blog about financial crisis?

[indefatigable]

I'm aware Steve has been overloaded with e-mails on this topic (I'm following him on Twitter, what can I say )

and of course, he's got a lot going on at the moment, what with the release of the book and all.

but I know a lot of us (even those without any investments - broke 19yo college student right here) are very in touch with what's going on in the world right now, and therefore thinking about it a considerable amount. it's unprecedented... literally effecting the entire globe.

in any case, there's not much I'd expect him to say, I just think it'd be a really relevant topic to blog about. it's pretty much all over the collective unconscious in any case, and would draw a lot of hits if nothing else.

[jgies]

I was suprised when I read Steve's comments on the Meltdown. I love his blog it is one of the few I follow with regularity.

When I read this one I agreed with most of what he says about personal responsibility, America's need to become global citizen and the absolute requirement that the only way to solve the crisis is to become involved.

Yet in the same post he says I do not vote. He lives in this country and enjoys the rights of a citizen but is not taking the responsibilities of a citizen? I expected better of him. I suggest that citizenship is not just about the rights but also the responsibilities. By not voting he abdicates his responsibility to his country. Regardless of who he votes for.

Steve get out and vote

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by jgies

Yet in the same post he says I do not vote. He lives in this country and enjoys the rights of a citizen but is not taking the responsibilities of a citizen? I expected better of him. I suggest that citizenship is not just about the rights but also the responsibilities. By not voting he abdicates his responsibility to his country. Regardless of who he votes for.

Steve get out and vote

I agree with you. Not voting is basically letting "the other guy" get another vote! You may not like the candidates, but this is what it is at the moment. You gotta vote for the better of the two just so the other once can't get ahead.

[richardxthripp]

"You should vote" assumes voting matters. But when you have two candidates who are identical, voting is irrelevant. In fact, it's actually evil because it validates a corrupt system. You can't pick the lesser of two evils. You either choose evil, or you choose nothing at all.

If you're going to vote, vote for a libertarian or vote for Mickey Mouse. Second choice is to not vote. Could you imagine what would happen if we had a 1% turn-out in the 2008 election? That would send a clear message that we, the American people, know that both candidates are mortgaged puppets and our elections are shams. You can't send a clear message by voting for the "lesser" of two evils.

Fiat regimes institute mandatory voting once the public is on to them. They did this to my mother when she was growing up in Vietnam. It legitimizes the system. It will come to the United States. What should you do then? Vote for everyone. Check all the boxes. They can't count your "vote" if you've voted for everyone.

[Jamie]

I agree; voting is irrelivant, and only serves to enforce the credibilty of a corrupt system. Voting, is like telling the world, and yourself, that the system we have now, is ok.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I agree; voting is irrelivant, and only serves to enforce the credibilty of a corrupt system. Voting, is like telling the world, and yourself, that the system we have now, is ok.

I disagree only to the extent that the current system can still be used to send a clear message and someone with a mind for activism can further extend their efforts by voting for someone other than the top two.

Regardless, voting is a very small part of democracy. We need to be involved at every step of the process. What does it matter if you vote but you don't contact your congressman when something like the bailout is up for consideration? What if the government does something you strongly disagree with and there's a protest but you don't go? Your vote, your voice, means nothing unless you'll go as far as you need to in order to be heard.

Voting by itself is just a way of patting yourself on the back and saying, "I did something." You can still be very effective without doing it and in this current political climate there's really no other purpose. Me, I'm going to vote for Nader because he's a symbol of what I want. To me symbols are very powerful, and it's another way for me to send a message. I'm doing it because I feel driven to do it, not because of any societal obligation or some such nonsense.

I think Matt Stone and Trey Parker best summed it up back in 2004 (couldn't find the credits from the episode itself so this will have to do): YouTube - Douche or Turd? 2008

[ericabiz]

Originally Posted by richardxthripp

"You should vote" assumes voting matters. But when you have two candidates who are identical, voting is irrelevant.

You can always choose a third candidate. I am voting for Bob Barr this election. I have long identified as a Libertarian, but in this election, I am not pleased with either candidate. I feel it's important to vote our heart.

-Erica