Because Why Not?
Q: A major concern in A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones is power. Almost everybody – except maybe Daenerys, across the waters with her dragons – wields power badly.
George R.R. Martin: Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles? In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. I've tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king.
envyhergoddess:

womenofgold:

writeswrongs:

Just so you know the oldest person in America is a black woman living in Detroit named Jeralean Talley. That’s right - she was born in 1899. That’s three centuries she’s lived in. She was on  bowling team till she was 104. She still goes to church. This woman saw prohibition, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, two world wars, a list of other dumb shit, all the way to the birth of the internet and of her great-great grandson, a child who’s 14 months old.

Incredible

This is great

envyhergoddess:

womenofgold:

writeswrongs:

Just so you know the oldest person in America is a black woman living in Detroit named Jeralean Talley. That’s right - she was born in 1899. That’s three centuries she’s lived in. She was on  bowling team till she was 104. She still goes to church. This woman saw prohibition, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, two world wars, a list of other dumb shit, all the way to the birth of the internet and of her great-great grandson, a child who’s 14 months old.

Incredible

This is great

allakinwande:

descendants-of-brown-royalty:

funsizeboss:

Eye opener

descendants-of-brown-royalty.tumblr.com/archive

What’s so strange about the Olmec heads is that they are not found naturally covered by earth through time. Archeologists can tell that these heads & other Olmec artifacts where purposely buried. Some,…. Wait for it…..with their noses missing. Sound familiar? So someone made a concerted effort to hide the Olmec legacy. Oh well.

allakinwande:

descendants-of-brown-royalty:

funsizeboss:

Eye opener

descendants-of-brown-royalty.tumblr.com/archive

What’s so strange about the Olmec heads is that they are not found naturally covered by earth through time.
Archeologists can tell that these heads & other Olmec artifacts where purposely buried. Some,…. Wait for it…..with their noses missing. Sound familiar? So someone made a concerted effort to hide the Olmec legacy. Oh well.

nothings-great-anymore:

totallynotagentphilcoulson:

I’ve been waiting for Phil Tippett to respond to this joke

Yes Phil

blue-author:

tydon:

bessibels:

neverbat:

mylittledraenei:

blue-author:

addictinginfo:

Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. 

This is basic economic fact.
A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity. 
And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…
And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.
Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs). 
But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.
We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living

#poverty #classism

"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."

"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."

I’m sorry. But this shows a lack of basic economic knowledge. Money sitting in a bank does not slow down the economy in any way. The way banks lend out money is by taking it out of people’s savings. So when a billionaire has money sitting in his account it is actually being loaned out to businesses to start up, or to homeowners to get a mortgage for their house. Having all the wealth at the top is actually the most efficient way. However much it sucks. This is where government is supposed to step in and provide equality. However in the us specifically due to gerrymandering, there is the most unproductive US government in history, and since they all have so much job security they have no problem taking bribes from lobbyists. At this point I would honestly not consider the US a democracy. Democracy demands choice, of whichever there is none in the current system. I believe any of the founding fathers would agree. That is what has lead to the income inequality. A broken government, not a broken economic system. Capitalism is the greatest invention of human kind. Even Karl Marx admitted it. Anyone who says otherwise is simply undereduated on the matter.
Edit: woops, I forgot to say that I whole heartedly agree about paying a living wage. Only your reasoning was critically flawed

Folks, this morning I got an ask in my inbox from the learned individual above me. It said “Please refrain from making up statistics. It does everyone a disservice.” No context, no explanation of what it might have been in reference to, and not a thought in the asker’s head that while whatever had prompted it might have been fresh and new in his mind, it was likely something days or weeks or even months old.
I point this out because thinking that his message alone was sufficient to convey any meaning to me shows both a failure of critical thinking and of empathy, both of which are key to believing that pure unbridled capitalism is the greatest system on earth.
Even though when one receives nonsense in their inbox—and a drive-by observation with no indication about what the observation is about is nonsense, let’s make no mistake—there’s no obligation to puzzle out for oneself what one’s correspondent couldn’t be bothered to make clear, I came to this blog to see if I could spot what might have prompted it, and here it is.
I’ll note that this person had nothing to say about the statistics I used in the actual reply to this post, which is a convenient omission… the asker would like to believe that the stats are made-up, but is clearly not confident in that belief.
Anyway.
Tydon.
You have an overly simplistic view of how banks operate, but I’m glad you brought them up, because they offer a fairly recent example of how the economy is better served when money circulates closer to the bottom.
See, banks don’t literally take Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s money from his account and give it to anyone who needs a loan. In point of fact, the money that banks lend out is represented by only a fraction of their actual liquid holdings. 
The money banks lend out is actually borrowed directly from the federal reserve at a lower interest rate, with the bank’s assets that include Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s cash simply the collateral. This is why the interest rate the bank will give you on your savings and charge you on your loans is tied to the federal reserve interest rate.
And actually, you can read the sentence “They don’t literally take Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s money from his account and give it to anyone who needs a loan.” sentence with emphasis on either clause, because they really don’t give it to just anyone who needs a loan.
Maybe you’ve only recently started paying attention to the world, but you might recall that during the biggest round of the “too big to fail” bank bailouts, the decision was made to resolve the then-current level of crisis by pumping money into the banks to keep them solvent. The idea was that not only would this save the banks, but it would save the economy, because at that time, banks weren’t lending. There was a credit freeze, because their outstanding liabilities (loans, money they were owed) had too low a ratio against their cash on hand.
(Note that it’s not that they didn’t have enough cash on hand to cover their liabilities; they never do. It’s that the fraction was too low to allow them to do so.)
So the banks were either too broke or too nervous to lend money, and the economy ground to a halt, because we have a debt-driven society where individuals mostly lack the capital needed to start a business, build a home, or buy a vehicle, even though these can be essential parts of life and are major drivers of the economy.
(Sidenote: Capitalism! The greatest invention! will always and inevitably eventually lead us to the point where the economy grinds to a halt, because the competition that capitalism depends on has no reset button. Imagine if every time a team won a football game, they were allowed to carry over their score to the next game, and if they lost, they started over at 0. How many seasons would it be before a few teams had an unbeatable spread? And then next year, those teams would have an even bigger advantage. It takes an outside force—like government regulation—to ensure that the competition that capitalism depends on to do anything but produce an unsustainable oligarchy actually remains competitive.)
So, the American people or at least our representatives were sold on this marvelous plan whereby we give this money directly to the banks and they will then be free to start lending again.
Do you remember what happened next?
Do you?
I do!
Nothing.
The banks, recognizing that the system was still shaky and volatile and that their basic position hadn’t changed, hoarded the money. The credit freeze continued. 
It was a classic case of “YOU HAD ONE JOB!” We gave the money to the banks with a clear expectation of how it would be used, but no enforcement clause because ew, regulation, and because rational self-interest, and because invisible hand of the free market… but apparently the invisible hand was taking a personal day, because the predicted market forces did not act upon the banks and they acted in irrational self-interest to preserve themselves in a way that prolonged the crisis that was endangering them.
Even now it is markedly harder for the average person to get a loan for… well, anything. Loans have resumed, but money is still mainly circulating near the top, which in terms of overall health of an economy, is not much different from money being hoarded at the top.
Now, there was an alternate bailout plan that never got much traction for reasons having to do with the cultural consciousness of the U.S and how it’s been warped by worship of capitalism and the related “Just World” fallacy.
The alternate plan would have been to bail out the people whose homes were being foreclosed upon, the people whose mortgages were at the crux of that aspect of the crisis. Just take the same money and start paying off mortgages and other loans.
Now! What would the result have been? Well,the first thing is: the banks still get the same money. The money ends up in the hands of the bank. But all those people making mortgage payments also effectively get that money. Because the money they would have used for a payment is still in their hands, at whatever point they would have gotten it.
We the taxpayers spend the same money, but double the results! Magic, isn’t it? And the magic doesn’t stop there, because… again… the money in the homeowners’ hands will be spent, and passed on to someone else, who will spend it again, and again, and again… right on up the chain.
The extra money that the bailed out homeowners would have gotten due to the alternate plan would have still ended up at the top. Because that’s how capitalism works. So there’s no reason except base, venal greed of those at the top to oppose “bottom up” economics like this, and the economic lift they generate benefits the people at the top all the more.
A dollar released into the economy will keep being spent until it’s in the pocket of someone who can afford to save it, at which point it will be saved in a bank or invested in the markets. Even if you think the best place for the dollar is the bank/the markets, letting it run up the ladder first is helpful.
And the banks, under this plan? The banks can increase their lending based on this influx of cash, but we’re not depending on their generosity to jumpstart the economy as much as we did under the bailout we gave them. And since they’re no longer holding so many unstable assets but they also can’t look to the paid-off mortgages as a potential source of income, they have more of a reason to start making more loans, which from the bank’s point of view is an investment. Their lending is also emboldened by a rosier financial outlook, because all those people whose mortgages were paid off? They have a higher credit score. They have more money. They have fewer worries. They have more cash and more reason to spend it, which the economy kind of needs.
And the economic gains don’t stop there! A lot of people whose mortgages were “failing” (though “sabotage” might be a better word, though that’s another post) went through foreclosure. There’s a cascade effect here, as people who lose a house often lose so much more. First, there’s the equity they had in the house. The bank does not pay them back the money they’ve put in the house. They don’t “own their share” of the house, however long they’ve been paying off the mortgage. Second, there’s the expense of moving—if they could find another place—or the reality of homelessness, which makes it harder to hold a job or access basic services.
Basically, a foreclosure is one of the most expensive things a person can go through, but it’s something you only go through if you can’t afford it.
Capitalism! The greatest invention of mankind!
Now, let’s talk about all those foreclosed homes. Under the “money belongs in banks, that will jumpstart the economy!” plan, the banks ended up the proud owners of millions of empty houses that no one could afford to buy.
Is this good for the banks? No. Is it good for the economy? No. A house depreciates in value each year; an empty house deteriorates rapidly. The average foreclosed home in a bad economy is not an asset to a bank, but a liability that they feel in their hearts should be an asset.
According to the almighty laws of supply and demand, all those empty houses should have created a bonanza for first time homebuyers. It should have been a buyer’s market. Did you know banks have been paying to have empty houses bulldozed rather than maintaining them? Did you know that several municipalities have created—at the urging of banks—programs where banks can donate the land that was under these houses to the city for tax credits (that don’t come close to the value of the land, but if no one can afford to build or buy a house, then they can’t sell the land)?
According to basic market economics, if a bank is paying a dude in a bulldozer $2,000 (note: arbitrary figure, insert whatever number sounds realistic to you here) to destroy a house, I should be able to walk up and say, “Gentlemen, I will solve your problem for the low, low cost of $1,800.” As in, they pay me to take the house off their hands. Why shouldn’t they? If things worked the way the fairy tale version of capitalism says they should, banks would give away homes or pay people to take them before they paid more to destroy them.
And yet that didn’t happen, because the banks realized that if they sold their houses below “market value”, the price of homes would fall, and the value of their holdings would fall even farther. Note that “market value” here is not actual market value, the actual price the market will bear. According to fairy tale capitalism, with all these banks in the country we would just need to find the one bank that’s willing to deal fairly and give it our business and the other banks would follow suit or fall behind. 
But that doesn’t work if the banks are more interested in protecting their own game.
So all those empty houses, deteriorating, losing value… people pumped a lot of money into those houses and a lot of that value is just gone. Rotted. Burned. Bulldozed.
If we’d injected the money closer to the bottom than the top, that value would still be around. We could have saved that value.
We have had decades of experience in all the myriad ways that trickle-down economics don’t work, but the main reason is the simplest: money doesn’t trickle down in a capitalist system. Expecting it to is like expecting the higher scoring team in a game’s points to leak over to the other team’s side.
If we’d bailed out from the bottom up… the banks would have gotten their money, but everyone else would have benefited and the economy would have been lifted as all those dollars “trickled up”.

blue-author:

tydon:

bessibels:

neverbat:

mylittledraenei:

blue-author:

addictinginfo:

Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. 

This is basic economic fact.

A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity. 

And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…

And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.

Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs). 

But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.

We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living

#poverty #classism

"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."

"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."

I’m sorry. But this shows a lack of basic economic knowledge. Money sitting in a bank does not slow down the economy in any way. The way banks lend out money is by taking it out of people’s savings. So when a billionaire has money sitting in his account it is actually being loaned out to businesses to start up, or to homeowners to get a mortgage for their house. Having all the wealth at the top is actually the most efficient way. However much it sucks. This is where government is supposed to step in and provide equality. However in the us specifically due to gerrymandering, there is the most unproductive US government in history, and since they all have so much job security they have no problem taking bribes from lobbyists. At this point I would honestly not consider the US a democracy. Democracy demands choice, of whichever there is none in the current system. I believe any of the founding fathers would agree. That is what has lead to the income inequality. A broken government, not a broken economic system. Capitalism is the greatest invention of human kind. Even Karl Marx admitted it. Anyone who says otherwise is simply undereduated on the matter.

Edit: woops, I forgot to say that I whole heartedly agree about paying a living wage. Only your reasoning was critically flawed

Folks, this morning I got an ask in my inbox from the learned individual above me. It said “Please refrain from making up statistics. It does everyone a disservice.” No context, no explanation of what it might have been in reference to, and not a thought in the asker’s head that while whatever had prompted it might have been fresh and new in his mind, it was likely something days or weeks or even months old.

I point this out because thinking that his message alone was sufficient to convey any meaning to me shows both a failure of critical thinking and of empathy, both of which are key to believing that pure unbridled capitalism is the greatest system on earth.

Even though when one receives nonsense in their inbox—and a drive-by observation with no indication about what the observation is about is nonsense, let’s make no mistake—there’s no obligation to puzzle out for oneself what one’s correspondent couldn’t be bothered to make clear, I came to this blog to see if I could spot what might have prompted it, and here it is.

I’ll note that this person had nothing to say about the statistics I used in the actual reply to this post, which is a convenient omission… the asker would like to believe that the stats are made-up, but is clearly not confident in that belief.

Anyway.

Tydon.

You have an overly simplistic view of how banks operate, but I’m glad you brought them up, because they offer a fairly recent example of how the economy is better served when money circulates closer to the bottom.

See, banks don’t literally take Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s money from his account and give it to anyone who needs a loan. In point of fact, the money that banks lend out is represented by only a fraction of their actual liquid holdings. 

The money banks lend out is actually borrowed directly from the federal reserve at a lower interest rate, with the bank’s assets that include Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s cash simply the collateral. This is why the interest rate the bank will give you on your savings and charge you on your loans is tied to the federal reserve interest rate.

And actually, you can read the sentence “They don’t literally take Moneybags Q. Rockefeller’s money from his account and give it to anyone who needs a loan.” sentence with emphasis on either clause, because they really don’t give it to just anyone who needs a loan.

Maybe you’ve only recently started paying attention to the world, but you might recall that during the biggest round of the “too big to fail” bank bailouts, the decision was made to resolve the then-current level of crisis by pumping money into the banks to keep them solvent. The idea was that not only would this save the banks, but it would save the economy, because at that time, banks weren’t lending. There was a credit freeze, because their outstanding liabilities (loans, money they were owed) had too low a ratio against their cash on hand.

(Note that it’s not that they didn’t have enough cash on hand to cover their liabilities; they never do. It’s that the fraction was too low to allow them to do so.)

So the banks were either too broke or too nervous to lend money, and the economy ground to a halt, because we have a debt-driven society where individuals mostly lack the capital needed to start a business, build a home, or buy a vehicle, even though these can be essential parts of life and are major drivers of the economy.

(Sidenote: Capitalism! The greatest invention! will always and inevitably eventually lead us to the point where the economy grinds to a halt, because the competition that capitalism depends on has no reset button. Imagine if every time a team won a football game, they were allowed to carry over their score to the next game, and if they lost, they started over at 0. How many seasons would it be before a few teams had an unbeatable spread? And then next year, those teams would have an even bigger advantage. It takes an outside force—like government regulation—to ensure that the competition that capitalism depends on to do anything but produce an unsustainable oligarchy actually remains competitive.)

So, the American people or at least our representatives were sold on this marvelous plan whereby we give this money directly to the banks and they will then be free to start lending again.

Do you remember what happened next?

Do you?

I do!

Nothing.

The banks, recognizing that the system was still shaky and volatile and that their basic position hadn’t changed, hoarded the money. The credit freeze continued. 

It was a classic case of “YOU HAD ONE JOB!” We gave the money to the banks with a clear expectation of how it would be used, but no enforcement clause because ew, regulation, and because rational self-interest, and because invisible hand of the free market… but apparently the invisible hand was taking a personal day, because the predicted market forces did not act upon the banks and they acted in irrational self-interest to preserve themselves in a way that prolonged the crisis that was endangering them.

Even now it is markedly harder for the average person to get a loan for… well, anything. Loans have resumed, but money is still mainly circulating near the top, which in terms of overall health of an economy, is not much different from money being hoarded at the top.

Now, there was an alternate bailout plan that never got much traction for reasons having to do with the cultural consciousness of the U.S and how it’s been warped by worship of capitalism and the related “Just World” fallacy.

The alternate plan would have been to bail out the people whose homes were being foreclosed upon, the people whose mortgages were at the crux of that aspect of the crisis. Just take the same money and start paying off mortgages and other loans.

Now! What would the result have been? Well,the first thing is: the banks still get the same money. The money ends up in the hands of the bank. But all those people making mortgage payments also effectively get that money. Because the money they would have used for a payment is still in their hands, at whatever point they would have gotten it.

We the taxpayers spend the same money, but double the results! Magic, isn’t it? And the magic doesn’t stop there, because… again… the money in the homeowners’ hands will be spent, and passed on to someone else, who will spend it again, and again, and again… right on up the chain.

The extra money that the bailed out homeowners would have gotten due to the alternate plan would have still ended up at the top. Because that’s how capitalism works. So there’s no reason except base, venal greed of those at the top to oppose “bottom up” economics like this, and the economic lift they generate benefits the people at the top all the more.

A dollar released into the economy will keep being spent until it’s in the pocket of someone who can afford to save it, at which point it will be saved in a bank or invested in the markets. Even if you think the best place for the dollar is the bank/the markets, letting it run up the ladder first is helpful.

And the banks, under this plan? The banks can increase their lending based on this influx of cash, but we’re not depending on their generosity to jumpstart the economy as much as we did under the bailout we gave them. And since they’re no longer holding so many unstable assets but they also can’t look to the paid-off mortgages as a potential source of income, they have more of a reason to start making more loans, which from the bank’s point of view is an investment. Their lending is also emboldened by a rosier financial outlook, because all those people whose mortgages were paid off? They have a higher credit score. They have more money. They have fewer worries. They have more cash and more reason to spend it, which the economy kind of needs.

And the economic gains don’t stop there! A lot of people whose mortgages were “failing” (though “sabotage” might be a better word, though that’s another post) went through foreclosure. There’s a cascade effect here, as people who lose a house often lose so much more. First, there’s the equity they had in the house. The bank does not pay them back the money they’ve put in the house. They don’t “own their share” of the house, however long they’ve been paying off the mortgage. Second, there’s the expense of moving—if they could find another place—or the reality of homelessness, which makes it harder to hold a job or access basic services.

Basically, a foreclosure is one of the most expensive things a person can go through, but it’s something you only go through if you can’t afford it.

Capitalism! The greatest invention of mankind!

Now, let’s talk about all those foreclosed homes. Under the “money belongs in banks, that will jumpstart the economy!” plan, the banks ended up the proud owners of millions of empty houses that no one could afford to buy.

Is this good for the banks? No. Is it good for the economy? No. A house depreciates in value each year; an empty house deteriorates rapidly. The average foreclosed home in a bad economy is not an asset to a bank, but a liability that they feel in their hearts should be an asset.

According to the almighty laws of supply and demand, all those empty houses should have created a bonanza for first time homebuyers. It should have been a buyer’s market. Did you know banks have been paying to have empty houses bulldozed rather than maintaining them? Did you know that several municipalities have created—at the urging of banks—programs where banks can donate the land that was under these houses to the city for tax credits (that don’t come close to the value of the land, but if no one can afford to build or buy a house, then they can’t sell the land)?

According to basic market economics, if a bank is paying a dude in a bulldozer $2,000 (note: arbitrary figure, insert whatever number sounds realistic to you here) to destroy a house, I should be able to walk up and say, “Gentlemen, I will solve your problem for the low, low cost of $1,800.” As in, they pay me to take the house off their hands. Why shouldn’t they? If things worked the way the fairy tale version of capitalism says they should, banks would give away homes or pay people to take them before they paid more to destroy them.

And yet that didn’t happen, because the banks realized that if they sold their houses below “market value”, the price of homes would fall, and the value of their holdings would fall even farther. Note that “market value” here is not actual market value, the actual price the market will bear. According to fairy tale capitalism, with all these banks in the country we would just need to find the one bank that’s willing to deal fairly and give it our business and the other banks would follow suit or fall behind. 

But that doesn’t work if the banks are more interested in protecting their own game.

So all those empty houses, deteriorating, losing value… people pumped a lot of money into those houses and a lot of that value is just gone. Rotted. Burned. Bulldozed.

If we’d injected the money closer to the bottom than the top, that value would still be around. We could have saved that value.

We have had decades of experience in all the myriad ways that trickle-down economics don’t work, but the main reason is the simplest: money doesn’t trickle down in a capitalist system. Expecting it to is like expecting the higher scoring team in a game’s points to leak over to the other team’s side.

If we’d bailed out from the bottom up… the banks would have gotten their money, but everyone else would have benefited and the economy would have been lifted as all those dollars “trickled up”.

Ok, so the kids at my school keep changing the backgrounds in the computer lab:

huffy-lemon:

mechanicalelf:

So I put this as one of the backgrounds

image

Yesterday, I found that someone changed my background to something soccer related, so just to mess around with them, I put this

image

Today, I looked at all the computers around me, plus my computer and

image

image

image

You children…………..

image

You are playing a dangerous game.

You are the best kind of teacher

sixpenceee:

If only everything really complicated was explained this way. 

THE AUTHOR & MORE OF HIS BOOKS

callmeoutis:

i was ready to just scroll past like “haha grammar humor” but then it was weird al and i,

dex5m:

qwanderer:

thisisevenharderthannamingablog:

girl-farts:

kingcheddarxvii:

notviolet:

Chris Pratt Interrupts Interview To French Braid Intern’s Hair

SHUT THE HELL U P

this man has gone too far

damn

Where does Marvel FIND these people?

Imagine - Chris Pratt and Jeremy Renner show up to your door the night of prom and your parents are like WHY DO YOU HAVE TWO DATES AND WHY ARE THEY SO BIG AND BEEFY AND INTIMIDATING but Chris is just like “Nah I’m hair” and Jeremy raises his hand and says “And I’m makeup”

I was thinking the same thing!

Top tip from Marvel Cosmetics: French braid + lips, brows and lashes.