why i'm not a libertarian (part 1)

.

[this post is a continuation of the comments from this post, and thus very 'inside baseball'--feel free to skip]


so silver hit a new 30-year high yesterday, and promptly plunged today--just like it did on the days following the last couple times it hit new 30-year highs--and, as a result, lots of people who weren't prepared for it lost a lot of money.  a very smart friend emailed me this morning and said, "looks like dr. evil's reared his ugly head once again."

dr. evil, you ask?  allow me to explain.

back in 2004, the british arm of a very big, powerful american investment bank had been given a directive by the mother ship to "increase profits through the development of new strategies."

so a few of their more clever bankers devised a plan to (a) short some eurobonds in which said big, powerful bank held a big, powerful position; (b) then flood the market with all of said eurobonds at once, thus causing the price to plunge precipitously; and (c) in the midst of the ensuing mini-panic, cover their shorts and buy back said newly-devalued eurobonds at a handsome profit.  pure genius, right?

and their clever plan (dubbed "dr. evil" in the emails which surfaced later) went off without a hitch--almost.

i say "almost" because the european union--whose various governments lost untold millions as a result of the bank's clever plan--turned out not to have anywhere near the sense of humor that we americans have about such things.  see, rather than being allowed to keep their obscene profits resulting from the day's activities, the kill-joy british regulators made the bank give it all back, plus pay a big penalty--and instead of receiving huge year-end bonuses for their cleverness, the traders in question damn near lost their british licenses.

the other consequence of that day's mischief?  since its shenanigans were brought to light by said british regulators, said bank (citigroup, if you're curious) lost and has never recovered the confidence of the various european governments that were so badly burned by its actions--its bond business there is still a fraction of what it used to be.

[and not to mention, no american investment bank has dared pull that shit in europe since.]

but the most remarkable thing (to me, anyway) about the incident was the injured incredulity of the clever traders when they were called on the carpet--their attitude was, "hey, this is how we do things in the states--what's the matter with you people?!"

and, of course, they were right--this shit happens routinely here in america and has for years, all under the benign aegis of that joke of a regulatory agency known as the SEC--you know, the guys who couldn't even catch bernie madoff.

which is only one of the reasons why the financial markets of america have become a rigged casino for the big banks, and the laughingstock of the civilized world.

i mean, seriously--where else but modern-day america would a bank able to effectively buy insurance on its neighbor's house and then burn that house down and collect from the government when the guys it bought the insurance from turned out not to have any money to pay off the claim--and then laugh along with the guys who sold the fraudulent insurance as they're given a total walk?

*     *     *     *     *

i was 24 years old when ronald reagan became president and started deregulating things.

one of the first things he deregulated (well, finished deregulating, anyway) was the phone industry, which has turned out pretty well.

but one of the other things he deregulated was the savings-and-loan industry, whose members couldn't wait to run with the big boys on wall street--woohoo, right?

yeah--right up until, within just a couple years of being freed from the regulatory shackles which had kept their industry stodgy-but-safe since the depression, they'd blown all their depositors' money on bad investments and run their newly-deregulated asses straight into bankruptcy, thus prompting the taxpayer bailout which started us down the ugly road to where we find ourselves today, that is.

needless to say, i've come to view government deregulation with somewhat of a jaundiced eye.


[part 2 to come, because i'm seriously starting to nod off]

uh oh

so today i read that the the saudi royal family is frantically and pre-emptively announcing all sortsa coming dispensations of manna from heaven to its happy subjects

...and now i know why

[and to all of my friends and family out there who still can't understand why i traded my beloved truck last year for the dumb, ugly prius:  i'm afraid you're about to find out.]

arrested development

.

the other day i'm talking to an old friend, for some reason the subject of my brother comes up and he asks, "so do his kids hate him yet?"

based on the stories i've told him, it's a fair question, but my answer surprises him. truth is, while my brother holds little but contempt for the family he came from, he's done pretty well by the one he created:  a solid 27-year marriage, and two great kids who adore him.

"holy shit," i realize after hanging up the phone, "my little brother'll probably be a grandfather before long."

and then i thought about my own grandfathers, both of whom died, worn and weary in their mid-fifties, before i was born.  i thought about how old and grandfatherly they had always looked to me in the faded snapshots, and that's when it hit me that these stolid, churchgoing men were the same age in those pictures as my drunken irresponsible boy-chasing ass is now.

and then i thought, and not for the first time, about all that these men--my brother, my grandfathers and countless others before and after--had given up in order to create stable homes and provide not only for their families, but for the generations to come.  i thought about the commitment, the monogamy, the expense, the diapers, the drudgery, the school plays, the loans for college--you know, all that shit that, in small, sacrificial increments, weaves the fabric of society that the rest of us pretty much take for granted.

and then i asked myself, and not for the first time, if there was ever a point at which the fabulous mkf woulda been capable of such sacrifice--i.e., of living for a sustained period of time for anyone or anything other than himself.

[since the answer to that question is so obviously "no", i won't bother tryin to keep you in suspense.]

*     *     *     *     *

i watch the christians as they rage against gay marriage, and i totally feel their pain.

joe and ethel in toledo have trod the straight-and-narrow their entire lives, and now are forced to watch in horror as these promiscuous, hedonistic homosexuals co-opt and crap on their sacred traditions with their folsom street fairs and open relationships and god only knows what else.

homosexuality is an abomination! they cry, as they settle their fat asses onto their designer sofas in their calvin klein outfits to watch desperate housewives.

*     *     *     *     *

i watch my fellow gays as they rage against the evil, intolerant christians, and i feel their pain, too.

fuck the breeders! they cry, as they eagerly await the next generation of their offspring.

*     *     *     *     *

here's the truth, bitches:  gays and straights of civilized societies from time immemorial have always existed in uneasy symbiosis--neither can truly flourish without the other.

i live for the day when joe and ethel wake up and understand how truly gray their world would be without the evil homosexuals.

but far more importantly, i live for the day when my fellow faggots wake up and respect the fact that, without the sacrifices of the joe-and-ethels who comprise the backbone of this country, our collective self-indulgent fabulousness would be impossible.

am i the only one who gets this?