Re: [xmca] more then just two parties

there may be no big differences, but there may be differences that
matter, particularly considering the background of the candidates
running. i really rather obama closing the iraqi war than mccain, i
really prefer obama regulating the financial system than mccain, i
really rather obama thinking of educational reform than palin... a
pity i don't vote, a bigger pity i don't vote in ohio....

On Sep 23, 2008, at 2:44 PM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:

>
> Well, David it is up for debate on the 2000 election if a 3rd party
> got
> President Bush in office but I do know in 1992 that Ross Perot paved
> the
> way for President Clinton. One of these years I would like to see
> these
> big talking multi-billionairres (i.e. Buffet,Gates) throw their hat
> into
> the ring, now that would be something. Imagine if they were in
> office,
> what special interest group could buy their vote. They wouldn't
> have to
> speak rhetoric they could speak about true experiences and
> understanding of
> dealing with the beuraucratic red-tape of running their business.
> Besides
> Bridge might be the national sport instead of
> football. . . .hehehe. I am
> really tired of people thinking that there is a big difference
> between the
> Republicans and the democrats, i jsut don't see it.
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
> David Preiss
> <davidpreiss@uc. To: "eXtended
> Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cl> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca]
> more then just two parties
> xmca-bounces@web
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
> 09/23/2008 01:34
> PM
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hmmm.... truth, although if I remember well the last time a third
> party mattered it paved the way for bush to win florida and the white
> house... it would really be hurtful for that to happen again cause
> there is more than one relevant difference between obama and palin (or
> was mccain the one that was running, don't remember well)
>
> David Preiss, Ph.D.
> Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
> Escuela de Psicología
> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> Av Vicuña Mackenna - 4860
> 7820436 Macul
> Santiago, Chile
>
> Fono: 3544605
> Fax: 3544844
> e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss
>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:52 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like to put in a bit of canvassing myself. There are more
>> then the
>> two big parties in American politics. Perhaps people could take a
>> moment
>> to realize it is the combined effort of the asses and trunks that
>> have
>> gotten america into this mess in the first place. To think
>> replacing a fat
>> cat with a slick lawyer is going to change anything; please consider
>> the
>> alternatives:
>>
>> http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lois Holzman
>> <lholzman@eastsideins To:
>> "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> titute.org> cc:
>> Sent by: Subject: Re:
>> [xmca] US discovers capitalism doesn't work
>> xmca-bounces@weber.uc
>> sd.edu
>>
>>
>> 09/22/2008 10:47 PM
>> Please respond to
>> "eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Jenny,
>> You might find something that grabs you as useful for your script in
>> the following conversation (it's a weekly e-column responding to the
>> political talk shows).
>> Others might also enjoy it.
>> Lois
>>
>> Lois Holzman, Director
>> East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy
>> 920 Broadway, 14th floor
>> New York NY 10010
>> tel. 212.941.8906 ext. 324
>> fax 212.941.0511
>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
>> www.eastsideinstitute.org
>> www.performingtheworld.org
>> www.loisholzman.net
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WHAT OBAMA SHOULD DO NOW
>>> Sunday, September 14, 2008
>>>
>>> Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and
>>> philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss
>>> them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 14,
>>> 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with
>>> George Stephanopoulos."
>>>
>>> Due to technical difficulties, the entire Talk Talk is printed below
>>> and is not available on our website www.independentvoting.org at
>>> this time.
>>> Salit: Suppose we take a stab at unpackaging a question that
>>> everybody was talking about on the talk shows this morning. Is the
>>> Obama camp having trouble handling Sarah Palin?
>>>
>>> Newman: Sarah Palin is not running for President of the United
>>> States, but for vice president. Does her selection have to be
>>> "handled?" Yes. It was a historic event. The Republicans put a woman
>>> on the ticket. If I were Obama's advisor I would say make the
>>> response tedious. Say Congratulations to the Republican Party for
>>> being the second major political party to nominate a woman as vice
>>> president.
>>>
>>> Salit: And ...
>>>
>>> Newman: And that's the end of it. It reminds the public that the
>>> Democratic Party nominated the first African American and that's a
>>> good thing. Now, says Obama, Let's talk about the American people
>>> and our policies. Let's talk about John McCain and our two parties.
>>> As I've said for a long time, the Democrats win if they can make
>>> this into a party election. The Republican Party has been in power
>>> for the last eight years and the American people don't like what
>>> they've done with it. End of story. You have to reduce Sarah Palin
>>> to the insignificance of the vice presidency.
>>>
>>> Salit: Alright. So, how close to that did they get?
>>>
>>> Newman: Oh, I don't know what the measure is. It's hard to say.
>>> That's going to be decided by what happens in the next few weeks.
>>>
>>> Salit: When Chris Matthews asked the Matthews Meter question, "Who
>>> won the week - Obama or McCain?" they said McCain, 11-1. I would
>>> have answered "Obama." And the reason I would have answered Obama is
>>> that, in large measure, all you could do this week was let the Palin
>>> thing play out. It was going to be the headliner no matter what.
>>> It's the week after the Republican Convention, and she is a woman
>>> and she is a new face. Sometimes you just have to let the other side
>>> make their play.
>>>
>>> Newman: I think who won the week was Palin.
>>>
>>> Salit: OK. How did you react to the Charlie Gibson interview with
>>> Palin?
>>>
>>> Newman: As an interview. It was just another interview of a newcomer
>>> onto the national stage.
>>>
>>> Salit: On "The Chris Matthews Show" it was reported, not a big
>>> revelation here, that numbers of people in the Democratic Party,
>>> meaning within the political class in the Democratic Party ...
>>>
>>> Newman: Yes...
>>>
>>> Salit: ...are concerned that Obama has "lost some of his fire." They
>>> say he had his voice when he was running against the Clintons. He
>>> had a passion. He was on message. He was sharp. He had a drive that
>>> matched the moment. Now, having won that, having beaten the
>>> Clintons, having gotten the nomination, and now being up against
>>> McCain, he doesn't seem to have that same passion or that precision
>>> of message. Is that a fair characterization? Or is it just the
>>> anxieties of the Democrats as we move into the final seven weeks of
>>> the campaign for the presidency?
>>>
>>> Newman: I'd approach this as a psychotherapist for a moment. Who are
>>> you ultimately going to be more passionately fired up in opposition
>>> to - if you're in opposition at all? Your family? Your mother who
>>> raised you? Or someone you've been dating for a week and a half?
>>>
>>> Salit: Your family.
>>>
>>> Newman: Of course. And, it's a good thing that he's more passionate
>>> in his opposition to the Democratic Party. The corruption that you
>>> have to defeat first has to be the corruption of your own party.
>>> That's what really shows some courage. Running against Clinton was
>>> enormously courageous.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes.
>>>
>>> Newman: Running against McCain inspires less passion. McCain isn't
>>> Bush. He's just an extension of Bush.
>>>
>>> Salit: Right.
>>>
>>> Newman: Palin isn't on her own. She's just an extension of McCain.
>>>
>>> Salit: Right.
>>>
>>> Newman: So, there's going to be a difference, not only in the degree
>>> of passion, but in the kind of passion. Real courage was required in
>>> taking on the Clintons and the entire Democratic machine. Obama
>>> passed that test. It's relatively easy to criticize the Republican
>>> Party, as even McCain is trying to project. The whole of the
>>> American people are against the Republican machine. Now, have McCain
>>> and Palin gone up against the Republican Party? No. In fact, McCain
>>> has totally tailored his positions, totally remade himself to be
>>> more of a regular Republican.
>>>
>>> Salit: That's the 2008 John McCain.
>>>
>>> Newman: That's where he's caved. That's what he's caved on. In 2000,
>>> he ran against Bush and said I'm not a regular Republican. He lost
>>> that fight. Now, he's a regular Republican, with an occasional
>>> maverick sound bite. And for all of her outsider gloss, Palin is
>>> following his lead. She is a regular Republican, too.
>>>
>>> Salit: That's not what you'd call a profile in courage.
>>>
>>> Newman: No, that's a profile, somewhere between changing your mind
>>> and rank opportunism.
>>>
>>> Salit: OK.
>>>
>>> Newman: If that were properly presented, Obama would diminish
>>> McCain's maverick appeal. Now, the reason Obama's hesitant to take
>>> that on, of course, is he doesn't want to offend the regular
>>> Democrats who make up a portion of his base.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes.
>>>
>>> Newman: But, I still think there's a way of doing that.
>>>
>>> Salit: Break it down for me.
>>>
>>> Newman: There's a way of saying this which glorifies the Democrats.
>>> Obama says, Look, our party knew that we had to go through a very
>>> difficult but clarifying process if we were going to be prepared to
>>> take on the presidency. We did that. It was very difficult. And I
>>> know some people felt their toes were stepped on. But we took that
>>> on and thanks to the independents who backed us, and thanks to our
>>> ranks, and thanks the younger generation, we cleaned up our house.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes.
>>>
>>> Newman: And we will finish that job. The Republicans never cleaned
>>> house. They're not willing to step out and say, in general, we've
>>> done a disastrous job, although it's apparent that they have done a
>>> disastrous job. The American people know that. So, if you want to
>>> consider who has genuinely taken on their party, look at that.
>>> That's my record, says Barack. I led the way in that. John McCain
>>> tried to take on his own party in 2000 and he failed. I tried in
>>> 2008 and I succeeded.
>>>
>>> Salit: I think it works. And my prediction is that McCain's going to
>>> try to make that a topic in the first debate coming up in two weeks.
>>>
>>> Newman: How?
>>>
>>> Salit: Because his only hope of winning is to claim the mantle of
>>> the insurgent. That's why his convention speech was 'I've stood up
>>> to the Republican Party. The Republican Party lost the trust of the
>>> American people. I've stood up to the anti-change forces.'
>>>
>>> Newman: Well, if I were Obama, I'd say John, that's what you did in
>>> 2000 and you got beaten. Now you've remade yourself. You're a
>>> regular Republican who supports the policies of George W. Bush. You
>>> didn't change your party, your party changed you. I changed my
>>> party. I succeeded where you failed. And that's why I'm more
>>> qualified to be president. Because the American people want change.
>>> And I have a record of change.
>>>
>>> Salit: Here's how I would characterize the debate within the
>>> Democratic Party about how to handle this very dynamic. I think
>>> there is a strong constituency inside the Democratic Party for Obama
>>> to simply hammer at what you might call "the issues." John McCain is
>>> tied to George Bush. George Bush ran the war. George Bush ran the
>>> economy into the ground. Ordinary Americans are suffering for lack
>>> of health care, for lack of jobs, from poor education, from a lack
>>> of affordable housing, and so forth. We're not competitive in the
>>> world. The Democratic Party is going to change that. In effect,
>>> Fred, I would say, their argument is to skip over the point that
>>> you're making here about Obama having taken on his party, taken on
>>> the establishment, taken a risk and gone through that process, and
>>> having the party come together around that. This other strategy that
>>> I'm describing, the traditional Democratic strategy, is what the
>>> Democrats go to, and what they've gone to. It was the Kerry
>>> strategy. It was the Gore strategy. You go to the American people on
>>> the basis of what's in their economic interests and what's in their
>>> social policy interests and you draw those distinctions and that's
>>> how you win the election. There's only one problem. They lost both
>>> of those elections with that strategy.
>>>
>>> Newman: But the American people have already spoken on the issues.
>>> They don't like the way things are being run, they don't like the
>>> foreign policy, they don't like the domestic policy, they don't like
>>> the educational policy.
>>>
>>> Salit: Right.
>>>
>>> Newman: They don't like the current healthcare policy. The American
>>> people have spoken on that. So who do they think they're talking to?
>>>
>>> Salit: Well, they're talking to the "undecideds."
>>>
>>> Newman: The undecideds, though, as I understand it, are undecided
>>> because they aren't yet clear on who is the best person to do
>>> something about the things that they're concerned about.
>>>
>>> Salit: Not on the question about what needs to be done.
>>>
>>> Newman: Yes.
>>>
>>> Salit: OK. So the question is who is the best person to do it. The
>>> Democrats' argument is the person who's the best person is the one
>>> who has the right policies. That's a different way to approach the
>>> issue than what you're describing. I feel close to what you're
>>> saying, but that's how the traditional Democrats package it. That's
>>> their argument. The way you sell the person is you sell the
>>> policies. Meanwhile, at the moment, what the Republicans are doing
>>> is selling the person. They're not selling the policies. They can't.
>>> The policies are a disaster. Just pick up a newspaper. Still, there
>>> is close to half the country, in spite of the failed policies of the
>>> Bush administration, who consider themselves conservatives. And
>>> McCain has put together a package that appeals to them. I'm not
>>> Bush, so you're not going to get the problems from Bush. But I am a
>>> conservative, and so you don't have to fear that I'm going to change
>>> things in a way that violates that.
>>>
>>> Newman: So, I still don't get it.
>>>
>>> Salit: You don't get the old strategic thinking from the Democrats?
>>>
>>> Newman: No, because the issue is whose policy is preferred at this
>>> point in time. Well, nobody quite knows because the choice is about
>>> who to trust on the articulation of what they're going to do.
>>>
>>> Salit: Right.
>>>
>>> Newman: So, defining policies doesn't make a difference, if I
>>> understand that reasoning.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes.
>>>
>>> Newman: So, why would the Democrats who, as you correctly point out,
>>> have been defeated by George Bush twice - why would they go back to
>>> that? I don't understand the reasoning.
>>>
>>> Salit: Ultimately their reasoning, the old guard's reasoning, is
>>> party-based in the following sense. The Democrats' registration has
>>> grown. Their numbers have grown on the ground.
>>>
>>> Newman: Right.
>>>
>>> Salit: The Obama campaign put together a superb grassroots
>>> infrastructure. You couple that with the Democratic Party's machine
>>> and they think - this is what I expect their reasoning is - they can
>>> just simply pull it off on the ground. I'm not saying that they
>>> think they don't have to do stuff and that he doesn't have to
>>> articulate stuff in the debates and in their commercials and so
>>> forth. But, ultimately, the thing turns on their capacity to put it
>>> together on the ground.
>>>
>>> Newman: But that's a separate question. You just changed the topic
>>> in the middle of the discussion. Because one has to do with what you
>>> have to do to get elected and the other has to do with what you have
>>> to do to effect change that the American people want. And they're
>>> two totally separate questions.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes. But you have to sell to the American people that you can
>>> effect a change that the American people want. Presumably, that's
>>> the issue that's on the table now.
>>>
>>> Newman: Yes.
>>>
>>> Salit: OK.
>>>
>>> Newman: I think Obama is most effective when he says I have some
>>> experience, but I also have a connection to a new wave of Americans,
>>> young Americans, Americans who want to see political change. They
>>> don't care what party you're in and I have a connection to them.
>>> I've worked with them. I'm a community organizer.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes.
>>>
>>> Newman: And people say to Obama, how can you prove that? And, he
>>> could say I just ran a campaign against the hardcore establishment
>>> of one of the two major parties and I won. John McCain ran that kind
>>> of campaign eight years ago. And he lost. He lost the Republican
>>> primary in 2000 for a reason. It wasn't a popularity contest. He
>>> lost because the kind of party the Republicans were looking for was
>>> expressed by George Bush, not by John McCain.
>>>
>>> Salit: OK.
>>>
>>> Newman: Everybody knows that John McCain went to the right wing of
>>> his party this time because that was the way to win. I'm not
>>> condemning that. But that doesn't produce change.
>>>
>>> Salit: Correct.
>>>
>>> Newman: It might produce victory but it doesn't produce change.
>>> Obama has to make his appeal to the new generation. That's not
>>> taking McCain on for his age, because the age that we're talking
>>> about is not his. It's the age of the new electorate that's
>>> relevant.
>>>
>>> Salit: Let me shift gears to Alan Greenspan's comments about the
>>> state of the U.S. economy. He says we've never seen the degree of
>>> connectedness on a global scale as we have today, and that's why the
>>> current level of government intervention into the markets is
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> Newman: Yes.
>>>
>>> Salit: And, he adds, the very factors of globalization which have
>>> been so beneficial and have taken millions of people out of poverty
>>> around the world are the same factors that make it the case that
>>> there needs to be a market correction. Put in the most positive
>>> light, from his standpoint, that's what we're seeing now.
>>> Globalization produced huge levels of growth which benefited
>>> millions and millions of ordinary people around the world. Now we're
>>> seeing a correction and a reorganization going on.
>>>
>>> Newman: OK.
>>>
>>> Salit: Is that an accurate framing? Is there anything left out, in
>>> your view, of that account?
>>>
>>> Newman: Well, Greenspan's a very smart man. But is he really saying,
>>> Alright children, let me teach you a basic law of physics. Every
>>> action has an equal and opposite reaction? Now, what is it he wants
>>> to do about it? I didn't hear him say.
>>>
>>> Salit: Nor did I. All he says is that the main thing that the
>>> American government should do is take whatever steps it needs to
>>> take in order to stabilize the price of housing. Once the price of
>>> housing is stabilized, and that's what all the intervention is
>>> about, then things will settle out and the market will take care of
>>> the rest.
>>>
>>> Newman: What if that doesn't happen? What if the correction for
>>> globalization turns out to be so vast that it undermines the very
>>> stability of the world economic system?
>>>
>>> Salit: Then it wouldn't be a correction, it would be a destruction.
>>>
>>> Newman: I didn't hear him reassuring us with specificity that this
>>> whole globalization thing was so well thought through that
>>> destruction couldn't possibly happen. And I don't think it was. I
>>> think there was a huge amount of money to be made. And, as always,
>>> when finance capitalists see huge money to be made, they go ahead
>>> and make it - without much thought about what the consequences might
>>> be. So, for example, at the risk of oversimplification, people who
>>> are saying that it's alright to bail out the finance industry
>>> because it's a worldwide system and that's different than bailing
>>> out the automotive industry...
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes...
>>>
>>> Newman: ...I would say there's a sleight of hand in there. It's
>>> alright if that represents your going-forward values.
>>>
>>> Salit: Yes.
>>>
>>> Newman: If you want to make sure the banks and financial system get
>>> bolstered on the grounds that that has to do with everybody and the
>>> automotive industry doesn't get protected in the same way because
>>> that that doesn't involve everybody in the same way...
>>>
>>> Salit: Right...
>>>
>>> Newman: Well, that seems a little tricky to me, because it depends
>>> on who you mean by "everybody" and how you relate to "everybody."
>>> It's not that I can't see the sense of the argument. The financial
>>> markets do have applicability to everyone, but not everyone in the
>>> same way. So, I'd say Greenspan tells less than the whole story. I
>>> almost agree with him. But it's less than the whole story.
>>>
>>> Salit: A good way to put it. Thanks, Fred.
>>>
>>> Forward this email to a friend!
>>>
>>> This email was sent to lholzdan@aol.com by national@cuip.org.
>>> Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe?
>>> | Privacy Policy.
>>> Email Marketing by
>>>
>>> Committee for a Unified Independent Party | 225 Broadway, Suite 2010
>>> | New York | NY | 10007
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2008, at 1:54 PM, jmgdo@berkeley.edu wrote:
>>
>>> We too are planning to get out this weekend as part of MoveOn's push
>>> to
>>> increase voter turnout. I get the sense, however, that we are left
>>> fairly
>>> on our own with regard to what script to use. Any suggestions would
>>> be
>>> most appreciated.
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>>
>>>> A lot of local folks are going out to work, Peg. As an experienced
>>>> door to
>>>> door canvasser,
>>>> what is the best way to get the message across?
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, if you are canvassing door to door, all too often you find
>>>>> that the
>>>>> political translation seems to be "forget about voting on November
>>>>> 4th,
>>>>> it's
>>>>> no use." Who'll win if there's a low turnout? You know.
>>>>> Determinism
>>>>> is
>>>>> in
>>>>> danger of trumping hope. So, please, GOTV!
>>>>> PG
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:36 PM
>>>>>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] US discovers capitalism doesn't work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seeing one advance on the ideological front: It is now a
>>>>>> commonplace observation in the mainstream media that what we're
>>>>>> seeing
>>>>>> is a system in which "profits are being privatized, while losses
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> being socialized."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for Martin's observations on the consciousness of
>>>>>> participants: It
>>>>>> reminds me of a class I had in law school in which the Professor
>>>>>> characterized as "Marxist" an interpretation that attributed
>>>>>> market
>>>>>> failures to corruption and criminality (not acting according to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> norms of the system). I protested, of course, that such is
>>>>>> ANYTHING
>>>>> BUT
>>>>>> a Marxist analysis. Marxism is more concerned with how capitalism
>>>>>> operates when the players ARE playing by its rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting analysis, Martin.
>>>>>>> Part of what fascinates me is watching the Republicans argue
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> raising taxes while coming up with a scheme to solve the problem
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> will make ordinary citizens pay for their profits..... but they
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be out of town before anyone can deal with the situation
>>>>> effectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A story on Yahoo today says for the first time, what is most
>>>>>> worrisome
>>>>>>> about how this will effect the outcome of the upcoming election:
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> rascism of a large part of the electorate may well be sufficient
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> ensure a Republican victory even as them whats been the leaders
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> this long term disaster blame "Washington insiders." - A
>>>>>>> Stanford U
>>>>>> poll study.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems to me that we ought to mark here the events of the
>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>> week
>>>>>>>> in the US, as they throw light on the kind of social reality in
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> many of us live. I'm certainly no economist, but this is what I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> I've figured out so far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bunch of smart bankers figured out how to turn debt,
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>> mortgage debt, into a commodity. They arranged to package it
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> label it as high quality, with some dubious auditing. They
>>>>>>>> arranged
>>>>>>>> to market it to individual and corporate investors. And then
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>> about mass producing this new commodity, by exploiting the
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> whose debt they could purchase.
>>>>>>>> They advertized easy credit to naïve would-be home owners. This
>>>>>>>> pushed up house prices, but this was fine because it created
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> demand for mortgages and these loans were for higher amounts,
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> size of the debts was doubly increased. They sold credit with
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> hand while with the other hand they sold the debt this
>>>>>>>> created. A
>>>>>>>> win-win situation, seemingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Several things went wrong at the same time. The price of
>>>>>>>> housing
>>>>> got
>>>>>>>> so high that the demand to buy it dried up. The mortgage
>>>>>>>> contracts
>>>>>>>> turned out to be so grossly exploitative that the people bound
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> them were simply squeezed dry. So the value of the new
>>>>>>>> commodities
>>>>>>>> fell into doubt, and the banks found they could no longer sell
>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>> They were over-stocked with goods that were no longer wanted,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> overnight a vast amount of value simply disappeared. The banks
>>>>>>>> woke
>>>>>>>> up to discover that they could no longer pay their own debts,
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> another, to industry, or to investors. The country woke up to
>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>> their savings disappearing, their currency falling, their homes
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> worth what they paid for them, their credit revoked, and their
>>>>>>>> jobs
>>>>>>>> on the line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now the federal government has stepped in, and will buy
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> unwanted commodities from the banks for a total of perhaps $500
>>>>>>>> billion. The banks will get real cash in its place and will be
>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>> to do business again. The government will hope to squeeze some
>>>>> value
>>>>>>>> from the mortgage holders, presumably on less onerous terms, in
>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>> to get something back for its purchase. The wheels of
>>>>>>>> capitalism
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> turn again, and the crisis may be over.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This at least is the picture that is now visible, on the basis
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> data collected by government agencies and reporting by the
>>>>>>>> media.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> the participants in all this were able to see only a small part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> what they were doing, and understood what they saw only poorly.
>>>>> Part
>>>>>>>> of this was wishful thinking and deception, but it was also a
>>>>> result
>>>>>>>> of the positioning of the various actors and the ways
>>>>>>>> capitalist
>>>>>>>> economies take on a life of their own, escaping both the needs
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the intentions of we who inhabit them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a fascinating situation, enough for a dozen good
>>>>> dissertations.
>>>>>>>> Alexandra Michel and Stanton Wortham, who were at ISCAR, are
>>>>>>>> publishing a book based on their study of the contrasting
>>>>>>>> cultures
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> two investment banks. I hope they will extend their work to
>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>> what is going on today.
>>>>>>>> To me it would be especially interesting to explore the
>>>>>> psychological
>>>>>>>> dimension ? how desires are created and manipulated, how
>>>>> perceptions
>>>>>>>> of risk and probability are changed, how people act in a time
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> instability.
>>>>>>>> But it also shows how modern society, civilized and modern and
>>>>>>>> advanced, is a house of cards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Whitson
>>>>>> UD School of Education
>>>>>> NEWARK DE 19716
>>>>>>
>>>>>> twhitson@udel.edu
>>>>>> _______________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "those who fail to reread
>>>>>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>>>>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jenny Langer-Osuna
>>> Doctoral Candidate
>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>> 919-765-5592 H
>>> 786-270-8471 C
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

David Preiss, Ph.D.
Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
Escuela de Psicología
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Av Vicuña Mackenna - 4860
7820436 Macul
Santiago, Chile

Fono: 3544605
Fax: 3544844
e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Sep 23 11:55 PDT 2008