The Free Market

[Fellowship]

The republicans blame this mess on cronyism mostly on the part of democrats over the years getting kick backs. The democrats blame this mess mostly on lack of regulation or de-regulation sorts of policy. The republicans blame a relaxing of the rules and rejection of attempts to "correct" or restore stricter adaption and adherence to stricter and tighter rules on democrats who had friends in high places and voters to be bought in low places (acorn) etc. WRT Freddie and Fanny..

So my question is?

We know our free market of politicians both left and right have allowed this sweater to unravel. As have corporate executives.

So how do we fix this failure of BOTH of these mainstream parties?


I think each party is putting petty politics ahead of dealing effectively with this loss in function and confidence in the financial markets /slash/ economy.

While Rome is burning...

What do we do?

Fellows

[midwinter]

Step one: expose the idea of the "free market" as a complete sham

[franksargent]

Step one: expose the fact that what people think is the free market or are calling the free market really isn't.

This thing is not a failure of the free market. It is the tangled web of government interventionism (in so many ways, not the least of which is its control of money and credit) coming home to roost.

The exact opposite is the essential truth here.

[franksargent]

The republicans blame this mess on cronyism mostly on the part of democrats over the years getting kick backs. The democrats blame this mess mostly on lack of regulation or de-regulation sorts of policy. The republicans blame a relaxing of the rules and rejection of attempts to "correct" or restore stricter adaption and adherence to stricter and tighter rules on democrats who had friends in high places and voters to be bought in low places (acorn) etc. WRT Freddie and Fanny..

So my question is?

We know our free market of politicians both left and right have allowed this sweater to unravel. As have corporate executives.

So how do we fix this failure of BOTH of these mainstream parties?


I think each party is putting petty politics ahead of dealing effectively with this loss in function and confidence in the financial markets /slash/ economy.

While Rome is burning...

What do we do?

Fellows

Well if today is a shining example of what to do, then we all just fiddle around until Rome is burnt to the ground.

[midwinter]

Step one: expose the fact that what people think is the free market or are calling the free market really isn't.

This thing is not a failure of the free market. It is the tangled web of government interventionism (in so many ways, not the least of which is its control of money and credit) coming home to roost.

You've said this a couple of times, you know, without actually deigning to explain to us poor schmoes what this idyllic free market is of which you speak and apparently no one else does. Let me guess...does it involve some beautiful market where haloed young men meet and exchange goods and services without fear of manipulation or coercion? What a heaven that would be!

I propose that we free the market! Stupid government intervention in our free market! Stupid contracts! Stupid histories of agreements about what constitutes a contract! Stupid histories of language appropriate to use in contracts! Stupid histories of legislation about contracts! Stupid rules about who has to witness the signing of a contract! Stupid rules about wills! WHY WON'T ANYONE BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR SOLD ME HIS HOUSE YESTERDAY?!? HE GOT REALLY DRUNK, CAME OVER, AND SOLD ME HIS HOUSE FOR A PACK OF MARLBORO LIGHTS! ALSO, I SWEAR I SOLD MY AAPL AT 190!! I MADE A NOTE OF IT AND EVERYTHING!

I want to go back to the days of no government intervention at all! When a man's word was his bond!

I suppose I should make my point clear, since I obviously don't understand what a free market is: an enormous amount of infrastructure has to be in place to allow your idyllic free market to exist (chief among them, everyone would have to get really, really nice!).

Anyway. You don't like it that I call our system a free market? Fine. I don't like it when people think "trolling" is a D&D reference.

[Northgate]

The problem with everyone's ideas of a better "free market" system is that it's always designed to work in a vacuum. Somehow human nature is never factored into it. And I'm talking about the worst aspects of human nature. It always has a unique way of fucking on up their perfect illusion of a "free market".

It's as if they believe there will only be a couple bad apples and the good apples will always balance it out. Which is never true. It always starts with one bad apple telling the other apples how to cheat the system. And then...collapse!!!

[jimmac]

The problem with everyone's ideas of a better government system is that it's always designed to work in a vacuum. Somehow human nature is never factored into it. And I'm talking about the worst aspects of human nature. It always has a unique way of fucking on up their perfect illusion of a government.

It's as if they believe there will only be a couple bad apples and the good apples will always balance it out. Which is never true. It always starts with one bad apple telling the other apples how to cheat the system. And then...collapse!!!

This is exactly why deregulation can be a bad idea.

[hardeeharhar]

This is exactly why deregulation can be a bad idea.
and why in a political system there are elections every couple of years.

Free marketers would have you believe that we shouldn't have elections because politicians shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

[jimmac]

:wow: :err: :no:


I agree with him!:err:

This time they won't be able to dodge the blame.

[franksargent]

I find it amusing when people resort to false dilemmas of, for example, essentially complete cartelization of the banking system and monopolization of the monetary system and a complete system of chaos in which all sensible, reasonable, voluntary modes of interaction among people are abandoned.

I also find it amusing when people profess a basically misanthropic view of humanity and then decide it would be a Good Idea (tm) to setup a entity ("the government") that gives (some) people far more power, authority, control and leverage over other people than they would have without it under the utopian belief that if we setup a Bunch of Rules (tm) and the Good Guys (tm) are in charge all will be well.

While I'm not going to do your homework for you, I'll try to give a concise description of what is meant by "free market".

At its core is freedom. It is simply the idea that people operate and interact with each other in voluntary and non-coercive or non-forceful ways. They engage in productive activities. They divide and specialize their labor and trade the products of their labor through a natural and emergent order that develops over the course of time and a million small transactions.

Does this require the abandonment of things like contracts and agreements? Of course not.

Might we institute something called "government" to ensure that things like contracts (as mutually, freely and voluntarily agreed upon between parties) are honored or properly adjudicated in the face of disagreement? Perhaps.

Does this assume a utopian world in which no one attempts to use coercion and force to accomplish his or her goals? Of course not.

Might we institute something called "government" to ensure that justice is applied in cases where someone attempts use coercion and force to accomplish his or her goals? Perhaps.

The free market is about freedom. It also requires concepts of property rights and the rule of law. And the thing about the "rule of law" in particular is that no one is above or beyond it. Not even the government. However, we've crossed a line somewhere in which the government is beyond the law because "the government is the law" (whatever it is says is so).

The Government (big-G) is about coercion and force. That being the case, I believe it should be kept as small and minimal as possible to avoid the possibility (however remote and unlikely that may be) of people with nefarious intentions getting hold of this governmental apparatus and using it for their own evil purposes. I understand that would probably never happen. I mean it's quite unlikely that the apparatus of government would ever be used by select, minority of people to do whatever they wish against the will of the "governed". But we must nevertheless guard against it.

My point in this thread (and others) is that we have a thing called "government" (really big-G "Government") which has expanded and escalated far beyond the basic principles of property protection, coercion, force and violence prevention or punishment and adjudication of contractual disagreements to be an entity whose primary mode of operation is property confiscation, who has become an instrument of coercion, force and violence by the few who have gained control of its (enormous, expansive and sweeping) apparatus, who has moved beyond simply operating as an impartial judge in matters of disagreements regarding voluntary contractual arrangements to become the dictator of certain contractual arrangements.

... how about an equally nebulous definition of big-G "Government?"

You know some objective metrics like federal outlays as a precent of GDP (currently fairly constant at 20%), or total federal workforce (slightly decreasing over the past 10 years from 2.8 million to 2.7 million).

I know, let's use total prison population as a precent of total population, after all there are those who will assert that we all live on a Prison Planet. You know like there would be other planets that we could now occupy that aren't Prison Planets.

[giant]

I'll try to give a concise description of what is meant by "free market"...
All of this, particularly the colorful condemnation of anything opposing your free market government model, very clearly assumes that there is one ideal "government" model for all "people." Obviously, the problem is that people have different ideas of what roles they want their government to play, and groups therefore have varying preferences when it comes to government and economic models.

In the US, we have a 301,139,947+ people and a massive geographical area, and despite the current relatively widespread cultural uniformity, arguing for one extreme government and economic model is exactly how Bad Things Happen. Arguing for reducing only the federal government makes a lot more sense, but it has its own problems.

Dramatically reducing the federal government would also open up a whole new can of worms, very likely reviving many of the issues that have plagued the country in the past. It's unclear how national politics would be affected by the economic results of states acting more independently, but it has been a major point of contention and source of instability in the past and, no doubt, would be again. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it is very problematic that issues of civil and human rights have always been at the center of the states' rights debates.

There are many, many more issues involved (many lifetimes have been and will be devoted to every facet of these topics), but it's important to recognize that there is no easy solution. And while some fad-hopping, tunnel visioned dogmatists believe the Mises crowd has all the answers, they don't, nor does any other singular dogmatic ideological club.

[e1618978]

This whole shit storm was caused by the SEC, when they gave an exemption in 2004 to five investment banks (Goldman, Lehmann, Morgan, Merrill and Bear) to raise their leverage from 12-1 up to 40-1.

A relatively free market (with some small government constraints like the 12-1 rule and the uptick short sale rule) worked fairly well for the last 70 years, the mistake was made when they changed those two rules.

[FloorJack]

Step one: expose the idea of the "free market" as a complete sham

Step Zero: expose the shams known as GSEs to be the root of the problem.

[e1618978]

Step Zero: expose the shams known as GSEs to be the root of the problem.

Those "shams" are the only reason that anyone could possibly offer 30 year fixed rate mortgages - you can't get them in Canada, for example.

The GSEs need to continue to exist - but with more control over who gets loans and who does not, no more bullshit with the approvers working on commission.

[FloorJack]

Those "shams" are the only reason that anyone could possibly offer 30 year fixed rate mortgages - you can't get them in Canada, for example.

The GSEs need to continue to exist - but with more control over who gets loans and who does not, no more bullshit with the approvers working on commission.

To pick up on your theme what was the leverage of Fan and Fred? Not 12-1 for sure. But you only single out the private banks and ignore where most of the mortgage debt and MBS come from. And who allowed that in the name of "fair housing"?

[hardeeharhar]

To pick up on your theme what was the leverage of Fan and Fred? Not 12-1 for sure. But you only single out the private banks and ignore where most of the mortgage debt and MBS come from. And who allowed that in the name of "fair housing"?
you can convince yourself all you want that the problem was caused by the gses. meanwhile they are sitting relatively pretty and it is the collapse of nearly the entire private sector that brings the economy down.

it is a mortgage crisis but not a gse one...

[FloorJack]

you can convince yourself all you want that the problem was caused by the gses. meanwhile they are sitting relatively pretty and it is the collapse of nearly the entire private sector that brings the economy down.

it is a mortgage crisis but not a gse one...

They already got a $20B injection. It's pure fantasy on your part that Fan/Fred were not a major part of the problem.

[hardeeharhar]

They already got a $20B injection. It's pure fantasy on your part that Fan/Fred were not a major part of the problem.
Psh. Do a little more reading about WHY they got the money instead of assuming it was to bail them out (as it wasn't).

[Fellowship]

Thank you all so far for your views, thoughts and opinions about this..

I believe in the free market like I believe in travel via an auto.

When you come to an intersection and there is a stop sign at each crossing the rules of stopping and determining which car is allowed to advance first should be "regulations" which are followed within the realm of "free travel".

regulated ?

YES

Still for the most part a free realm to roam on both public and private roads?

YES

Now we just need to find the correct methods to follow with regard to financial regulation and we need adherence and enforcement of these regulations.

key word.. "correct"

Getting one trick pony political parties to agree on this notion of "correct" may never happen.


Republicans - It is all kickbacks and cronyism of the dems pushing to get people into homes that should have never been in those homes.

Democrats- It is all as a result of the philosophy of de-regulation of the repubs.

Fellowship- It is a bit of both now GET WITH IT AND WORK TOGETHER TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE.

Ohh and did I mention the word...... ((((((((((((( NOW ))))))))))))

Fellows

[FloorJack]

Psh. Do a little more reading about WHY they got the money instead of assuming it was to bail them out (as it wasn't).

Crapo de Torro. They got the money for the same reason others need the money. Home prices are falling, f foreclosure are increasing and the portfolio is not worth what it used to be so the stock is tanking, they can't sell the dicey paper and raise more money. Oh and I got my number wrong. It's a pledge of $200B.:wow:

Mortgage Bailout Is Greeted
With Relief, Fresh Questions (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122088294934209997.html)

Sweeping Intervention
Mr. Paulson's weekend announcement represented one of the most sweeping interventions in financial markets since the Depression, essentially putting the government in charge of helping finance American mortgages. Fannie and Freddie are vital cogs in the housing market, backing three-quarters of all mortgages being made in the U.S. now that bruised Wall Street banks have withdrawn from that market. They hold or back more than $5 trillion in mortgage debt. But as the housing market cratered, investors grew nervous about the companies' capital positions and their ability to weather the storm.

Under the takeover, the government replaced the companies' chief executives and shifted management control to their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA. The government pledged to provide as much as $200 billion to help both firms ride through their expected mortgage-related losses. Mr. Paulson outlined his desire to see both companies begin to reduce the size of their mortgage portfolios beginning in 2010.

Give up that fantasy that Fan/Fred are not part of the problem.

[midwinter]

You're talking about "property confiscation" as if that's not something we've given the government the right to do for centuries.

I think sslarsen is mostly channeling Thoreau there.

[gastroboy]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What Americans believe they got.

It's only a Paper Moon sailing over a cardboard sea,
But it wouldn't be make believe if you believed in me.

What they really got.

One thing I have always noted in Americans is their need to believe, no matter what lies before their eyes: politics executed by people with personal ambitions, greed and prejudices.

Right from the beginning the idealists were shouted down, outbribed and persecuted by the selfish. Half the nation including its most prominent "democratic, freedom loving" leaders owned slaves which automatically revealed them as hypocrites.

What has differentiated the American system is the persistence of the belief in myths in the face of reality.

[Gon]

All of this, particularly the colorful condemnation of anything opposing your free market government model, very clearly assumes that there is one ideal "government" model for all "people." Obviously, the problem is that people have different ideas of what roles they want their government to play, and groups therefore have varying preferences when it comes to government and economic models.But varying preferences is exactly what free market handles better.

Given a market (#1) that is more free than another market (#2), groups of people in #1 have the option of establishing various stricter rules contractually between each other, up to and in excess of what they'd have in #2. In a truly free market, nothing prohibits a group of people buying up an entire town, turning their ownings over to Communist Town Corporation, practicing communism inside the town and regulating trade with the outside. I wouldn't have it any other way. Obviously, this is not possible to do in reverse. You don't get to unilaterally establish a free bubble in an unfree place.In the US, we have a 301,139,947+ people and a massive geographical area, and despite the current relatively widespread cultural uniformity, arguing for one extreme government and economic model is exactly how Bad Things Happen. Arguing for reducing only the federal government makes a lot more sense, but it has its own problems.I associate "extreme government" with an extreme set of rules it tries to impose on people. A small government lacks the power to do such things, and would not seem to fit.

And it's not really a particular economic model that's being argued for here, but an *absence* of a model planned from above.Dramatically reducing the federal government would also open up a whole new can of worms, very likely reviving many of the issues that have plagued the country in the past.Such as...?

If reducing federal government control would revive some particular issue in a state, then I contend the issue has not really been dealt with in the first place, just repressed by force and left to simmer.

Bullshit views and stances can gain a lot of traction and legitimacy from being suppressed and forced in hiding. Out in the open, where their advocates have to contend with competing views and reality, the views tend to dilute if not capsize outright.It's unclear how national politics would be affected by the economic results of states acting more independently, but it has been a major point of contention and source of instability in the past and, no doubt, would be again. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it is very problematic that issues of civil and human rights have always been at the center of the states' rights debates.All the more important that people, finding their rights disrespected in one place, can at least vote with their feet. 10% of people voting for a losing candidate or cause X tend to be routinely ignored. But even 5% of people taking off and taking their tax dollars with them will definitely not be ignored.There are many, many more issues involved (many lifetimes have been and will be devoted to every facet of these topics), but it's important to recognize that there is no easy solution. And while some fad-hopping, tunnel visioned dogmatists believe the Mises crowd has all the answers, they don't, nor does any other singular dogmatic ideological club.What Austrian economists claim to have all the answers?

One of the things I especially respect the school for is its recognition of the limits of anyone's ability to predict economic future, and maybe more importantly, anyone's ability to fully know the present.

[giant]

Case. In. Point.

Awesome.

[jamac]

Since I am Austrian maybe I can help:

New Tax forms: Every tax payer gets to decide who gets their taxes: Infrastructure, war, education, tax breaks to corporations .... (mark your preferences).
Free market applied to taxes will eliminate the need for congress. The best proposal wins the most money.

[shetline]

Step one: expose the fact that what people think is the free market or are calling the free market really isn't.
Then expose the fact that there is no historical evidence that the "free market" so longed for by many conservatives and economic libertarians would be as wonderful as they imagine, that in fact the closest historical examples on can find (like the "robber baron" days of the late 19th/early 20th centuries) were pretty horrible, and that the greatest improvements in the general standard of living, and the least volatile economic times, despite all of the legitimate complaints over errors often made by governments, have coincided with regulated capitalism and progressive taxation.

Oh, but wait until we see what really pure free markets can do! My theory says it'll be great! :rolleyes: :lol:

[midwinter]

Since I am Austrian maybe I can help:

New Tax forms: Every tax payer gets to decide who gets their taxes: Infrastructure, war, education, tax breaks to corporations .... (mark your preferences).
Free market applied to taxes will eliminate the need for congress. The best proposal wins the most money.

Oh dear god I already have a job. ;)

[hardeeharhar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01buchanan.html?pagewanted=1&hp

good article about how economic schools of thought need to be tossed and replaced with quantitative modeling of human/economic behavior.

that's right folks. no more dependence on theoretical machinations of what people might do -- rather, quantitative modeling of behaviors given some set of probabilities of some set of actions/information...

[addabox]

I don't understand why I'm supposed to be captivated by entirely theoretical nirvanas.

Some of the folk going on about the obvious glories of super free markets sound precisely like unreformed marxists, explaining that the true workers paradise has yet to be realized, so that any examples I might point to of their political philosophy at work are invalid.

It's really not that hard to be a true believer when your beliefs never have to be tarnished by the actual world.

It is, however, fucking irritating be talked down to by the denizens of cloud cuckoo land.

[addabox]

(Aren't the Marxists kind of right, though? A Russia under left-wing Trotsky might have turned out much differently than it did under right-wing Stalin.)

Maybe. But we have no idea what kind of different.

[hardeeharhar]

Maybe. But we have no idea what kind of different.
for fucks sake they might have turned into bonobos.

[addabox]

for fucks sake they might have turned into bonobos.

True. Once you start mucking with history, you have no idea what kind of terrible changes you might set in motion. Or, in the case of a worker's paradise populated entirely by bonobos, what hilarious changes.

[midwinter]

True. Once you start mucking with history, you have no idea what kind of terrible changes you might set in motion. Or, in the case of a worker's paradise populated entirely by bonobos, what hilarious changes.

Indeed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318081/).

[dmz]

Guys, Fellowship's original question is a false path: we don't operate in a "free" market -- the structure of our fiat currency system alone fundamentally prohibits the notion.

Just one aspect of this: On one end, you had Greenspan making credit too cheap, and on the other you had Congress loosening the restrictions for homeownership through changes in the CRA. Banks were required to comply, and Fannie and Freddie said they would back the paper.

That's hardly "the market at work" -- and that's only one aspect of this. Throw in the SEC not enforcing existing regulation, and a million other moral/structual failures, and we've got all the makings of a scorching Central African economy. We've had multiple entities gaming the system from either end -- both with fiscal policy issues in congress, and monetary issues with the Fed. Throw in the insane levels of personal debt in America, and a bellicose hyperavarice in the financial industry -- it makes for quite the carnival.

Then...
and this is the kicker...

...we have one candidate telling us that it's all because of "8 years of failed economic policy" -- a statement that literally has no bearing on the reality of the situation. That candidate really believes that Americans are not only completely ignorant of the facts, but are willing to ultimately settle for a shallow therapeutic excuse, followed by degrees of more of the same.

On the other hand, we have the other candidate who tepidly tried to stop Fannie and Freddie from going off the reservation, but who is now pushing for the same bailout/therapeutic coups de grâce.

Unbelievable. The country is so addled, so morally compromised, so screwed financially, that the only answer during our weekend binge, is to score another eight ball at 4 a.m., Monday morning.


Bloomberg link is dead -- here's one from AEI: Deregulation Not to Blame for Financial Woes (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28701,filter.all/pub_detail.asp)

If you don't read the first, be sure to read all of this:

An Open Letter to my Friends on the Left (http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/open_letter.htm)

I'm not seeing a happy ending to any of this.

[FloorJack]

Hey shut up this is all BushCheneyMcSame's fault.

[@_@ Artman]

Indeed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318081/).

One major reason for the film's long delay is that the original production company went bankrupt during post-production, and there simply wasn't money to finish the film.
- Trivia (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318081/trivia) :lol:

I see your match, but what a horrible (yet ironic) choice of the subject.

The Ray Bradbury short story (http://www.scaryforkids.com/a-sound-of-thunder/) would have sufficed. :smokey:

[@_@ Artman]

"Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

"Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts.... Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

"True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit...." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933 (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/)

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself” :rolleyes:

[midwinter]

:lol:

I see your match, but what a horrible (yet ironic) choice of the subject.

The Ray Bradbury short story (http://www.scaryforkids.com/a-sound-of-thunder/) would have sufficed. :smokey:

How dare you denigrate one of my favorite movies OF ALL TIME!!!!

Seriously. If you haven't seen it, GO NOW. It's one of those movies that's so bad you have to see it just for the spectacle.

It's often on Sci-Fi on Saturdays.

[@_@ Artman]

How dare you denigrate one of my favorite movies OF ALL TIME!!!! Seriously. If you haven't seen it, GO NOW. It's one of those movies that's so bad you have to see it just for the spectacle. It's often on Sci-Fi on Saturdays.

I did watch it. All of it. It was abominably stupid. This is the reason I don't have TV (only for the occasional video game or movies). I was at my mother's place when I watched it and that is the only time I have access to the cesspool television has become*. Usually when I'm there, I keep it on Turner Classic Movies.

*Not all bad, but you get my drift.

[midwinter]

I did watch it. All of it. It was abominably stupid. This is the reason I don't have TV (only for the occasional video game or movies). I was at my mother's place when I watched it and that is the only time I have access to the cesspool television has become*. Usually when I'm there, I keep it on Turner Classic Movies.

*Not all bad, but you get my drift.

Hey....I know you (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694)!

[@_@ Artman]

Hey....I know you (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694)!

:lol: I own one though! I get most of my "entertainment", news via the Interwebs.

Why couldn't Palin have said this to Couric we'll never know...:rolleyes:

[midwinter]

:lol: I own one though! I get most of my "entertainment", news via the Interwebs.

Why couldn't Palin have said this to Couric we'll never know...:rolleyes:

Right. I mean, hell, she could have just said, "You know, I'm so busy GOVERNATING THE MOST ENORMOUS STATE IN THE UNION that I don't have much time to read newspapers and magazines anymore, so I get'em catch as catch can. I try to read X when I have a few minutes, and at home we get a subscription to Bear Hunting Prayers For Jesus Quarterly.

It's like she just freezes up or something, which is bizare, considering that she's got this enormous amount of political experience GOVERNATING THE MOST ENORMOUS STATE IN THE UNION.

[gastroboy]

Right. I mean, hell, she could have just said, "You know, I'm so busy GOVERNATING THE MOST ENORMOUS STATE IN THE UNION that I don't have much time to read newspapers and magazines anymore, so I get'em catch as catch can. I try to read X when I have a few minutes, and at home we get a subscription to Bear Hunting Prayers For Jesus Quarterly.

It's like she just freezes up or something, which is bizare, considering that she's got this enormous amount of political experience GOVERNATING THE MOST ENORMOUS STATE IN THE UNION.

I'm waiting for her environment policy, where she advocates burning the oil in-situ to avoid the damage caused by transporting it to the lower states so they can waste it.

[Outsider]

... and at home we get a subscription to Bear Hunting Prayers For Jesus Quarterly.


Is that the kind of magazine that you read until the middle and then you flip it upside down and you have a whole 'nother magazine starting from the back cover? Cool!

[screener]

Is that the kind of magazine that you read until the middle and then you flip it upside down and you have a whole 'nother magazine starting from the back cover? Cool!
That's in Canada, same magazine, different language.

[jimmac]

How dare you denigrate one of my favorite movies OF ALL TIME!!!!

Seriously. If you haven't seen it, GO NOW. It's one of those movies that's so bad you have to see it just for the spectacle.

It's often on Sci-Fi on Saturdays.

Not many Ray Bradbury works translate well into movies or video. If you've ever seen " The Martian Chronicles " mini series or " The Illustrated Man ". Both of these had big name stars. They make " The Sound Of Thunder " look great!:wow:

Unfortunate since he's been one of my favorite authors since childhood.