I keep wondering, hoping really that stock fall a lot more.
That sounds like a horrible thing I'm sure, but my reason isn't just to watch other people needlessly suffer; no I have much grander, nobler dreams for mankind, like actual change.
The reason that I want the stocks to drop is because I don't think that many people will change their behavior over this, so far, fairly short recession. And I think that America would probably come out of this stronger and faster if we truly rushed to the bottom and then started climbing back out of this financial pit of despair.
It seems to me that people are still not letting stocks drop to a real value. Instead people continue trading, buying and selling with the hope that the recession will soon end and they will make money.
I think, however that by not letting the stocks fall people are prolonging the recession, lengthening out the inevitable decline. If everyone would sell off ,and not continue to falsely inflate values, we could get to the bottom of the recession and get back onto a path of growth. Sustainable growth.
My fear is that we may be entering an era akin to Japan's lost decade. A time of little to no economic growth.
Then again, maybe everything is fine, or will be soon like a number of experts are saying.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Post Conflict Reconstruction
I just listened to a great talk given at the Technology, Education, Design (TED) conference; here is the link.
The talk is about what works and what doesn't when it comes to rebuilding countries torn by violence. The primary reason that I like it is because it makes a lot of sense, and because he says some things that I have been thinking about for years (being validated by smart people is good for my overfed ego).
My idea for reconstruction is to focus on the economy. The rational being that if people have the opportunity to work (be busy) and be able to buy stuff, the are more likely to work then join insurgency groups. That is about as far as I got with my own thoughts. People like stuff, and they don't usually like doing nothing for an extended period of time.
The primary reason that populations switched from hunting and gathering to agriculture was so they could have stuff. Prior to agriculture people lived longer more healthy lives do to a diversified diet, and small living groups. There were times when there wasn't much to each but it was cyclical and expected. Once farming started dietary options were limited, most food was high in sugar so there were more cavities, drought or flood destroyed all hope of food for most of the year, and higher density provided a nice home for endemic disease. The point is that life got kind of crappy, but for people it was worth it because you could have stuff and status.
Those primary desires haven't changed in millennia and using them as primary motivators to get a country back on tract I believe will be much more effective then focusing on strong arming a political puppet into a newly democratized political system.
I mean really when it come to work for a month to get a new plasma TV, or training for a suicide bombing mission the plasma looks more appealing, but there has to be a sense of hope and opportunity for the plasma or bombing is the only real option.
Anyway the talk is great and more thought out then my little rant so check it out.
Also if anyone knows of a job where someone with a masters in urban planning can get involved in international development and reconstruction let me know; that is really what I would like to do for a career. Thanks
The talk is about what works and what doesn't when it comes to rebuilding countries torn by violence. The primary reason that I like it is because it makes a lot of sense, and because he says some things that I have been thinking about for years (being validated by smart people is good for my overfed ego).
My idea for reconstruction is to focus on the economy. The rational being that if people have the opportunity to work (be busy) and be able to buy stuff, the are more likely to work then join insurgency groups. That is about as far as I got with my own thoughts. People like stuff, and they don't usually like doing nothing for an extended period of time.
The primary reason that populations switched from hunting and gathering to agriculture was so they could have stuff. Prior to agriculture people lived longer more healthy lives do to a diversified diet, and small living groups. There were times when there wasn't much to each but it was cyclical and expected. Once farming started dietary options were limited, most food was high in sugar so there were more cavities, drought or flood destroyed all hope of food for most of the year, and higher density provided a nice home for endemic disease. The point is that life got kind of crappy, but for people it was worth it because you could have stuff and status.
Those primary desires haven't changed in millennia and using them as primary motivators to get a country back on tract I believe will be much more effective then focusing on strong arming a political puppet into a newly democratized political system.
I mean really when it come to work for a month to get a new plasma TV, or training for a suicide bombing mission the plasma looks more appealing, but there has to be a sense of hope and opportunity for the plasma or bombing is the only real option.
Anyway the talk is great and more thought out then my little rant so check it out.
Also if anyone knows of a job where someone with a masters in urban planning can get involved in international development and reconstruction let me know; that is really what I would like to do for a career. Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)