least a degree (although a masters is more realistic)
  - Private school and or brand university

If you don't then forget it. You would never make it past the interview stage. Which in turn results in every banker being a white male with fairly rich parents and a bunch of peers they fit in well with. The entire system is set to allow people "like them" in and to keep "those other people" out.

It isn't just about sexism or racism, it is about class. They don't want poor people into their club.

Thus it results in exactly what the article is talking about. Bankers have no real life experience. They never make mistakes or are down on their luck. I mean, heck, they likely complain if their pent house is a rental... So are we really surprised when they lack understanding of what might happen if they lose their gambling?

But truth be known a lot of bankers didn't understand the level of risk. They left it up to third parties to literally invent ways to measure risk and sell it back to them. Then they could turn around and blame these third parties if what was a "low risk" investment wasn't (which is a false self-reassurance).

Re:Then maybe... (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943530)

In order to get one of those top bankers jobs you need to have:
    - Perfect credit rating

In other words, you have to be able to handle money well. Seems like a good thing for someone whose job it is to handle other people's money.

- Clean criminal record

I'm pretty sure we won't solve the problems by allowing criminals into the banks.

- At least a degree (although a masters is more realistic)

I'd hope that they don't demand just any degree, but specifically a degree in economy. After all, you should have a clue about what you are doing.

- Private school and or brand university

OK, that one's is a problem.

Illinois Wants Insurers to Cover Prayer Treatments (4, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943096)

Should prayers be covered? [chicagotribune.com] : "As the health care battle moved forward last week, Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science church official, hurriedly delivered bundles of letters to Senate offices promoting a little-noticed proposal in the legislation requiring insurers to consider covering the church's prayer treatments just as they do other medical expenses. Critics say the proposal would essentially put Christian Science prayer treatments on the same footing as science-based medical care by prohibiting discrimination against "religious and spiritual health care."

Fundamentally Broken System (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943102)

The current global economic system seems to be fundamentally broken - it requires endless exponential growth in order for old debts plus interest to be paid off by new money, backed by goods and services to maintain that new money's value. I fear that until this system is re-designed from the bottom up it cannot be sustained for very much longer. I think the current turmoil is evidence for this.

I'd recommend watching Money As Debt [google.com] for more insight on this.

Re:Fundamentally Broken System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943222)

Excellent post, but marginally related to the topic. A fundamental and true (not manipulated) understanding Money and Interest should be a basic requirement that is taught in high schools. The mind does boggle when you understand it.

Noonan, go Galt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943104)

I love the "you don't understand, we'll go Galt," whining.

To the old executive talking to Noonan: please, go Galt. You did a shitty job and I believe I can do better. Get out of my and my generation's way.

Technology related? News for Nerds??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943122)

How is this "news for nerds" and technology related? The original posted actually asked if it was, this is just political and discusses socioeconomic issues.

only the peons are clueless (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943126)

I'm sure the guys at the top realize that taking trillions from the government is going to have some effect. But why should they care? In the short term they have little to lose and much to gain. In the long term it might not be the best course of action, but they can't stop because if one rich thief stops pillaging the country then another one will just take his place right? The only way this will change is if the thieves start being held accountable. For instance, if the lower classes get pissed off enough to start torching mansions. So far, Americans are too fat, dumb, and happy to rein in the ruling class.

She's without hope, so we must be? (4, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943138)

They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.

Okay, so in pretty Peggy's view anything that government does by way of governing won't work. (Didn't she write Reagan's line, "Government is the problem"?) Since Democrats to some extent believe government can be, and should be, effective - well, we should just give up on this. We should become disheartened as Democrats. If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?" Pretty clearly it's the shrinking demographic which still identifies as Republican: prevalently old, white, and living in the Deep South - people who last liked government when it was run by Jefferson Davis.

Well, I'm middle aged, white, and live in New England. I'm hopeful. The way through looks obvious, and I see an administration with a fairly good vision of it - even if they're not going nearly far enough in regulating Peggy's friends on the street her Journal's named after. It's so brightly obvious, it's almost blinding. It's based on government, businesses, and individuals each doing our part. Yes, government should not go too far in controlling businesses; but in return businesses have to back way off, as they've gone much too far in recent years into endeavoring to control government. Why do people like Peggy never worry when businesses control government too much?

Re:She's without hope, so we must be? (1)

grambo25 (958558) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943406)

Why do people like Peggy never worry when businesses control government too much?

If government weren't so in control of everything, you wouldn't have to worry about businesses controlling governement.

Re:She's without hope, so we must be? (2, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943432)

If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?"

This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform. It starts out, "Yes, we have a health care problem." Then it becomes, "Yes, we (ie, government) need to do something about it." Then, "Oh no, we can't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem; they're the source of the health care problem!" What does that mean? Well, the only "solution" then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.

As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails. Unfortunately, sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources. When it's non-critical (ie, not health, the elderly, the poor), government very probably shouldn't become involved. But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous. Cutting taxes doesn't solve the problem. Nor, really, does this mandatory health insurance. The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation, just like nearly every other governmental project. But, I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.

PS - Yes, Obama's doing the same thing from the other angle. The whole "health insurance subsidy" is clearly a pragmatic (ie, political) attempt to obtain Republican support. Since that's not going to fly anyways, why half-ass it? A major problem with the health care system, anyways, is that it's been so cobbled together there's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud. Real reform means real unification, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people.

Re:She's without hope, so we must be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943490)

Typical liberal, completely clueless about reality. The Republican party has been growing faster and bigger than ever before. Continue to be in denial though. It will only help us obliterate you in 2010 and 2012.

mod parent up! (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943646)

His insight is apparently annoying to some people, so they need to read it again,

Re:She's without hope, so we must be? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943666)

I'm middle aged, white, and living in the deep south - and I would have hated Jeff Davis' government. But I don't like the one I have, either, because mine doesn't work. I had an insight about this a year or two ago, one that I haven't seen addressed anywhere else - my friends who are liberals grew up, largely, in places where government works, while the conservatives grew up in places where it doesn't. I suppose if I lived somewhere with safe, effective public schools, low crime, and so forth, I might not mind taxes. As it is, though, I have to pay for all of that once in taxes and again in private form. So I try to vote for smaller government, as hard as that is, because I think that smaller government wastes less money. I think that the line about "any government that can give you anything you want can also take it away" is a very good reason to keep government from getting power in the first place.

Large businesses have lots of money, and they will inevitably be able to turn regulation to their advantage - that's regulatory capture. (Viz. Mattel and the recent law about testing all toys - the big makers can run their own testing labs, while people on Etsy can't.) That's not to say we should give up, but that not all regulation is good - and we should be cautious when people come along saying that this tool, this method, will ensure that bad things will never again happen. I think the administration is utterly wrong about how to fix things, but seeing as they aren't counting on me to get reelected, my opinion's not worth much. So I'll ask you: what do you think is the "obvious" way through? Are you so confident that you can create a loophole-free regulatory scheme? Is that even what you meant?

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous... (1)

emeade (123253) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943156)

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - MLK Jr.

Threaten to stop the wheel of the world? (2, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943176)

"They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."

Who is John Galt?

Re:Threaten to stop the wheel of the world? (1, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943214)

Who is John Galt?

A one-dimensional character in a lousy book representing a fatally flawed philosophy dreamt up by a sociopathic meth addict and hypocrite?

Why should we be surprised (5, Insightful)

Beowulfs_Ghost (314966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943178)

The "top" people in both government and business are spoiled children. From Bill Gates to GW Bush, they had everything handed to them, and when things got tough, their parents bailed them out. In the socio-economic stratosphere of the US, it has never been about merit. It's always been about money, and now we can see what that has bred.

We hear a lot about the sense of entitlement among the baby boomers, but it's almost always in the context of Medicare and welfare for the relatively poor. Now we see what this sense of entitlement does on the grand scale. It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity. It's mind blowing to see the same attitude applied to C level executives who think they are entitled to year over year growth, and bonuses, regardless of how bad things really are.

And things are bad. The financial wizards of Wall St. have, almost literally, destroyed trillions of dollar in wealth over the last year. None of them think they did anything wrong, and any who are taken to task for this colossal screw up will cry about how unjust it is. When will people realize that handing the reigns of power to spoiled brats, who have no concept of the consequences of failure, is a stupid idea? Doesn't look like they've learned it this time. Maybe in 10 more years when the next economic crisis is screws everyone but the people who caused it.

Re:Why should we be surprised (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943488)

It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.

Honestly, no, I don't think it's ridiculous for someone in the modern era, in a first world country, to expect health care in perpetuity.

Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U.S.? (1)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943182)

Scrap Cap-and-Trade [newsweek.com] : Americans would spend $100 billion to $200 billion a year for limited results: a 15 percent cut in U.S. emissions would reduce global emissions by less than 4 percent, which would have a negligible worldwide impact. Investment bankers need cap-and-trade to make their "green energy" deals successful. That's great (and profitable) for them, but their earnings would come at the expense of every other American.

Re:Cap-and-Trade Law: Good for Bankers, Bad for U. (2)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943522)

The real purpose of cap and trade has nothing to do with the environment. It is all about transferring wealth from first world nations to the third world, and allowing financial markets to reap huge profits in the process. Otherwise, why would this idea get so much corporate support?

It's simply the consequence of corporate psychopat (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943194)

Psychopaths have the desire to reach leadership positions because that way, they can gain the most profit for themselves (not just monetary profit), and they also have the best tools to reach leadership positions, by manipulating others - something psychopaths excel at.

Psychopathic executives will not blink to destroy their own company, a whole industry, or cause food poisoning, water and air pollution, lower the standard of living of hundreds of millions - as long as they have profit out of it. Wake up, guys, with the few exceptions of people like Warren Buffet, corporations are run by highly functional psychopaths.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943526)

Select a sample of all GS employees at random - say 1% or even 10% - and execute them, leaving the corpses to hang and rot outside the offices of GS. These people have done, and will continue to do, more damage to America than Al Qaeda.

my eyes, they burn (2, Insightful)

SpatialVacancy (876127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943210)

You lost me at 'clueless about the implications of their work'. the crooks at AIG, JPMC et. al. lied about their involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis. many of these guys hold advanced degrees in finance, economics, etc. and they knew what the hell would happen. Come on now, not only does Congress need to stop enabling these Criminals by looking the other way (granting them a covert opportunity to recoup their loses), it's time We demand they prosecute them under the laws which match their Crimes- RICO. It's not just been Fraud and embezzlement- it's been extortion. Not just against their own 'customers', but against the entire citizenry of this country (and others) which taken in it's totality equals Economic Treason. They've not only endangered the US & World economy, they've been trying to cripple them by busting our knees to get the rest of the money out of Us all. In fact, Wall Street makes the 'Teflon Don' and the Gambino Crime Family look rather quaint, in retrospect. It is Cringely that is clueless yet again, not the other way around

The "problem" (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943228)

The real problem, is that there is no simple answer. Only a complex one.

Is capitalism or socialism the answer? Yes.

Yes, because BOTH are the answer, at the same time.

Allow me to try to explain this, before you explode.

There are things government does well and things private individuals do well, but they are NOT restricted each to a field.

This means that private individuals should be free to engage in business, but not without any controls and limitations. And government should be allowed to interfere if it serves society as a whole better.

You had a little while ago the laughable story about the US press. You saw several posts commenting that either a state run media or a company run media are the only alternatives.

How idiotic, everyone knows that in Europe, BOTH exists, besides each other, fighting each other tooth and nail. THAT is how you get progress. If you think a state run media alone can be independent, you are insane, although not nearly as insane as the idea that company run media will be independent. Fox News is company owned. Case closed.

The US needs to accept that you need a healthy balance between the state and the individual and that this balance can NEVER be achieved, you always will end up with a pendulum swinging back and forth. Things only go wrong if the pendulum is either hanging still or doesn't swing back.

The problem is that you can't get elected with this policy. You need to pick a side and that means in the US that the pendulum can be pulled to far of the center. That is what happened with the credit crisis, to many administrations, from both sides, who did not excersise the control of the state on the financial institutions.

We need to get away from the idea that their is ONE ideology that is the answer. Uncontrolled financial markets are clearly not the answer but neither is total control. What you need to have is the right control at the right time but that can't be achieved, so you need to accept the situation that sometimes there is a bit to much control and sometimes to little without going to extremes.

This middle path is NOT taking the road of least resistance, on the contrary, you will face opposition from all sides, but it is the only one that has been proven to work.

Re:The "problem" (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943334)

Translation: "I am unwilling to be perfectly good, but please don't condemn me for being partially evil !"

Re:The "problem" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943564)

You're right that there are no simple answers - but your "solution" is basically more of the same thing we've been doing for roughly a century. And it doesn't work; it invariably implodes, over and over again.

  There are good reasons for this, inherent in the basic model of our economy as it stands.

  For one, the overproduction/underconsumption problem, which we've tried to alleviate by producing goods for landfills (with a short detour through our living rooms, before they're replaced with the next ones) but this is only a stopgap solution. As was the solution brought by WWII: have a gigantic war that destroys most of the planet's productive capacity, so you can use Europe as your technical sector, Japan for manufacturing, and dump your excess on the third world to alleviate the underconsumption. This worked until the 70's, when production capacity began to saturate all possible markets again, and spots of severe breakdown began to reappear in various parts of the world's markets. (The OPEC crisis revealed much of this economic instability, but it began prior to that, and only grew worse afterward)

  The only real solution is to find a new way to structure our world's economies. This guy [slashdot.org] has some good ideas on that front. The term "free-market anti-capitalist" is one of those things that's not simple to understand, but once you get it, that understanding reveals layers of meaning that are hidden in the everyday language we use to talk about these things, and the consequent biases that we inherit, which prevent us from thinking clearly about this problem.

Clueless? Really? (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943272)

This McClatchy investigation [miamiherald.com] suggests otherwise.

Re:Clueless? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943642)

Exactly. Whenever someone is repeatedly "incompetent", in such a way as to line their own pockets with other people's cash, you should at least suspect that "incompetence" is not the right word.

They do have faith... (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943370)

Faith that everything will always turn out fine.

I don't think a belief in Jesus would keep them from feeling that they are entitled to the wealth of the world. It certainly never stopped the Catholic Church.

Cringley !Economics (0, Offtopic)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943380)

Cringley, among other bizarre and cringe inducing comments, states "trading is a parasite on investing." No, it's not. It's part of the market mechanism attempting to reach optimal allocation of resources, and can also be used to minimize risk. Trading and investing are serve the exact same function, and are not different beyond a perceived difference in amount of times that securities are held.

Sociopaths and children of Sociopaths (3, Insightful)

SimBuddha (924737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943450)

It took me a long time to figure out why things are going to hell. Then I read http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html [youmeworks.com] and it all made sense. Sociopaths seek power and winning without conscience and this is why banking and wall street leaders are where they are, because they've changed the system of laws to favor themselves. Like terminators, they don't feel remorse or care if their actions hurt other people. These people are now a large proportion of our international corporate leadership. Until our system collapses, they will stay in power, even though they are the reason for our suffering and downfall as a nation. Not sure what there is to do about the situation except have people come to recognize sociopaths for what they are, broken people who should never be allowed to hold power. From the web site the 12 clues to recognizing a sociopath HOW TO KNOW The big question is, of course, how can you know whether someone is a sociopath or not? It is a difficult question and even experts on the subject can be fooled. If you suspect that someone close to you is a sociopath, I suggest you read both of the books I mentioned and think hard about it. Compare that person to the other people in your life. Ask yourself these questions: 1. Do you often feel used by the person? 2. Have you often felt that he (or she) doesn't care about you? 3. Does he lie and deceive you? 4. Does he tend to make contradictory statements? 5. Does he tend to take from you and not give back much? 6. Does he often appeal to pity? Does he seem to try to make you feel sorry for him? 7. Does he try to make you feel guilty? 8. Do you sometimes feel he is taking advantage of your good nature? 9. Does he seem easily bored and need constant stimulation? 10. Does he use a lot of flattery? Does he interact with you in a way that makes you feel flattered even if he says nothing overtly complimentary? 11. Does he make you feel worried? Does he do it obviously or more cleverly and sneakily? 12. Does he give you the impression you owe him? 13. Does he chronically fail to take responsibility for harming others? Does he blame everyone and everything but himself? Tags: evil, Hitler, anti-christ, sociopath,

Bullshit (2, Interesting)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943508)

Only a naive idiot would believe that Goldman Sachs actions were accidental or lacking foresight. These are the best minds in the country, they are specialists in predicting market trends and they pretty much invented most of the toxic assets that crippled everyone ELSE, while the profited.... A coincidence ? I don't think so.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?