what exactly does "freedom" have to do with the government taking our money and giving it to wall street banks?

9/22/2008 8:51:53 PM

Not just Wall St.

World St., too.

I just sent a token letter of appreciation to our Senators and my Congressman.

From the bill:

Quote :

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Unrelated, but good read:

How We Became the United States of France
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html?iid=digg_share

[Edited on September 22, 2008 at 9:29 PM. Reason : Treasury Czar FTW]

9/22/2008 9:16:36 PM

this is craziness, if it is to be believed
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09212008/business/almost_armageddon_130110.htm

Quote :

" The market was 500 trades away from Armageddon on Thursday, traders inside two large custodial banks tell The Post. Had the Treasury and Fed not quickly stepped into the fray that morning with a quick $105 billion injection of liquidity, the Dow could have collapsed to the 8,300-level - a 22 percent decline! - while the clang of the opening bell was still echoing around the cavernous exchange floor. According to traders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, money market funds were inundated with $500 billion in sell orders prior to the opening. The total money-market capitalization was roughly $4 trillion that morning. "

9/22/2008 9:31:29 PM

^^ speaking of France
http://tbm.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2008/09/21/henry-paulson-socialist

Quote :

" Henry Paulson, Socialist Republicans admit the free market doesn't work. .... There is a term in political philosophy to describe a government takeover of a critical industry: That term is socialism. The government is telling us that capital and credit markets cannot, for several reasons, solve the current crisis on their own—only the federal government and its massive taxpayer base have the authority and the resources to solve it. That is state socialism: the philosophy preached by the founders of the Second International, by the radical wing of the American labor movement, through the formation of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and now by Henry Paulson. Like the ownership society, socialism is also a compelling vision; just look at the logic of the Paulson-Bernanke plan. There are several financial institutions that have brought themselves nearly to extinction by acquiring a cornucopia of toxic assets, ultimately related to mortgages. Those assets might be worth what the banks thought they were worth, and they might be worth nothing; it's hard to know because the market for them in many instances has disappeared."

9/22/2008 9:37:32 PM

I bet hooksaw is kicking himself for this thread title right now

9/22/2008 9:45:33 PM

It's not so much a failure of the free market, as I see it, but an incompatibility with the way America works...

A pro-regulation president and/or congress gets elected, and passes some act to regulate the economy... given that the economic world is constantly changing, it only makes sense that for said regulation to continue functioning properly, it will need follow-up regulation in response to market changes.

The issue with this is made apparent when the "need" for re-regulation arises during the dominance of politicians who are against regulating the economy... Thus, shit -> fan. To me it seems like it's not free-market policies or socialist policies that are causing market issues, it is the American democratic system itself... Both policies seem totally viable so long as one is chosen and sees continuous use, rather than our country constantly switching between the two.

I really don't know that much in-depth about the economy, but this is the way I see it as an outsider/"layman"...

9/22/2008 9:49:29 PM

Ron Paul: Dont Bail out Wall Street

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

Quote :

"I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay. "

9/23/2008 10:44:39 AM

nice to see Henry Paulson getting in on the lying
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/good-ideas-and-lies/

Quote :

"So, this morning Hank Paulson told a whopper: "We gave you a simple, three-page legislative outline and I thought it would have been presumptuous for us on that outline to come up with an oversight mechanism. That’s the role of Congress, that’s something we’re going to work on together. So if any of you felt that I didn’t believe that we needed oversight: I believe we need oversight. We need oversight." What the proposal actually did, of course, was explicitly rule out any oversight, plus grant immunity from future review: "Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.""

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 3:51 PM. Reason : "]

9/23/2008 3:51:04 PM

here's a blast from the past

Febraruy 27, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27housing.html

Quote :

" Bush Vows to Veto a Mortgage Relief Bill President Bush sided with banks and mortgage lenders on Tuesday, threatening to veto a bill being offered by Senate Democrats that would give more bargaining power to homeowners who face foreclosure. Opening what is likely to be an intense political battle in the deepening mortgage crisis, the White House said it strongly opposed the bill, which would let bankruptcy court judges modify the terms of a mortgage as part of the restructuring of a debt in a bankruptcy filing."

btw, did anyone here know this about our lovely bankruptcy laws?

Quote :

"Unlike most other kinds of debt, including loans for vacation homes and rental properties, mortgages on a primary residence are outside the power of federal bankruptcy judges to change."

So (under current law), someone goes into bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court can force the bank to refinance all of his vacation and rentals, but they can't force a change in the primary residence mortgage? nice....

9/23/2008 9:23:58 PM

I'm wondering why the MSM is lagging so far behind in their critiques of this plan?

9/23/2008 9:31:20 PM

the media is critiquing the plan via proxy of the candidates and Congress.
It's on the front page of http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ and http://nytimes.com/ right now, at least

9/23/2008 9:51:17 PM

Quote :

" What the proposal actually did, of course, was explicitly rule out any oversight, plus grant immunity from future review"

I think Krugman got that one wrong. The proposal didn't rule out oversight from Congress, which ultimately funds this turkey:

Quote :

"Sec. 4. Reports to Congress. Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3."

But generally speaking I don't see where the discussion about oversight is coming from except as pure political window dressing -- ultimately there is a separation of powers; the President could quash any "administrative agency," and there are Constitutional limits always that the courts will entertain. Realistically the only real oversight will be a "power of the purse" limitation from the legislative branch.

Of course as soon as those "oversight" powers really kick in, that's when this whole endeavor is in the toilet. Where it ought to be now, really ...

9/23/2008 10:51:40 PM

For literally no other reason than I told you so...

Quote :

"You seem to be ignoring the fact that $223 billion dollars worth of equity is immediately lost at the moment. Not only that, but with the backlog of houses that are not being sold and also the ones being foreclosed on, there will be a much much lower number of new houses being built. That means that less people will be employed to build houses and also the value of the houses already built will decline further lowering the GDP (the primary factor in determining economic growth). Coupled with the loss of interest on loans, that is a lot of money that is being lost. Again, I don't want the economy to be bad because that sucks for everyone, but it's hard to ignore the realist part of my brain which is telling me this is a bad, bad situation. With what LoneSnark said about recessions being a couple years behind catastrophic events, this puts a recession in the timeline of the Democratic president that will get elected, who will undoubtedly be blamed by Republicans for screwing the economy."

That was my post from 11/15/2007 on page 3 of this thread... http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=3

I just wanted to prove my intelligence and foresight in regards to economic issues as I was the only person on this board calling that hundreds of billions of dollars would simply vanish from the economy. Even my once-thought lofty predictions have turned out to be extremely conservative however as this crisis continues to evaporate massive amounts of wealth from the country. That is all.

9/26/2008 11:22:55 AM

I'd love for ole failsaw to come back and try to talk his way out of this fail of a thread.

9/26/2008 11:33:09 AM

I'm actually more content that I pwnt the shit out of LoneSnark than kooksaw. My economic prowess must be recognized.

9/26/2008 11:36:16 AM

Quote :

"know that, like Iraq, some here are invested in the defeat of the U.S. economy, but the economy apparently has other ideas. The good news just keeps rolling in. "

hahaha

sure it does buddy

9/26/2008 1:43:32 PM

The impressive U.S. Economy

9/29/2008 4:00:15 PM

Impressive how the yields on US Treasuries can dip into the negatives...

9/29/2008 7:03:21 PM

GOOD NEWS JUST KEEPS ROLLING IN!

9/29/2008 7:23:31 PM

Are we still #1 in anything besides....

-incarcerations rates in teh free world
- gots are gun a plenty
- and big tanks to
- fat people
- crazy religious right moonbats that believe the world *poof* appeared 10,000 years ago contrary to all scientific evidence
- oil consumption
- gun violence
- SUV's
- Shitty reality TV shows

9/29/2008 7:36:47 PM

that made no sense

9/29/2008 7:38:47 PM

10/6/2008 2:44:27 PM

Excerpt from September 27, 2006, letter from Rep. [Barney] Frank [D-MA; chairman of the House Financial Services Committee] to his Congressional colleagues:

Quote :

"The truth is, the Bush administration is partly right. By some measures, the economy overall is doing well. Growth in GDP, aggregate national income, and productivity have all been strong since the end of the 2001 recession. The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of American workers have seen little to no benefit from the 'strong' economy of the last five years."

http://www.barneyfrank.net/quotes

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s. So did Frank's partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency's push to relax lending restrictions. Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie's assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie. Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

Sweet Jesus.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 12:54 AM. Reason : PS: Is that ^ Colin Farrell? ]

10/7/2008 12:35:41 AM

really? To defend your position, you're pulling out quotes from 2 years ago? just give it up man.....

not to mention, did you even read the quote?
"Growth in GDP, aggregate national income, and productivity have all been strong "
Those are hard numbers, and they were strong from 2001-2006 and a little further. The statement does not address, however, why they were strong, which we now know is because almost all the growth in the economy was based on bad debt and credit.


and what the hell are you "sweet jesusing"? We have several other threads about the housing problems and we all agree there is plenty of blame to go around.
you're reeling pretty hard, man

10/7/2008 7:42:57 AM

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0918081gastax1.html?link=eaf

Quote :

"Spiraling gas prices led an Indiana drug dealer to levy a fuel oil surcharge on customers purchasing cocaine, according to investigators. Anthony Salinas, 18, tacked on the gasoline surcharge when he sold a confidential police source coke on two occasions in June. While arranging one buy, Salinas told the source that a quarter-ounce of cocaine would cost $240--$215 for the drug itself and "$25.00 for gas money to deliver the cocaine,""

Looks like the economy is affecting everybody now.

10/7/2008 9:55:31 AM

LOL at hooksaw

and us...

fuck

10/7/2008 9:56:10 AM

IMStoned420, wealth is not the figures posted on wal-street. If gremlins ran into everyones pocket book and bank records and doubled the figures residing there, it would double the price of everything, including stock, but we would be no more wealthier than we were before.

That is because wealth is not money, money is merely an arbitrary stand-in for wealth, which consists of real property. Americans are wealthy because of our houses, cars, boats, electronics, and factories. The current crises has not yet substantially impacted America's real wealth as evidenced by our still relatively low unemployment rate. As such, Americans are still producing the things people want, wealth, even if we are getting paid less cash for them due to a bout of deflation.

To put it another way: if the price of your house or stock falls, it does not diminish the value of the house (having a comfortable place to live) or stock (partial ownership of a business), all it does is shift purchasing power from the current owner to the future seller. As such, every dollar lost by the current owner is a dollar gained by the next buyer. As the current owner and future buyer are almost always both Americans, it is a complete wash for Americans as a whole.

To address the thread title, for a country going through a recession the U.S. Economy is still rather impressive. After all it has been through, much of it caused by bouts of regime uncertainty as managers purposefully hold onto bad investments in hopes of being able to sell them to Government agencies, slowing price corrections and threatenning firm survival in the process. But, all-in-all, the world economy has done remarkably well in historical terms. I guess Alan Greenspan was right when he said that the growing complexity of modern economic systems has made them more shock resistant.

10/7/2008 11:19:41 AM

Quote :

"Must be the Democratic congress "

lolz

10/7/2008 11:23:08 AM

Quote :

"The current crises has not yet substantially impacted America's real wealth as evidenced by our still relatively low unemployment rate."

Unfortunately, it's projected to be at seven percent by early 2009. Anyways, I'm quite pleased with your post. You can be downright reasonable for a capitalist. The financial system is simply an organizing tool. Wealth doesn't come from dollar, but goods. Matter and energy. As you know, I consider the price system inefficient and outdated. What's the point of these bizarre market fluctuations based on perceived value and wild speculation? A physical accounting method makes far more sense to me.

10/7/2008 12:27:21 PM

Quote :

"The current crises has not yet substantially impacted America's real wealth as evidenced by our still relatively low unemployment rate."

WHAT?

Maybe I should clean my ears, but didn't we shed the equivalent of the Indian Economy last week?

If that's not losing real wealth, what is?

10/7/2008 12:38:12 PM

Quote :

"If that's not losing real wealth, what is?"

A giant barge full of laptops, TVs, cars, bikes, food, and beer sailing away from the country.

10/7/2008 12:55:09 PM

This fucking sucks. My company is getting hammered, we were just told we wouldnt get merit review until later in 2009 due to cutbacks.

Economy continues to sink. UGH

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : - ]

10/7/2008 3:56:27 PM

Holy mother of shit LoneSnark

Did you finally go off the deep end?

Because you've basically just made an argument this argument:

Happiness = wealth

DONT WORRY BE HAPPY!

10/7/2008 4:03:03 PM

Yeah, I can't even address LoneSnark's post because it's obvious he is not living on the same planet we are.

The economy is bad.

It's getting worse.

It's gonna suck for a long time.

It's not just the US either. The entire world is getting hammered. The capital markets are drying up. There will not be any worldwide economic growth for several years while all these companies are counting up how much they actually lost.

The blame is on Wall Street. I read an article that said they were placing 20, 30, and in some cases even 50-1 credit to assets because everything was constantly growing. When one little hitch came in and their profits could no longer keep up with the ridiculous debt they were acquiring in order to keep buying stocks, the entire economy came crashing down. Considering they aren't supposed to be able to use credit to buy more than 2-1 assets, it boils down to Wall Street greed that got us into this. The housing market by itself might have been a short recession, but Wall Street exacerbated the problem with their aggressive tactics.

Hedging bets on housing perpetually rising > Housing goes down > Profits no longer rise on Wall Street > Debts catch up to the profits they were making > People realize they can no longer ride the wave > SELL SELL SELL > Present time.

People who got out at the top of the stock market made out like bandits. Others lost everything. Now there is no credit left to do anything because the entire credit industry was built on the stock market.

10/7/2008 4:25:32 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4964S420081007

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:35 PM. Reason : more moves]

10/7/2008 4:34:19 PM

LoneSnark's post is unintentionally funny because it borders on socialism.

No the free market doesn't determine your wealth; as in, what the market says you're worth isn't what you're worth

No.

What you say you are worth is what you are worth.

10/7/2008 4:43:32 PM

Without hooksaw's spin, everybody lost confidence in the market.

Someone give the man $700 billion to start posting again.

10/7/2008 4:52:37 PM

Great post, LoneSnark. The haters here will never get it.

10/7/2008 5:11:09 PM

Quote :

"No the free market doesn't determine your wealth;"

And he's completely right. Until recession sets in to reduce and consumption and production, not much physically meaningful has happened. A house serves its purpose regardless of market fluctuation. Sudden drop in value don't cause the windows to shatter or toilets to explode.

10/7/2008 7:31:38 PM

Quote :

"What compels me to fight this society is, of course, outrage over injustice, a love of freedom, and a feeling of responsibility for perpetuating and enlarging the human spirit - its beauty, creativity, and latent capacity to improve the world. I do not care to come to terms with an irrational society that corrodes all that is valuable in humanity, that eats away at all that is beautiful and noble in the human experience. Captalism devours us. At the molecular level of everday life, it changes us for the worse, and it compels people to make extremely unsavoury rationalisations for why they believe things they know - or at least they once knew - are false and for doing things that are trivialising and dehumanising. When we struggle against capitalism, we are really struggling against our own dehumanisation, and once we become fully cognisant of that, then the danger of surrender to the system reinforces our resistance. As revolutionaries, we are fighting not only for a better society but for our very humanity."

10/7/2008 7:44:05 PM

Quote :

"Because you've basically just made an argument this argument: Happiness = wealth"

No, Sandsanta, I said that every dollar you lost when you liquidated your 401K was gained by another American. On the other hand, if you did not sell your 401K, then you own just as much of GM or Boeing as you did before the correction.

Quote :

"You can be downright reasonable for a capitalist. The financial system is simply an organizing tool. Wealth doesn't come from dollar, but goods. Matter and energy. As you know, I consider the price system inefficient and outdated. What's the point of these bizarre market fluctuations based on perceived value and wild speculation? A physical accounting method makes far more sense to me."

And a dollar based accounting method makes far more sense to me. At least this way market corrections will let us know when we have been allocating resources inefficiently. Your way, we could be grossly misallocating resources for decades and never know because of a combination of planner ignorance (lack of locallized knowledge) and planner collusion (for political reasons).

wethebest, when we struggle against the autarchy you expouse we are really struggling against our own dehumanisation. Once we become fully cognisant of that, then the danger of enslavement reinforces our resistance. As revolutionaries, we are fighting not only for a free society but for our very humanity.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/7/2008 11:06:08 PM

Quote :

"Your way, we could be grossly misallocating resources for decades and never know because of a combination of planner ignorance (lack of locallized knowledge) and planner collusion (for political reasons)."

No, we'd actually focus real wealth instead of murky abstractions subject to mass hysteria. The entire financial sector should be abolished. It's a stupendous waste of human energy.

10/7/2008 11:19:34 PM

But you are trading one bad (the occurance of mass hysteria every decade or so) for one worse bad (the frequent occurance of planner hysteria every month or so).

I see it in my own life. Today I love my new Phone, it is all the rage. But in a week or so the novelty will fade and I will latch onto something else, say a PS3. All human beings face this. Markets work by spreading out the planning process among thousands of firms and thus millions of people. As such, all people being different, some are in love with their cell phone, some with their PS3. As such, investing our own money, on average half of us will be pushing for new Phones and the rest for new PS3s.

However, put the job of planning in the hands of a small cadre and you have sacrificed the averaging effect and therefore, when the questing arises whether society should make new Phones or PS3s, if no one in the room of ten planners likes playing games then those in society that would love more PS3s go without while too many new Phones get produced.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/7/2008 11:55:40 PM

TWO WORDS BITCHES

FUNDAMENTALLY STRONG

10/7/2008 11:56:16 PM

seriously

that should have automatically disqualified him

10/7/2008 11:56:38 PM

Quote :

"But you are trading one bad (the occurance of mass hysteria every decade or so) for one worse bad (the frequent occurance of planner hysteria every month or so)."

According to you. I don't believe it would turn out that way. We have the productive ability and resources to provide for every human being on Earth without exception. That can't be disputed. We only need better organization. With a little help from our machines, I bet the species could manage that.

Quote :

"Today I love my new Phone, it is all the rage. But in a week or so the novelty will fade and I will latch onto something else, say a PS3."

Today I needed calories, protein, vitamins, and minerals. That won't change tomorrow, or the next day. Sorry, but your example doesn't work for necessities. People need food, clothing, health care, and shelter every day. These things can be measured and consistently provided.

Quote :

"However, put the job of planning in the hands of a small cadre and you have sacrificed the averaging effect and therefore, when the questing arises whether society should make new Phones or PS3s, if no one in the room of ten planners likes playing games then those in society that would love more PS3s go without while too many new Phones get produced."

Traditional technocracy works nothing like this, which you should know if you had been paying attention in earlier debates. Of course, you've never shown much understanding of the system.

10/8/2008 12:04:14 AM

Quote :

"Today I needed calories, protein, vitamins, and minerals. That won't change tomorrow, or the next day. Sorry, but your example doesn't work for necessities. People need food, clothing, health care, and shelter every day. These things can be measured and consistently provided."

Liar. If I walk into a grocery store and ask for calories, protein, vitamins, and minerals, they will look at me like I'm crazy. No one produces these things; they produce fresh meat, frozen meat, bread, sliced cheese, and thousands of other ingredients. For dinner, do I want a frozen pizza or hamburger helper?

And it is not only food. Should we build beach-front houses, or 12 story beach-front condominiums? Both are shelter, but choosing between them is a guess as to people's future tastes. Should we produce more bell-bottoms or more jeans?

Now, we may someday produce the things you mention. But I would refuse to live in a world wher the only food comes from a can labeled "FOOD" and all shelter is a tent and sleeping bag.

10/8/2008 12:22:33 AM

Quote :

"Liar."

I described a physical reality. While you can satisfy such needs with various foods, you've got to consume the things mentioned or you'll die.

Quote :

"But I would refuse to live in a world wher the only food comes from a can labeled "FOOD" and all shelter is a tent and sleeping bag."

I'd choose shared scarcity over the current inequality. Le Guin paints a beautiful picture in the The Dispossessed. However, I prefer the third option of communal abundance. As I said, we have the productive ability and natural resources. As a rough measure, the planet's GDP per capita stands at ten thousand dollars. My vision of global technocracy could start there. Not a rich life, but decent. I think a scientifically organized society could quickly exceed that by eliminating capitalist inefficiencies and focusing on necessities over luxuries.

10/8/2008 12:42:11 AM

As we continue talking past each other:
You have still not solved the knowledge problem of time and place. As such, you will be lucky to get your $10k a year per capita. You will manage roughly what the Soviet Union managed when it was unable to depend upon resource exports to the capitalist world: starvation and despair. Not much has changed organizationally from the 80s.

That said, focusing on necessities? What clap-trap is that? Only what we need is as I said, canned food, vitamins, warm coat, and a tent. What are you going to spend the remaining $9k of the $10k a year on? Not even the soviet union dared curtail luxury imports (wheat, eggs, meat, electronics, etc).

The alternative, of course, is rather than distributing poverty as you would have us, bringing the sting of starvation to Europe's poor, we could distribute wealth by spreading the free economic system far and wide, and thus bring the glory of obesity to Africa's poor.

But, again, as you have it: you would prefer all of us die early of mal-nutrition than allow Bill Gates a private jet. Such a wish is evil: Bill Gates consumption does not harm me; what matters is my own consumption. And the efficiency of capitalism allows Bill Gates his jet and me a vacation to Hawaii.

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/8/2008 1:12:28 AM

Quote :

"You have still not solved the knowledge problem of time and place."

In traditional technocracy, energy accounting determines production. Within the limits of resources and equality, consumer decide what they want.

Quote :

"Only what we need is as I said, canned food, vitamins, warm coat, and a tent."

What if you get sick?

Quote :

"The alternative, of course, is rather than distributing poverty as you would have us, bringing the sting of starvation to Europe's poor, we could distribute wealth by spreading the free economic system far and wide, and thus bring the glory of obesity to Africa's poor."

Or, instead of relying on the invisible hand, we could distribute wealth by actually distributing wealth. Physical things. Despite your claims, technocracy distributes abundance, not poverty. And the global capitalist system hasn't done jack shit for Africa. I'll believe that when I see it.

Quote :

"But, again, as you have it: you would prefer all of us die early of mal-nutrition than allow Bill Gates a private jet."

Exactly the opposite. I don't want anyone to die, early or ever, even if that deprives Bill Gates in the short term.

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 1:27 AM. Reason : Africa]

10/8/2008 1:25:34 AM