Risk Written on Their Faces
Harvard researchers: Blame stock market meltdown on too much testosterone.
Heavy-browed high roller Conrad Black.
When it comes to determining how much of a financial risk-taker a man is, don't look him in the eye, look him in the jaw. Is your financial planner a ringer for Arnold? Does he have a jaw like Viggo?
On further examination, does he have a heavy or "low" brow like Moe, on the Simpsons? Throw in thin lips a la Bruce Willis and as the relatively full-lipped Robert Preston sang, "Ya got Trouble."
Ignore those innocent baby blues: a man's attitude to risk is bred in the bone, which reflects how much testosterone courses through his body. The more he has, the more likely he is to take risks with his money. Or yours.
Or so Harvard researchers report in the science journal Evolution and Human Behaviour.
Economist Anna Dreber and anthropologist Coren Apicella theorize that Wall Street's red-suspendered boys -- or as I think of them, the greedy architects of the new recession -- can't help themselves because they have more testosterone than average, which makes them take big risks to earn big prizes. That's an advantage when chasing woolly mammoths with wooden spears, but it's likely to cause problems in money management.
The scientific findings
Apparently, the rules for rational investing can't counter that evolutionary urge to risk it all on a death-defying feat (with your RRSP). To determine this, the study tested the hormone levels of 100 young men and then gave them $250 and told them they could keep it, invest part of it, or invest it all -- on a coin toss.
Those with testosterone poisoning (not the technical term) invested 12 per cent more than men with average hormone levels. And a man's testosterone levels are written on his face.
The influence of testosterone on facial features is linked to high hormone levels in adolescence, the same point at which men develop their attitudes to risk. Those with exaggerated masculine features -- commonly called "strong" faces -- are inclined to take long shots, which is likely to pay-off in some careers such as sports, movie or rock star. But That Guy is not who you want brokering international peace treaties or running your bank.
With these new findings I'm happy to reconsider my observation that too many men do too much of their thinking with the little head. Turns out that, for some men, the boys are also involved in an unholy trinity replacing rational thought.
Considering the implications
Of course, I'm itching to extrapolate on these findings. But before speculating on how soon corporate criminals will be using the testosterone defence -- maybe the heavy-browed, thin-lipped Conrad Black could appeal? -- let's consider the implications for modern life.
In evolutionary terms, the risk-takers were selected because their actions gave them some success at dipping in the gene pool and keeping their progeny alive. Although, with mammoth-tackling being what it is, it's fair to say that those ancient daredevils probably did more to ensure the survival of their slightly savvier tribe-mates who hung back, took calculated risks, and passed on what is now the average testosterone level. Let's face it, taking point against a one-ton quarry isn't conducive to long life and big families.
So our successful evolution as a species is probably the result of just enough practitioners of hormone-driven irrational acts to provide us with some regular protein. Which makes sense. Until recently, it was obvious that the daring of the few could benefit the majority.
Think about the origins of Canada. Only some sort of madness could explain why men ventured across the Atlantic in tiny boats and settled in inhospitable places like Quebec and Ontario. Imagine what that -40 (with the wind chill) would have felt like sans central heating, Gore-Tex, and Sorrels. Spend one winter in Montreal (contemplating who in his right mind would have settled here in the 17th century) and the community benefits of having had ancestors with a crazy disregard for the downside of risk is obvious.
Today's big-jawed elite
But what happens to the guys with (let's call it Excess Testosterone Effect) in the 21st century, where there's very little call for suicidal risk-taking? Extreme sports and drunk driving will only take out so many of these adventurers. The rest will be hanging around well into their 50s, pushing the limits and loosening regulations on hazardous behaviour in the places like corporate business and politics, where the rewards are mammoth-sized.
Ironically, the relative safety of the modern world has up-ended natural selection turning characteristics that, until recently, were benefiting the species into ones likely to threaten our survival.
The Harvard researchers drew a parallel with Wall Street risk-takers -- a little too late, I'd say, given the credit crisis, failing banks and collapsing markets.
Just think of the impact these heavy-jawed types have on every aspect of our lives.
For example, would anyone who knew about the Excess Testosterone Effect have voted Stephen Harper back in charge of the country?
He may be talking about the steady hand on the economy, but just look at that thick, square jaw (albeit disguised in jowls). His brow is heavy, and the lips are so thin they disappear when he smiles -- on the face of it, he's one of the guys who has out-lived his date with a mammoth.
We got a glimpse of those risk-taking tendencies when he suggested that Canadians stop whining about the stock market crash and start picking up the good buys. His infamous "Let them buy stock," line earned him a rep as Canada's answer to Marie Antoinette, but apparently the people who can spot a PM with a gambling habit don't vote.
The weak-chinned socially responsible
Call me, er, jaw-ndiced, but I can't help but recall Harper's position on healthcare, re-criminalizing abortion and keeping the troops in Afghanistan -- his choices are all risky and life-threatening although, sadly, not for him.
Harper's environmental policies, or lack thereof, take a chance that more than 90 per cent of scientists are wrong and the oil-patch-funding Conservative campaigns won't put the whole species at risk. Of course, Conservatives aren't good at separating scientific theories from myths -- never forget these people think humans and dinosaurs capered together in a Fred Flintstone version of Eden only 6,000 years ago and that vision colours every idea they have about science. Even so, Harper's willingness to take an outrageous risk with everyone's life because it gives him a big reward, seems extreme.
Feel free to apply the Excess Testosterone Effect theory to assessing the man of your choice. Alas, there is no comparable test for female candidates, as women's more complex biology doesn't allow for as delightfully obvious an equation as "extreme masculinity = irrationality."
Besides, voters looking to make snap judgments about women candidates already have the "Is she hot?" test, although its merits have come into question since Sarah Palin's embarrassing rise to prominence.
This new-found connection between excess testosterone and risk-taking has left me wary of all men who appear "strong," but I think it's especially relevant for picking politicians. Now I recall that old Red Tory Joe Clark's weak chin as fondly as his sense of social responsibility. I feel nostalgia for that time when a politician's intellectual brilliance inspired Trudeau-mania, not contempt.
But most of all I wonder how long it will take this science to reach voters and show them that male politicians trading on an appearance of strength are actually the guys who, in evolutionary terms, have outlived their usefulness.
Related Tyee stories:
- Bullies and Jerks
Richard Warnical reviews books on males and sports. - Among the Sex Wonks
Reviewed: Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex - Do Women Like Stephen Harper?
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- Appeal court upholds ruling on protection of orca habitat
- Foreign takeover score is 14,218 to two calculates Mel Hurtig, who speaks Saturday
- Abbott blames teachers' union, hints at legislation
- Greens exaggerating fracking fears 'to control you': Santorum
- Prime Minister Harper mixes oil with human rights on visit to China
- Civil jury finds former BC premier Vander Zalm guilty of defamation
- Vancouver theatre runs down curtain on section of BC's outdated liquor laws
- BC Premier Clark to replace throne speech with radio appearance
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Becoming the Ethical Hunter
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Harper in China
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- Remembering Lloyd Dykk's Wit, Generosity and Superb Prose
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- BC, You Love You
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Who Pays Huge Power Bills for Clark's Gas Plants?
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- When the Prize Is a Chance to Toil on BC's Farms
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Foreign Trade Zones Eyed for Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George
- Skating into 2012, More Resolutions
- Scientists unveil bold new definition of addiction
- The most hellish ‘internships’: China sends 100,000 teens to work for a pittance at Foxconn making gadgets for Apple, others
- World Press Photo Contest: Editor’s choice pictures of the day
- Banks come first in a Greek rescue plan
- We’re more unequal than you think
- Cambodia launched restaurants for vultures
- Flavored vodka: sign of the imminent apocalypse?
- With Obama’s new foreclosure deal big banks win again
72
Login or register to post comments
Feverish
3 years ago
Finally, an explanation.
This artcle has provided not only some levity to briefly counter negative feelings that are prevalent during this current round of man-made angst, but also a ready defense for neanderthals to fall back on in times of inconvenient legal pressures.
The levity is much welcomed, but the ready legal defense is a bit unfortunate. The benefactors of the NWO will be rushing out to buy their children the new and improved version of the old Xmas stand-by... the bio-chemistry set. Kind of like a home pregnancy test for men.
Wonderful... funny and quite possibly true (sadly.) Thank you.
Stump
3 years ago
Thinking about the origins of Canada
"Think about the origins of Canada. Only some sort of madness could explain why men ventured across the Atlantic in tiny boats and settled in inhospitable places like Quebec and Ontario"
Um, maybe they thought since the Iroquois, Mohawk, et al had been doing OK for a few thousand years, it was possible for others to manage it as well?
Stump
3 years ago
My financial planner
I wonder what he's gonna say when I show up at our next meeting with a little cup and tell him he better not piss my money away!
Ian Hanington
3 years ago
It's in the face
Wow! Does this mean that phrenology is legitimate after all?
ME2
3 years ago
There ha to be a reason.
Maybe Shannon is looking for a job teaching femineconomics?
Shannon Rupp
3 years ago
No, Ian
No matter what they say at Langara College's Quack Therapy program, phrenology is not legitimate.
David Lewis
3 years ago
"too many men do their thinking with the little head"?
Your link doesn't lead to the article put out by the researchers, it leads to a newspaper report on the article. I went to another newspaper. From the Science News report on the article:
"this is the first study"
What do you think causes you to want to immediately extrapolate so far beyond what the actual researchers believe they discovered?
Would you be offended if a male colleague writing in the Tyee wrote sweeping generalizations about women in politics suggesting to other men they should consider discriminating against women on the basis of the level of hormones naturally present in their bodies or because of their facial features?
In my experience, someone who advocates discriminating against people who display normal sexual characteristics, such as gay men, or lesbians, for instance, can often be a closeted example of what they advocate we discriminate against. As you seem to be advocating that we discriminate against a sizable percentage of the entire male population, perhaps this is because you identify very closely with the behaviour or appearance you find repulsive.
How would one think with a sex organ anyway? Did you find evidence of researchers dissecting and finding brain cells there?
Quoting Anna Dreber, co-author of the study, AFTER she published the study, summing up for publication what she knows:
"Risk preferences are one of the most important preferences in economics, and yet no one knows why they differ between men and women"
Quoting you from your article: "most of all I wonder how long it will take this science to reach voters"
I'm breathless.
Since no one knows why there are differences between men and women on this point, do you think we should start discriminating against men on the basis of physical appearance first, or require mandatory blood tests so we can discriminate against men on the basis of testosterone?
Do you have that outlived your date with a mammoth look? Or do you look like an outdated mammoth? Inquiring minds want to know.
but now, a word from our sponsor:
http://www.theonion.com/
content/news/recession_plagued_nation_demands
exerpt: "According to investment experts, now that the option of making millions of dollars in a short time with imaginary profits from bad real-estate deals has disappeared, the need for another spontaneous make-believe source of wealth has never been more urgent."
"Every family needs a false sense of security".
Tranche Demerde
3 years ago
what's written on your face?
ban everything
Barher
3 years ago
Markets and testosterone
Congratulations to Shannon Rupp for a clever, creative and well written article.
Trouble is -
I wish The Tyee would not fall into the same trap as almost all other media. The trap is believing, relying upon and using data from specious studies or surveys.
Small sample sizes of homogenious populations rarely render much useful information. The study upon which this article is based is one such example.
That said you may well be right.
nightbloom
3 years ago
Cute commentary, obviously
Cute commentary, obviously intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I like it!
But for anyone who who might be inclined to take this type of testosterone talk seriously, it's important to remember a few general basics about hormones. Hormone levels are very specific to each individual. What constitutes "high" and "low" testosterone is entirely endogenous. Your body has it's own unique level of response. That's why even minor fluctuations in (most) women's testosterone levels often have dramatic effects, while some men don't experience the anabolic effects of standard testosterone replacement therapy until they start taking concentrated synthetic steriods. In other words, a man with relatively "low" testosterone could have more energy, sex drive, muscle tone, etc. than a man with "higher" testosterone. And a man with relatively higher levels could manifest symptoms of low testosterone (fatigue, etc.). As for influencing physical characteristics (aside from muscle mass), even relatively small amounts will give a man all his secondary sex characterics. A man with heavy brows, big jaw, and adam's apple doesn't necessarily have high testosterone, he just comes from a family in which males exhibit those traits to a greater degree.
That being said, hormone fluctuations can make anyone crazy (man or women, testosterone or estrogen). For example, I'm genuinely convinced that menopause induces temporary insanity in women. The empirical evidence is overwhelming. I work with several such women every day, and they're nuts. I'm even more suspicious about the widespread impact of mass hormone manipulation via the birth control pill. We're dealing which a huge segment of the population that, quick frankly, is not in their natural state of mind & body, and hasn't been for the last two or three generations. That's gotta change things.
But like I said, cute article =)
nightbloom
3 years ago
Further Reading
On men's evolutionary predilection for risk-taking behaviour, and its bio-social implications, I recommend:
1. Susan Pinker's "The Sexual Paradox" (http://www.susanpinker.com/)
2. Lionel Tiger's "The Decline of Males" (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ltiger/publications/declineofmales.html)
3. Warren Farrell's "Why Men Earn More" and "The Myth of Male Power" (http://www.warrenfarrell.com/)
G West
3 years ago
Let's hope this:
is equally tongue in cheek.
And you better hope that your female colleagues don't read Tyee.
Cause if they do, I'd suggest you take a lengthy holiday - you may have some hormone problems of your own.
That said, I think I agree with the 'label' comment of the commenter 4 steps above you.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Greed was the cause.
The article is light reading but don't cloud the fact that it was unrestrained greed that caused the meltdown. Perhaps a bit of poetic justice for the greedy. Except as fiat lux always points out "wealth can not be created only taken". So guess where they will get all the money for their greed recovery? You got it. "We have found the fools, they is us".... with apologies to Pogo.
alive
3 years ago
Hormones
This article points to a problem and offers a possible cause, but as usual everyone expects a solution to be provided as well!
For some reason only constructive criticism is considered valid!
I tend to agree with the offered reasoning, as a high testosterone level are also detected in violent criminals!
We have had several discussions here about rapist, who could be cured by a simple surgery. No need to reopen that rant, but do note the similarities please.
In the case of greedy / aggressive people there is no easy solution, we can only hope that mankind eventually evolves ?
Neanderthals are a dying breed, we shall just have to suffer their ego-centered habits and be aware at all times.
nightbloom
3 years ago
Alive, I wouldn't take that
Alive, I wouldn't take that at face value (i.e. regarding the allegedly higher testosterone among criminals). Might as well also discuss the statistical correlation between crime and race. See the problem? And given the radical expansion of the definition of "rape" over the past thirty years, I wouldn't support compulsory castration for sex offenders under any circumstances. By some definitions, both you and I and every male we know is a "rapist" simply for having consensual penetrative sex with a woman (or receptive male) after they've had a few drinks. Do you have enough faith in the common sense of the legal system to lay your nuts on the block? Didn't think so.
G West
3 years ago
Dont drive
Or screw - when drinking.
Easy peasey - that ain't the hormones talking it's the greased libido..I agree that solution is a little off the wall.
But then, that's pretty much Shannon's schtick, isn't it?
nightbloom
3 years ago
Say, watt??
"Don't screw when drinking"--? Ha! What planet are you from anyway? Besides, males are hardly the only "offenders" when it comes to THAT! More often that not, they're the roadkill...
"Advice to midlife man-eaters: cool it"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081016.wlgenex16/BNStory/lifeFamily/home
G West
3 years ago
Welll...l!
That's pretty much what happens when sex is degraded into nothing more than narcissistic recreation.
Which should have been, from the context, what my remark about drinking was driving at.
Tranche Demerde
3 years ago
too cute
syentific studdys show wimmin joken about strong men's horrormone levuls are tryun to cut their balls off.
Fii
3 years ago
The risk-taking guys are
The risk-taking guys are still the more attractive ones (to me, anyway). Wish it weren't so, but *sigh* there you have it.
As for the birth control pill- I'm taking it Nightbloom is male? :) Thank god for that wondrous invention. Until you've spent the better part of nearly 15 yrs being violently ill once a month (I'm talking passing out, vomiting for hours~ like THAT'S normal!), only to discover that it all magically, mercifully goes away with the bc pill, I don't think you're qualified to comment on "mass (female) hormonal manipulation" and its benefits and disadvantages!
alive
3 years ago
rehash
yeah well nightbloom, you are new here and missed the fun when rapist were discussed.
Nobody advocated castration, but it was agreed that it could be an option for a man who realized he could not control his sexdrive.
I will not bother to find the relevant url's again just to satisfy you, do your own research.
G West
3 years ago
Alive you're right we shouldn't go into it
Quick points:
1) nightbloom was here at the time of the previous debate...You are right (I think) that he didn't get stuck in; but,
2) I think your conclusion that anything 'was agreed to' does not accord with my recollection of the discussion and/or its conclusions.
Fii - you're right, nightbloom is 'male'.
ME2
3 years ago
Its not hormones
My first reaction after reading the article was that while the study proposed an interesting theory, it is at its very best a theory only.
But it will function excellently as a red herring, diverting our attention away from the real cause of the current malaise, which is pure unadulterated greed pursued just as avidly by the receeding-jawed bean counter as by the Arnold types who front the big corporations.
In response to a friend who asked me for my view, I wrote the following to her. It's an oversimplification, I know, but I think it works.
"Capitalism and “Free Enterprise”, a la Adam Smith, is predicated upon the idea that to produce profit, money must constantly be cycled through all levels of society, finding its value through all the various “value added” inputs. Civilisations decay when all the wealth eventually flows into a few hands, cutting off the circulation."
"In order to garner even more wealth, the ever-greedy rich then resort to exploitation of the citizens, as well as the country’s treasury and its resources. This is why you and I must rescue the banks or starve."
Stump
3 years ago
birth control pill
100% all man talking here, just so there's no confusion.
It's a common assumption that the birth control pill messes with a woman's hormones in an unnatural way. However, inasmuch as it makes their systems 'think' they are pregnant... and women have for eons spent much of their adult lives pregnant, it could be argued that the pill actually tricks a woman's body into thinking it is in a state that's more like that which it/they have traditionally 'enjoyed' for thousands of years, but without the whole actually having a kid side-effect.
Kind of like how we now assume that daycares are unnatural, yet for millenia, children were handed off to elders and other members of the community who stayed put in the village, while the able-bodied adults (male and female) went about the tasks required to feed everyone.
alive
3 years ago
who said what and why?
Gwest, you surprise me!
I had expected that you keep a harddrive full of previous encounters, and would quote from that discussion.
Maybe we saw different conclusions?
All I know is that nobody convinces you of anything, so why bother?
G West
3 years ago
That's fair enough
We came at the issue from different places and we reached different conclusions...
You may not convince me, alive, but I certainly don't disrespect you for trying - in fact I try never to do that to anyone.
As long as the argument is about issues, facts and opinions I think that's about all anyone can expect.
If and when it gets personal I will object.
OK!
I do keep a record of most of what I've written but certainly not what others have...except in a few cases.
That wasn't one of them.
I think if you care about things you have to bother.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
All life forms are
All life forms are programmed to fulfill certain ecological demands.
The human race is the only one of being cursed with animal bodies and the capability of abstract thought, which can lead it into constantly repeted disasters originating from religious and ideological theories, taught in schools, used by predator classes to enslave and destroy.
There are no left and right wings in politics, only people who are born and permitted to develop as predators and their victims. And the ideological or religious excuses for their colonizing and murder campaigns make absolutely no difference where they come from, or what scriptures they use.
As an independent contractor, I've spent many hours in the homes, offices and boardrooms of the captains of industry, have listened to their exchanges, phone calls and plans, and have learned to despise all of them, regardless of the flag they work under.
WEALTH CAN NOT BE CREATED, ONLY TAKEN FROM OTHERS, THE ENVIRONMENT, OR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
We only have about 7,000 years of written history proving this simple law, but the human race never learns and keeps falling under the feet of the same rulers to be kicked around, and to fight their colonizing campaigns, while being taught from childhood that this is perfectly natural and God's will.
The problem is, again as I've written before, that our universities have long ceased being the "institutions of learning" and have been sold to become the "institutions of brainwash" in service of
a new sector of aristocracy.
Nothing has changed, or will change as long as the human race permits itself to be kicked around by ideologues and priesthoods......which now includes the pseudo priesthood of economists, the most dangerous kind in human history.
Ed Deak.
reality_check
3 years ago
Bisphenol A to the rescue !!!
If the study is right, we should look at feeding these guys with the plastic that is now banned in Canada! The studies on BPA suggest that "the chemical can imitate the female hormone estrogen, and it has been linked to cancer and infertility in animals."
Or should we continue to feed all males with it and we would have a perfect world: full of females and hermaphrodites who --by definition-- would likely be infertile! Of course, they would die of cancer, but who cares! They are males! As for females, they would die too, I suppose! But, females without fertile males would be useless, wouldn't they?
BTW, there were several studies in the 90's looking at the link between hormones and homosexuality. It demonstrated quite well that many lesbians have a higher ratio of male to female hormones in their system and --vice versa-- male homosexuals had a higher female to male hormonal level, supporting the notion that people who are gay are usually gay because they WERE born!
But to come back to BPA, does this explain why male bashing by females and some males (and the media as the driver) became prominent since the 90's?
I am always leery of reading females' commenting on males, especially if it is written to be tongue-and-cheek. It is like bullies bullying gays with gay jokes! Everyone is laughing, except the recipient! But, then, it is true that many women nowadays believe that it is ok to take the kids, the visitation rights, and the kitchen sink when they divorce 90% of the time. Of course, it is ok for women to date those high-risk male individuals (from the Hells Angels to the professional athlete) as long as their wallet is full!!! And being a woman is so tough nowadays (as the marketing would dictate), except for the ones who are living of the avail (mansion) of their he-is-never-home-and-he-is-always-working BF/husband. I feel sorry for women who have been impregnated (:)) with that car-dealer-like marketing pro-pseudo-feminist propaganda because males and females (and kids) are paying the price: the price of hyper*-capitalism and greed. Because that is what it is, created and led by macho males behind! And everyone is buying it! Shame! Real shame!
PS: Hyper or Harper capitalism.
Disclaimer: We need capitalism (but not the extreme type). We need feminism (but not the extreme type). We need integrity and truth! Reality? Check!
ME2
3 years ago
There's nothing new under the Sun.
Blessed as we are with this marvellous brain capacity, we keep BSing ourselves into thinking that it functions as anything other than a tool to foster procreation, the end goal of all species.
As reasonable as cooperation and altruism seem, their long-term result is to limit population, since sharing acknowleges that ultimately, all resources are finite.
The only way to make certain that resources provide for the greatest number of people possible is to promote intense competition, which is why our numbers have coninued to expand despite constant warfare and unconcern for competing peoples such as with Africa today.
This is why, for example, that despite good intentions, religions always wind up being tools of oppression for the rich.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
All forms of competition
All forms of competition always increase real costs.
War and crime are the ultimate forms of economic competition.
The perennial urging and fostering of competition by ruling classes has always been for the purpose of increasing real costs and then pocket the increases as benefits by stealing them from the conquered and the low level conquerors.
E.g. The sacking of the Americas by the European conquerors, and using the loot to oppress their own at home.
Ed Deak.
ME2
3 years ago
Ed Deake
Wrong. Competition - usually driven by the profit motive - fosters innovation, and innovation almost always lowers costs.
This runs off the tracks when producers are able to achieve monopolies or other devices that restrict competition and innovation.
Our system is on the verge of total collapse not because "Free Enterprise" can't work, but because even though we know it is driven only by the profit motive, we've allowed the profit-takers to set the rules they play by. What else could one expect??
This is clearly the result of choosing leaders whose claim to leadership is expertise in business and abhorrence of restrictive rules - well, not really- they think you and I need more of them :- )
To date you've summarily dissed every political system around, Ed, but I've yet to see you endorse anything other than jail for today's economists.
So where should we go now?
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Me..... First of all, what
Me.....
First of all, what do we call "costs"?
Monetary costs are nor realities, but often violence induced temporary perceptions. Yet, we're murdering millions every year in their service ?
The only real costs are physical inputs.
The lowest overall, real costs will always be the lowest physical inputs. In short the laws of physical efficiency applied to economics.
Competition always demands higher and higher energy/physical inputs, as we can see now in the forms of automation, forced urbanization, forced specialization, etc.
The so called "low" prices, especially of imports, have wiped out the repair shops, because it is "cheaper" to buy new, even when the products only last a fraction of the lifespan of well made.
Is this "cheaper"? Like hell. The real costs are the destruction of the resource base to fill the increased demands, incredible environmental destruction through climate change, cancer epidemics, pollution, garbage etc, etc.
In short: REAL COSTS CAN NOT BE CUT, ONLY TRANSFERRED ON OTHER SECTORS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.
The millions of bald headed little children in the world's cancer wards are now paying for the "booming economies" of 50 and 100 years ago and their numbers will grow indefinitely into the future.
The overall cancer rate was about 2% of the population 50 years ago and it was unheard of in children, now it is closing to 40%. The same with child autism.
So where are the "low costs" promoted by innovations and competition?
I was involved in many sports, internationally in two, but don't know of any that would have reduced physical, or even monetary inputs. In my car rally competition days as a factory driver, we used sometimes 2 sets of tires per day and our cars were custom built to last a week.
But we were fast and competed. The same rules apply to economic competition, where human labour is replaced with huge energy inputs, causing all kinds of problems, but it is supposed to be "cheaper"?
Real competition is the search for excellence under controlled conditions and the neutral protection of life and property.
War, crime and monetary competition are the forced acquisition of benefits and properties against the owners' will.
Yes, I do knock all ideologies, because I have lived under every known ones and have seen how they work and the results, the ruling classes they've built and the suffering and sometimes mass murder of innocents under all of them.
The only solution is the introduction of physical efficiency into economics, because it is sector neutral and makes no excuses for the setting up of rulers.
In short: democracy, which is the enemy of all ideology based economic systems.
Even when they claim to "cut costs",which a physical impossibility.
Ed Deak.
lynn
3 years ago
Wall Streets's Red-Suspendered Boys... and Girls
Quote:
"Economist Anna Dreber and anthropologist Coren Apicella theorize that Wall Street's red-suspendered boys -- or as I think of them, the greedy architects of the new recession -- can't help themselves because they have more testosterone than average, which makes them take big risks to earn big prizes. "
But this article completely ignores all the female "greedy architects of the new recession"...Morgan Stanley, to name just one, had hundreds of women top executives.
And women are clamouring everywhere now to get to "the top" of Corporate Mt. Everest... just like men.
If I had to make a guess, I'd say corporate greed in both men and women is all about the fear and denial of death.... a pre-occupation with the acquisition of a dead material world....and the fear of truly "feeling" what it means to be alive.
Thus their greedy pursuit of more... and more lifeless money becomes a necessary and all-consuming distraction from having to think about the real meaning of their lives. That's what really scares Wall Street.
My guess is the risky behavior of greed has little to do with gender......and is more psychological in nature than biological.
ME2
3 years ago
Greed
For some, the pursuit of money becomes a game, just like collecting paintings, matchboxes or anything else.
It can become obsessive, just as with the memorizer of baseball and hockey statistics, or the bibliophile's obsession with writers.
Having money gives one entry into successively more exclusive cliques, according to one's level of wealth. Joining cliques is not restricted to the wealthy.
For most, having wealth imparts a feeling of well-being, and moreso for others in the display of it.
But having wealth - or status - does not necessarily denote that one is greedy, since there are many way to accumulate money - and use it - without harming others.
G West
3 years ago
I think it breeds suspicion and ill-ease
I think it breeds suspicion, unhappiness and ill-ease ----
Not well being and satisfaction.
In fact, quite the opposite - the acquisition of piles of stuff is just the nominal way for children to lord it over their mates.
Arrested development, a fundamental failure to mature beyond this childish state is endemic in some cultures.
It is practically impossible to accumulate sacks of lucre without harming others, in my view.
But this illness isn't something exclusively restricted to the males of the species.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
The world has always been
The world has always been governed and empires have always been built on the conspiracy of 3 traditional ruling sectors: The Merchants, the Priesthoods and the Military, and never has this fact been better illustrated than today, especially in the case of jerks like Black.
Wealth can not be created, only taken....
The Merchants, now represented by the banks and multinationals, invent the demands, the Priesthoods, now also the pseudo priesthood of economists, invent the scriptural justifications and the Military does the dirty work, hoping for absolution for their crimes by the priests.
Wars are never fought by, or between nations, but always between governments and the purpose is always energy control, by wasting more energy in the fights than what the "winners" gain.
It was obvious for many, ever since the banks have been deregulated, that it will lead to some major disaster, because the ever increasing profit demands of the money and stockmarkets will blow up the system one day. The only unpredictable part was the timing of the collapse.
And it was all designed and sanctified by the scriptures of economists.
Of course, there are and always have been economists with brains, but their voices have always been suppressed by the ideologues with predictable results.
Also, Adam Smith never wrote the often quoted and taught idiocy of " Individual ambition serves the common good".
Like the whole theory we live under, it is a fraud, invented for world dictatorship.
What Smith really wrote in his "invisible hand of self interest" theory was that by investing in "domestick" (sic) economies, the investors will gain unexpected benefits they haven't planned. That's all.
In any case, what does "individual ambition" really mean? Justification of enslavement and murder ?
Ed Deak.
alive
3 years ago
either way
lynn:
Just for the record high Testosterone levels are also found in females!
lynn
3 years ago
Ouroboros
...that's true, alive ....but it might be a chicken and egg thing....
does a certain kind of psychological state ( one that causes or produces, let's say, " heightened stress" )...actually up the testoterone levels in women?
In other words: Does "how we presently live and think "....what pre-occupies and controls our thoughts... what desires and fears result from that kind of thinking....how does that change our chemical biology?
Psychology/Biology: A snake with his/her tail in his/her mouth.
alive
3 years ago
Lynn: Does it matter why or
Lynn:
Does it matter why or how testosterone is procuced?
If it is at a high enough level it has conseqences!
There are studies showing that high testosterone levels are found in violent criminals.
Violence and aggressive behaviour is one of the trademarks of people who have no consideration of other peoples interest.
Any kind of hormonal imbalance is recognized as changing peoples behaviour, so why is it so hard to accept that unusual amounts can cause unusual behaviour?
lynn
3 years ago
We are more than a chemical equation
I think "the how and why" do matter, alive.
How can we change anything unless we take those two very human factors into account?
ME2
3 years ago
Hormones? Bah.
Consideration for the emotional and/or physical wellbeing of others is not programmed in the genes. Those feelings are given to us by our culture. Amongst Christians, this is called the Conscience.
In my view, this "Conscience" can normally override drives resulting from heightened hormonal levels. That said, I do see the problem in defining the differences between normal, heightened, excessive, and pathological drives in people.
Usually, we act selflessly only according to our programming, (and self-teaching) which usually follows religious and societal norms.
Our culture now teaches us that anything is fair in business, (Caveat Emptor, The Market, etc.), so how can we possibly ascribe wrong-doing to people who are merely following a cultural precept?
It seems to me that the underlying ad hominem premise in this discussion - that the wealthy are somehow "sick" - only bars the doors toward discussion.
Far better, I think, that Lefties point out how far "The system" has strayed from the Christian and Democratic values to which we ALL subscribe, and which even the corrupted MUST publicly profess or lose favour.
That was the message with which Tommy Douglas captured the public's attention, and it is one which is even more relevant now.
G West
3 years ago
Unconvincing
I completely disagree.
Many of the wealthy are sick, though not in the way Rupp suggests, and their supporters and idolaters are liars or dupes to suggest they believe in the basic premises of the market - i.e. that the market will allocate resources and rewards in some kind of 'just' fashion. On its own it won't - it never has - it never will....
I think Ed is exactly correct when he states that all competition is a confidence trick for the wealthy and the ruling classes that use it to keep their historic and usually ill-gotten advantage(s) over the rest of humanity – a fact that works both within cultures and between them; a fact that applies inside a country's borders and, more critically, across both borders and oceans.
Here's a start for your research into the inherent human characteristic of altruism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm
It has nothing to do with religion in general or Christianity in particular.
In fact, those who put greed and competition on a false altar and worship them are the really sick puppies.
I’d also recommend this book, from Oxford University Press, if you’re still interested:
Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation
By Natalie Henrich, Joseph Henrich, Joseph Patrick Henrich
I found it really interesting and you can order it from Amazon if you want.
And, if you’re more into ‘hard’ science, you can start with this:
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.med/2005-01/1745.html
Stump
3 years ago
Not true
"Consideration for the emotional and/or physical wellbeing of others is not programmed in the genes"
Actually, there's a wealth of evidence to suggest that altruism is hard-wired into us as a survival mechanism.
If you are basing your opinion on a belief that it isn't you are starting from a faulty premise.
alive
3 years ago
yeah yeah, anything but hormones
Lynn:
This article tries to explain why some people behave in an antisocial manner; it does not offer any solution!
The how and why some females have excess testosterone is not relevant, merely that it happens and that it might explain why female as well as male may wind up being parasites to society.
ME2:
Yes, conscience or whatever you want to call it can override drives, be they sexual or power-oriented, assuming we are talking about normal levels of hormonal activity. This article is about people with an excess amount of Testosterone, different story.
This has nothing to do with lefties or religion either.
Gwest:
“those who put greed and competition on a false altar and worship them are the really sick puppies.” Are you not describing people who act like this article points out?
But as far as you are concerned they are just selfish bastards, and the idea that excess hormones play a part is not worth considering?
I am not looking for excuses for anyone, in fact I would love to see them all prosecuted! Still I have seen the evidence that hormones do screw up people, and I feel it is reasonable to at least try to understand what might be the cause.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
G West...
Then I suggest that you join the Marxist-Leninist Party. :) Really.
Sheesh, did you not even know that many provincial/federal New Democrats are wealthy????? And I mean wealthy???
Fer instance, did ya not know that the venerable John Laxton, multi-millionaire deluxe, was touted as the next BC NDP leader to replace Dave Barrett in the early 1980's???
And that he held many NDP gatherings at his huge mansion back then in West Vancouver???
Or that former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough is the beneficiary of a wealthy family whose father Lloyd Shaw was also very wealthy but also committed to progressive politics????
Perhaps ya should look elsewhere to feel comfortable politically. ;)
G West
3 years ago
Did you actually 'read'
Did you actually 'read' what I wrote?
In my view anyone who makes money for the sake of making money - justifying their addiction on the basis of a phony claim that greed is good and that the market is infallible is SICK.
Furthermore, as BOTH stump and I pointed out, humans are not hardwired for that kind of thing - consequently the affliction or addiction is a cultural or learned behavior that goes against human nature.
Did you check any of the references?
And, in my opinion, anyone who believes otherwise is equally sick. However, because of my altruistic nature, I don’t hold it against them – I just try to point out the error of their ways.
Others, it seems, are more interested in shuffling the life preservers and dancing till midnight.
G West
3 years ago
And, luke,
And, luke, do you know the difference between the works all and many?
Apparently not. You certainly haven't posted anything I didn't already know.
Sometimes Christian teaching does give us a pearl of wisdom though.
I take it someone of your vast experience knows the story of the camel and the needle's eye.
G West
3 years ago
errata
That's .."do you know the difference between the WORDS 'all' and 'many'?"
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
G West...
Humans have always followed this dictum:
Always been like that, always will. Human nature at its core.
G West
3 years ago
So I guess that means you didn't read
So you'd rather follow your own selfish learned inclinations than be truly human?
Fine with me. Kinda proves my point - and why the world is in such a mess.
By the way, I have no idea where 'that' dictum comes from - Nazi Germany?
If we substitute 'love' of country I don't think that would be far off.
You clearly don't know much about human nature - which is pretty much what I've always surmised.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
G West...
Now.... you are the FIRST person that I have EVER known to have refuted the "Money and Love makes the World Go" 'Round" dictum.
Congratulations!
G West
3 years ago
Thanks luke
You might want to take your case to old Jim Cramer...he's been having a lot of second thoughts lately too.
Ever wonder why places like Scandinavia seem to have happier people living there than we do here?
And that business about the world going 'round'?
You might want to take that to the 70 - 80 percent of the world's citizens who live in hunger, disease, mud and squallor. Cause I think they might have a bone to pick with you too. ...the swindle you call a system hasn't worked out so well for them.
Last time I checked they were as much 'free' human beings as you and me.
And I thought you were a democrat.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Happy In BC... :)
Mustel Poll, BC Happiness Index, from August, 2006:
Q.1) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 means being most happy, how happy are you?
10: 17%
9: 16%
8: 32%
7: 15% --Total Downward to 7 Level- 80%
6: 9%
5: 6%
4: 2%
3: 1%
2: 1%
1: 1%
Average BC Happy Score: 7.8
Not tooooooo shabby!!!
I'm one of 'em. You obviously unfortunately aren't. :(
http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/a498hs_jha.pdf
G West
3 years ago
I should have known you'd have a poll about it
Why don't you check out where the happiest people in the world are luke - you might be surprised and it'll keep you busy for a minute or so.
When you see where Canada and the US sit on the world happiness index then we can talk.
You're out of your depth my friend.
Stump
3 years ago
Once again... not true
"Humans have always followed this dictum:
Quote:
Money and Love makes the World Go 'Round
Always been like that, always will. Human nature at its core."
Again, this is simply not true. There's a wealth of evidence that shows teamwork, cooperation, and compassion have all played crucial roles in the development of the human race. The most basic human grouping... the tribe, relies on mutual trust and fair dealing between members for it to work. With even larger groupings, these characteristics become even more important, esp. when having dealings with people you don't know. There has to be an innate level of trust and the expectation of fair dealing from all concerned for institutions such as the market to work. Without it, credit, for example, simply can't be extended to clients or consumers. If you are going to promote market-based solutions and the primacy of the individual at least get your background correct. Without people as individuals being 'as good as their word' institutions such as the business world will crumble. Oh, look. That's exactly what's happening. Big surprise!
Please don't continue to promote this 'opinion' as anything resembling fact. You (Luke) are wrong and promoting a toxic way of inter-relating with other people by continuing to spread this misinformation.
Stump
3 years ago
business
thrives where mutual benefits are realized. Very straightforward stuff really. Companies or customers that screw the other end of the equation never last long.
No wonder we are in such a mess. People are working with erroneous assumptions and then wondering why things fall apart.
G West
3 years ago
no kidding
People in the end can only hope not to get hit too hard by the wreckage and to hang on to the relationships that mean something real.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Stump...
Man oh man, Stump, now both you and G West are the only two people in the world who currently believes differently that I've ever come across.
Meh, it's a couple of Tyee posters on the internet.
Go figure. ;)
Stump
3 years ago
here we go
Attack the messenger because you can't refute the message. Go figure.
I'd be interested to know what readings or research you've found that negates the role of altruism in human development? Everything I've read suggests that we benefit more from working together for common goals than we do from acting out of selfishness. Reciprocity is crucial for humans. G West and I are in fairly esteemed company, scientificy types and all... You've got Gordon Gecko on your side. A fictional character. Good luck with that. :-)
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Stump...
I agree with ya! But that doesn't negate my previous comment. Really.
ME2
3 years ago
Genetic predispositions
Garth, since the slimy manner in which you've deliberately rephrased my arguments is nothing new for you, I really shouldn't grace you with a reply, but your trolling (if that was the objective) requires it.
Nowhere in my post did I even hint that humans are unable to cooperate for mutual benefit. We've prospered throughout the millennia simply because we've been able to cooperate. The origin of this capability is purely cultural, made possible by our large brain which is capable of grasping and then communicating abstract ideas which can then override simple self-interest.
At the same time, we've shown NO altruistic interest in a community of all humans, only in warring against all others while we've been progressing beyond groupings such as family, village, city, city-state, kingdom, nation, leagues of nations to the present. But still we war, and still we ignore the impoverished.
That's proof enough for me that we ARE "hard-wired for that sort of thing". Even cooperation is only thinly-veiled self-interest.
And I've read enough to know that there are rooms-full of papers on altruism, and that despite the claims of your researchers, any proof it is genetically-based is decades away, if there is any at all. The so-called Social Sciences depend more upon Voodoo than science.
And if you have any rich people amongst your friends, Garth, are you able - in a very polite way, of course - to tell them how very sick they are? LOL, or rather, ROFLOL!!
RickW
3 years ago
ME
"We've prospered throughout the millennia simply because we've been able to cooperate. The origin of this capability is purely cultural, made possible by our large brain which is capable of grasping and then communicating abstract ideas which can then override simple self-interest."
Hmm.....wolves do it as well, as do chimps, ravens, etc. Have to think again about the "large brain" part........
I'd say that cooperation is an inverse function of population density.
RickW
3 years ago
Brooksley Born and Alan Greenspan
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/10/09/brooksley-born-and-alan-greenspan/
"Greenspan really does seem to be blaming the market participants rather than the regulatory regime – market players should have been more concerned about their reputations. As the Times article summarizes his view, traders “got greedy” and sacrificed their “integrity.” I’m pretty sure Greenspan, the Ayn Rand acolyte, wouldn’t quite put it this way, but still, he holds that no institutional changes could have altered the outcome"
At the same time, of course, he holds that now there’s plenty for the government to do in cleaning up the mess that irresponsible individuals have produced: “the federal government must take aggressive steps to protect workers and businesses from the harmful effects of a financial crisis. The great majority of those deserving this protection had no role in causing the crisis.” Hmm. I thought market transactions weren’t supposed to harm innocent third parties. But when they do, self-professed libertarians “urgently advocate immediate, extensive action that would … prevent a serious economic contraction.” But not, apparently, greater disclosure on market transactions.
HH comment:
"People of all ranks and stations are remarkably corruptible, and it is the business of government to counteract this tendency."
G West
3 years ago
ME2
You wrote this:
Consideration for the emotional and/or physical wellbeing of others is not programmed in the genes. Those feelings are given to us by our culture. Amongst Christians, this is called the Conscience.
Because I disagree with the bolded material and since I have the scientific data to support this belief I responded to your post...in fact, I wrote this:
Here's a start for your research into the inherent human characteristic of altruism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm
It has nothing to do with religion in general or Christianity in particular.
In fact, those who put greed and competition on a false altar and worship them are the really sick puppies.
I’d also recommend this book, from Oxford University Press, if you’re still interested:
Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation
By Natalie Henrich, Joseph Henrich, Joseph Patrick Henrich
I found it really interesting and you can order it from Amazon if you want.
And, if you’re more into ‘hard’ science, you can start with this:
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.med/2005-01/1745.html
Please, I happen to disagree with your proposition - now, what exactly was slimy about what I wrote?
As to telling some (or many) rich people how 'sick' I think they are, I did that.
And I think it's true - they are denying their nature by their leaned greed and selfishness.
Did I say this applies to 'all' rich people?
I did not.
I'll await your apology.
Stump
3 years ago
contradictory statements
"At the same time, we've shown NO altruistic interest in a community of all humans, only in warring against all others while we've been progressing beyond groupings such as family, village, city, city-state, kingdom, nation, leagues of nations to the present. But still we war, and still we ignore the impoverished."
If we're progressing to larger and larger subsets of Us vs Them, then it seems to me we are making gradual progress in moving towards a community of all humans.
People go to war because they are brainwashed by mentally unwell leaders, usually exhibiting the very characteristics of self-interest and delusions of grandeur we're discussing here.
ME2
3 years ago
Brave New World's a-coming
Sez Stump
"If we're progressing to larger and larger subsets of Us vs Them, then it seems to me we are making gradual progress in moving towards a community of all humans."
And I agree. The larger the group we live in, the more safety for the individual. But this does not arise because altruism allows us to love others, rather because our ability to think abstractly allows us to set aside short-term self-interest (anti-sharing) reasoning, choosing instead sustainable long term communal profit.
Other predatory animals such as wolves can cooperate well in groups too, but they cannot reason out, for example, how overharvesting a prey species can lead to its collapse, with calamitous results for the pack.
While our large brain has given us a huge competitive boost up the evolutionary ladder, this new logical apparatus is hobbled by having to co-manage with the purely reward-driven systems it has inherited. That this is so becomes obvious when we see the strategems some posters here will devise to make emotional opinions appear as "facts", such as cherrypicking a study or two out of thousands, citing them as the only "true" ones.
Now, it may be that the genes produce the hormones which stimulate greed, etc etc, and so too for altruism, as GWest et al hold. If that is so, then soon all our social problems will be solved by the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps with Designer Drugs for those we feel are too rich, or who exhibit too much ambition; or maybe we'll just settle for some modern form of Soma.
This could never work, of course, unless we employed people like GWest and Stump who are among the few capable of sorting out who are and who are not the mentally fit amongst us.
Stump
3 years ago
reason and altruism
If you are positing that the latter requires the former you should call the scientist I heard on Quirks and Quarks on the weekend. He explained how a few members of one species of ant perform an act of altruism daily to protect the colony, even though there is no immediate danger and it costs them their lives.
The parting shot is kind of weak by the way. I don't know where I claimed I should be sorting anything out. I actually believe if we socialized people to follow their natural impulses, instead of the greed is good mantra supplied by the philosophy of scarcity, there'd be no need to sort anyone into any categories of have and have-not.
But, putting other peoples' statements into the position you want to argue against rather than what they've actually said makes life easier doesn't it? I can see how I did that with L. Skywalker up-thread, although I would say his/her comment about money and love wasn't placed in context by the author and was left open to misinterpretation.
farmboy
3 years ago
Actually its a guy thing
The whole relationship to risk behaviour is indeed testosterone driven: it's a guy thing. You can see it almost anytime there is a threesome composed of a man a woman and a TV remote. Guys click throught the channels so swiftly it makes most women's heads spin. Women on the other hand only speed past hockey games and are willing to give almost anything a sporting chance.
It all goes back to our "bring home something dead and tasty for supper or you'll be sleeping on the cold side of the cave" past. Men can make those snap judgements when they are clicking through the cable menu not because they need to know what it is but only what it isn't. Back in the sharp stick days if something moved it required an instant decision. There were three possibilities: it is good to eat and will run away, it may or may not be good to eat but it is big enough to kill us, or its not good to eat and there's no point in wasting a perfectly good sharp stick on it. Two times out of three the best decision will be to kill it. In the interests of expediency, why not take a chance, just kill it all and figure out what to do with it afterwards.
Women on the other hand were the only ones equipped to feed the kids and stayed close to home. They didn't have sharp sticks and they picked stuff instead of killing it. None of what they were after was likely to run away or eat them. They needed to be much more contemplative about what they brought home for dinner. Bringing home the first thing you stumble on to can have a big downside. How do you think the Angel of Death mushroom got its name?
I'm thinking we haven't gone all that far down our evolutionary path. The sharp-stick crowd on Wall St. seem to have poked some pretty big holes in the world economy.Let's hope they haven't killed it.
G West
3 years ago
Speaking of risk and self-interest
Perhaps one might be permitted a little Schadenfreude in the matter of the public shaming of Allan Greenspan which began today in his testimony before Congress.
---this is taken from the New York Times of tomorrow:-
...on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” ...
Now 82, Mr. Greenspan came in for one of the harshest grillings of his life, as Democratic lawmakers asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.
Critics, including many economists, now blame the former Fed chairman for the financial crisis that is tipping the economy into a potentially deep recession. Mr. Greenspan’s critics say that he encouraged the bubble in housing prices by keeping interest rates too low for too long and that he failed to rein in the explosive growth of risky and often fraudulent mortgage lending.
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
“Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.” said Greenspan...
DISTRESSED!!!
Not much consolation to the millions of people all around the world who are now being hurt - but mildly satisfying to the group of critics who have been saying this cock-up was coming for at least the last four years.....
farmboy
3 years ago
Shocked?
I'm shocked that Mr. Greenspan could be shocked to find that his faith in lending institutions was misplaced. Its a pretty simple equation: Money + greed - regulation = chaos. Money, and the slavish persuit of it, has no conscience or accountability, that's what the regulation is for. The only real surprise is that it took this long to unravel.
David Lewis
3 years ago
Big Swinging "little heads", or...
Quirks and Quarks aired a show called the Biology of Ideology October 11 2008 discussing the work of Dr. James Fowler, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego.
Fowler is researching whether political attitudes can be inherited. .Mp3 file, second show down on this page:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/08-09/qq-2008-10-11.html
Here's another topic Shannon could fly off to the moon with: if political leanings can be inherited, at some point Big Brother will be interested in manipulating the genes of the yet to be born. Its probably already happening. What else could explain the reelection of George Bush?
Maybe Conrad Black was a budding Karl Marx until Dr. Evil inserted the kleptocrat gene that permanently twisted his mind. Take another look at that face. Its obvious once you know, isn't it?
Here's an Australian phrase that ABC (Oz public broadcasting) "Late Night Live" host Phillip Adams used recently on a podcast when he discussed the red suspender boys of Wall Street Shannon discussed in her article. At first he used their NYC street name, i.e. the "big swinging d*cks", as he commented on their role in the orgy of greed that brought the global economic system down.
Then he called them the "big swinging d*ckheads".
David Lewis
3 years ago
scientists target memories to erase
Here's another for Shannon. The Globe and Mail October 24 Science section carried a Reuters report saying: "scientists have developed a way to erase specific memories while leaving others intact and not damaging the brain"
Although the researchers were quoted as saying they see no way at the moment for this research to be applied to humans, we can assume Dr. Evil has already done it.
Think of the possibilties.
In broad daylight, a few days before the vote took place last election, Harper stepped out and handed $25 billion to Canada's banks.
Somehow, our memories were all selectively erased. A Prime Minister could really milk this kind of thing.
Asked if he thought the research would lead to the ability to manipulate human memory at some time in the future, lead researcher, neurobiologist Dr Tsien, said: "if that happens in my lifetime, I wouldn't be surprised either."