The world falling apart

[altivo]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised so much, as I've been predicting many of these things for some time, but events of the last few days are still coming as a bit of a shock.

The US markets, of course, did as I expected today. S&P lowered the US government's rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday after the markets closed. I expected a panic to brew over the weekend and it did, so that a massive selloff today dropped the Wall St. indexes by over 5%, or as much as they lost in the entirety of last week's madness. This goes to show that, as I've been saying for some time, the markets are no longer underpinned by rationality, but are running largely on emotional or lemming-like forces. The proof appears particularly in the fact that the interest rates on US Treasury bills, the formal instrument of federal government borrowing, actually went DOWN today. This clearly indicates a lot of buying action, generated no doubt by the shifting of large sums of money being withdrawn from the stock markets. But these "investors" (and I use the term very loosely, because I think "speculators" and "gamblers" would be more appropriate) ran from the stock market because the government credit ratings had dropped, and instead put their money right into government loan certificates, lending it to the very institution whose credit rating has just been lowered. This is not rational, it is clear stupidity or at least ignorance. Meanwhile, S&P was running around lowering the credit ratings of other corporate bodies who, the agency said, "had too much of their funds invested in T-bills." So various large insurance companies and banks had their own credit ratings lowered merely because they owned US government debt paper, even while the market itself was demonstrating INCREASED faith in that same paper. Absurd enough to make you cry, isn't it?

A couple of people have pointed out, as well, that with the departure of the US from the ranks of the AAA rated governments, ALL the remaining AAA countries have universal health care. The US was the only AAA country without it, even though we were being told by conservatives that we couldn't afford it and it would bankrupt us. Odd and ironic, no?

I am also bemused by the rioting in London. Not by the fact that it is happening, but by the way in which many UK dwellers are responding. These are people who oppose the actions taken by various Islamic states against their rebellious citizens in the last few months, yet they are calling for similar actions to be taken by the UK government against its own subjects. If you're trying to make my head explode, folks, you won't succeed. But you will make me lose some respect for you. Any riot, once it begins, quickly draws in a criminal element that has no interest in the original cause and is there just to do damage and take advantage of the situation. But that doesn't mean that there isn't validity to the underlying cause. Western governments can indeed be just as oppressive as those in the Middle East, and they do so far more often than they want to admit. The US has demonstrated the same propensities that Assad or Qaddafi have shown us, and has done so repeatedly during its history. But the pot just loves to call the kettle black, doesn't it?

Then, on a much less earth-shaking level, someone who is a reasonably promising writer and otherwise sound tells me that every English teacher he ever had insisted that the construct "John and me" was ALWAYS wrong and should be replaced by "John and I" in all cases. Holy crap, Batman! Has US education really fallen so low? A quick check of Google shows me that this is not what anyone really seems to be saying. Quite the contrary. "Mary cooked dinner for John and I" is still incorrect, just as it always has been. "John and me went to Mary's for dinner" is also incorrect. Surely nowhere in the US, even in benighted TX or KS, is this being taught in schools. Surely? *whimper*

OK, I'll go bed now and try not to think about this stuff.

Comments

[hrrunka]

It's interesting to see the various agendas getting an airing following the looting and arson of the last couple of nights. Recent and planned cuts in police budgets are getting quite a bit of attention. Police efforts to reduce gun crime, likewise (as a botched anti-gun-crime operation seems to have been the triggering event). Its effect on big sporting fixtures (like the Holland vs England international soccer match tomorrow night at Wembly), and how it all looks to the International Olympic Committee (visiting London at the moment to see the 2012 site). Not so much on the way the shrinking economy creates areas full of young folk with no jobs, no money and not much hope, and so far in the media, nothing at all (yet) about the flip-side; communities getting together to clean up the mess, and so on.

[schnee]

Any riot, once it begins, quickly draws in a criminal element that has no interest in the original cause and is there just to do damage and take advantage of the situation. But that doesn't mean that there isn't validity to the underlying cause.

Well said.

And you're right about western governments' ability (and, at times, willingness) to be just as oppressive as any dictatorship, too; just look at Julian Assange and Ai Wei Wei, for instance (and examine how the western media reported on either case).

[moonhare]

I did my part yesterday and invested in a new plush.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't mean that there isn't validity to the underlying cause.

Unless it is an issue that I cared about *before* hearing about the protest, I tend to draw conclusions as to the validity of the underlying cause by the actions taken in the name of that cause. Is there any reason why I should not?

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Something else I should probably comment on.

universal health care. The US was the only AAA country without it, even though we were being told by conservatives that we couldn't afford it and it would bankrupt us.

This is because countries with universal health care MUST have the tax base to cover such an expense, and therefore have a lot more slack to deal with unexpected expenses. So not only does universal health care make people healthier, but it makes a countries' finances more robust too.

HOWEVER...
That is not to say that now would be a good time for the US to institute such a thing. During the early-to-mid-1990's Canada had to deal with a high debt to GDP ratio, and was downgraded from AAA too. So we had to go through a period of fiscal austerity, which had the beneficial effect of eventually balancing our budget, which stayed balanced until this recession. However, it also robbed money from our health care system for a while, and that has lasting effects that persist to this day: unreasonable waiting lists, people without family doctors, etc...
If Canada, which has the political will to have and keep a universal health care system, could barely manage to keep its existing system together during financial conditions which are not even as severe as what the US is facing today, it is well nigh laughable to suggest that the USA could start up universal health care now. It just can't afford it right now, period.