jerome scuggs' weekly "bail out? more like FAIL-out!" politix thread

[Jerome Scuggs]

Up until Sept. 14, the official government line was "no recession, everything is okay, what?" - and then suddenly, we were told that the "Paulson Plan" was needed - immediately - or else we would face a financial crisis.

The scare tactic failed. After eight years of Bush, I think people finally caught on - though it took the loss of a chunk of our civil liberties to get the message across.

The front page of the NYT, Monday, Sept. 29. This is the day my blood pressure skyrockets. On Sunday evening, the House had announced it had successfully come up with a revised, 110-page bill. I suppose that they thought they had momentum, figuring the public outrage was over the vaguely authoritarian nature of the original three-page plan.

I guess the NYT figured this too, because they blew their load a bit too early. At some point in the period between the 15th and the 29th, the bailout morphed from the "recession-stopper" that Bush pimped it as.

The byline in the physical newspaper reads, "Opening Step On Long Road". Under that, on my copy, reads "...to Serfdom?" - I penned it in, thinking of F.A. Hayek's book. The mood shifts as the article plays out: "...[the bailout] may not be the last one"... and the culprit? "...arcane investment instruments". "Arcane"? Up until perhaps two years ago, the "arcane" instruments were seen as fool-proof. But the cherry on top is this gem: "Maybe they can restore confidence in the program... It may work, and it could get us through the elections in November." Awesome. The bailout, first portrayed as being the solution to the problem, has suddenly become a stab in the dark - it might work. And even then - only until November. I will be paying taxes for the rest of my life to fund something that worked for... less than a month. Have I ever mentioned that governments are "inefficient"?

I think it's weird - what explains the shift in the NYTimes' opinions of the mortgage-backed securities? When did they suddenly become "arcane"?

I gain insight on Friday. I do not have a copy of the paper with me, but I remember exactly when the spark hit me. It happened as I was reading the op-ed piece by Paul Krugman. If John Maynard Keynes is my economic Anti-Christ, then Krugman is his mainstream-media reincarnation.

As recently as three weeks ago it was still possible to argue that the state of the U.S. economy, while clearly not good, wasn’t disastrous — that the financial system, while under stress, wasn’t in full meltdown and that Wall Street’s troubles weren’t having that much impact on Main Street.

But that was then.

...revelation. So this is how these so-called "economists" think: fuck the future, fuck the past, this is the here-and-now, and that's all that matters. Yeah, maybe Paul Krugman was absolutely, horribly wrong in his analysis of the marketplace - but that was then. Apparently, the mere passage of time was all it took for Krugman to magically become correct - if he was continually wrong in the past, why is he correct now? Why, precisely because it is now!

With this in mind, take a look at the NYT circa 1999. The article is about Fannie Mae expanding its purchases of "sub-prime" loans.

In retrospect, the article is infuriating. In the midst of praising Fannie for allowing millions of under-privileged Americans to afford their dream homes, they briefly mention that "oh, yeah, this is sort of risky and in the future they might fail, and the government will have to bail them out", and then they return to citing the wonderful statistics showing the increase in low-income house purchases. Yeah, the house of cards might fall apart... but this is now! Fuck all that "gloom and doom", because the economy's looking good now. And so Clinton is known as the man who helped give low-income citizens their American Dream, and Bush is stuck with the legacy. Have I ever mentioned that politicians tend to make bad decisions because they know they will not be held accountable for their long-term disasters?

By Saturday, the illusion is completely shattered.

Is it, though, in “the best interest of the American people?” I hope so — but I don’t really know. And neither does anyone in Congress. That is what makes this so hard for everyone who has to answer to constituents. Putting $700 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk could turn out to be our salvation — in which case they’ll be heroes — or it could turn out to be a giant mistake — in which case they’ll be looking for new jobs.

Faced with indecision, what did Congress do? Consider their options. If the bailout worked - they would be lauded. If it fails - they'll be looking for new jobs.

If it fails, the rest of us will be trapped in a recession, facing potential ruin and a bleak outlook. But what about our Congressional representatives? Eh... they might not get re-elected. And when that happens, they will sit back and enjoy their guaranteed pensions, health plans, and benefits - courtesy of the taxpayer. Much like Congress has bailed out banks who made stupid decisions, we will be bailing out Congressmen who make stupid decisions.

Perhaps we should remove their "golden parachutes". I'm sure no Congressman would disagree. Especially Barney Frank. When questioned about the ridiculous amounts of pork, what does he have to say? “If you don’t want politics in this process, you probably shouldn’t be handing it over to 535 politicians. That’s democracy.” Well said, Mr. Frank. Well said.

Rep. John Boehner, of Ohio, urged the "yes" vote: "The members have a responsibility to protect the economy.” Perhaps he should be asking who he needs to protect the economy from. Or, even better - since when has Congress become the overlord of the economy? Is a market "free" when it is "protected", against its will, by a self-appointed "guardian"?

When I opened the paper today, I was surprised - the first thing I read was a passage from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged!

Just kidding. But in her novel, the "villains" are the moronic CEO's of politically-connected industries who use political power, not entrepreneurship, to make profits. As the novel progresses, and the world falls apart, they collapse into a bunch of sniveling bitches.

It turns out, the quote wasn't from an Ayn Rand novel - it was from Daniel Mudd, who headed Fannie Mae until very recently.

"Almost noone expected what was coming. It's not fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable!"

This man ran a fucking company.

Unlike Steve Jobs at Apple, apparently Daniel Mudd does not a magic crystal ball that tells him what to do. Nor does he have a Greek Oracle who whispers the future in his ear, telling him future market events and trends. Poor baby, he is actually forced to make decisions, why can't he just follow orders? It's just not fair!

I read that quote while sitting at work, and involuntarily said "Fuck you", right there, at the newspaper. You bet the Sunday-morning church crowd took that well.

That the future is unpredictable is a necessary fact of human existence. If we knew the future, the free market would be un-necessary.

But we don't live in such a world, and so how do people know what to produce, in what quantity, for whom? That is the eternal question that every individual in the free market sets out to answer. Yeah, the free market isn't "perfect". Why? Maybe it's because the market is flawed... or maybe, it's because humans aren't fucking psychic.

...

So that's my New York Times rant.

In other news... Massachusetts, recognized for it's progressive step towards Universal Healthcare, is running out of money. No worries, Massachusetts. The market always bounces back. Always. And if it doesn't - then fuck, we'll pass a law forcing it to.

Hopefully, they haven't spent too much time trying to get smokers to quit - because their healthcare is financed in part by a $1 tax on each pack of cigarettes. Of course, since insurers can't discriminate against citizens who have bad health, cigarette smokers can always get the best healthcare - so hell, why quit? Wait, no... smoking is bad, which is why they raised the tax on it. Man... smokers... can't live with 'em, can't finance the rest of the population's healthcare without 'em. In a way I'm glad marijuana's illegal - a government that says and does something wrong is marginally more tolerable than a government thats says one thing wrong while doing another thing wrong.

...

I hope this post was a little bit less rant-ish and a little bit more cohesive. I also hope you enjoy the fact that I just typed a novel's worth of criticism at the New York Times without using the phrase "biased liberal media" once. Oh, shi-

[Epinephrine]

We get it, you think the 'free market' offers all solutions to all problems and is the only way towards living a good life, in fact a life which will always get better and better towards utopia.

In Krugman's defense, having been a regular reader of his editorials since he first came to the New York Times, he's been talking about the failure of sub-prime mortgages, mortgaged backed securities and other problems for YEARS now. He also quite corrected pointed out the current economic problems two years ago.

[Zerzera]

When I opened the paper today, I was surprised - the first thing I read was a passage from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged!.

The novel that says that life is about finding ways to save time so you can live a perfect life... and then promotes destroying your longues by litting a cigarette every five minutes.

[MetalHeadz]

Jerome, cut the neo-liberal capitalist bullshit. Unregulated, free market institutions (especially in the financial sector) are geared simply towards short-sighted profit-driven goals. They're greedy, unaccountable and reckless. It is exactly the maxims of capitalism that have caused the global economy to weaken, and without state assistance ordinary people like mortgage owners, savers, mid-income tax payers and pensioners will be hit hard in their pockets. The very people, may I add, who keep the economy stable.

You made the somewhat dubious point that Wallstreet bankers could not foresee this crisis coming. Assuming this is true though, what do you think is a logical resolve of this inherent market weakness? That we should allow unregulated institutions to continue getting it wrong and passing the bill onto the tax payer? No. You need greater central involvement, to predict growth and recession and to realise the merits of sustainability and socially-beneficial development. Your economy is failing, you need to reform the way you regulate the financial sector and recalibrate your unjust tax regime. For a long time you've rewarded success disproportionately and this has not bred vigilance, frugality or transparency. I suggest listening to some of what Obama has to say especially on his down-up growth plan.

[Chino]

Greed is good. Greed makes the world go round, makes people try harder and is what the capitalistic world is based upon. This however needs to be regulated. Otherwise situations will occur where it's simply survival of the fittest. In Holland they did a survey which showed that close to 70% of the population was financially illiterate. I can't believe the American people are off much better.
It's impossible to safeguard a proper treatment of these people without regulation. Without standards that have to be met before certain facilities are given. Without regulation, things will just turn into another clusterfuck.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Jerome, cut the neo-liberal capitalist bullshit.

Oh I think I cut it quite well, as a matter of fact if you read the original post in this thread, you will see that I critiqued many neoliberal ideas. Of course, I'm assuming you know what neoliberal economics actually encompasses, which you don't.

Unregulated, free market institutions (especially in the financial sector) are geared simply towards short-sighted profit-driven goals.

Why would they do that?

And if so - how did we as a species ever get to the point where we had sufficient means to rein in these self-destructive habits?

They're greedy, unaccountable and reckless.

You really didn't read my post, did you?

It is exactly the maxims of capitalism that have caused the global economy to weaken,

"Weaken"? How did it ever get "strong" in the first place? Magic?

and without state assistance ordinary people like mortgage owners, savers, mid-income tax payers and pensioners will be hit hard in their pockets.

Now, why would they all be hit hard in their pockets?

The very people, may I add, who keep the economy stable.

Oh, so the government doesn't keep the economy stable?

Odd - as welfare and other such laws have increased, economic "stability" is getting more erratic and the booms and busts are becoming bigger and harder-hitting. You're on to something.

You made the somewhat dubious point that Wallstreet bankers could not foresee this crisis coming.

No. I made a decidedly un-dubious point that humans do not have the ability to predict the future.

Unless you thought I was serious about Steve Jobs having a crystal ball?

Assuming this is true though, what do you think is a logical resolve of this inherent market weakness?

Well, duh. The government needs to raise taxes 5% to fund research into giving humans psychic abilities to see the future.

But I'm making assumptions - of course government beauracrats can see the future. That's why they never have to pass new laws, re-interpret old ones, or constantly add exceptions. That's why long-term goals never wind up having problems and why they were able to prevent the credit crisis from happening.

That we should allow unregulated institutions to continue getting it wrong and passing the bill onto the tax payer?

Yo - what business anywhere has racked up $11 trillion in debt? What "bill" do business ever pass onto the taxpayer - except, of course, the bill for the increased taxation and regulation imposed on businesses that raise their operating costs?

What is it exactly that these "unregulated" "institutions" keep getting wrong? Why do they kep getting it wrong?

No. You need greater central involvement, to predict growth and recession

Tell me how the central banks could get any more centralized.

Tell me how they predict growth. Tell me how they predict recession.

and to realise the merits of sustainability and socially-beneficial development.

You do realize that the central banks are the ones promoting unsustainability? That even as we speak, they are working feverishly to jumpstart the credit market - because they WANT people to take out loans? To buy shit they otherwise would not have purchased? To artificially inflate demand - which artificially inflates supply - because they want permanent economic growth?

You do realize that what the market is doing - this "recession" - is the market attempting to purge all the excess credit and money? That the market does not tend towards unsustainability, but towards equilibrium? And that for the past few years, the market has been above equilibrium - and has finally reached a point where it cannot sustain the central banks' continued dumping of easy money and credit into the money supply?

You do realize exactly what "socially beneficial" means?

...

Because I don't. Give me a definition.

Your economy is failing, you need to reform the way you regulate the financial sector and recalibrate your unjust tax regime.

How would we change regulations? What taxes do we need to recalibrate?

Perhaps we should adopt the European model? Your economies are doing so well.

"There are 15 currencies which have joined the euro, therefore, it could be difficult for the European Union to take coordinated relief actions"... wait, wasn't the reason all the currencies were... centralized... was so that coordinating them would be easier?

For a long time you've rewarded success disproportionately and this has not bred vigilance, frugality or transparency.

How do we do this? What success has been rewarded?

The problem seems to be not that we reward success - but that we subsidize failure. Correct me if I'm wrong - but how does a government break up the "monopolistic" Microsoft which was "hurting the economy" while calling other companies who have caused this crisis "too big to fail", and somehow call it organized planning?

I suggest listening to some of what Obama has to say especially on his down-up growth plan.

aight

[Necromotic]

interesting read

[Nycle]

"There are 15 currencies which have joined the euro, therefore, it could be difficult for the European Union to take coordinated relief actions"... wait, wasn't the reason all the currencies were... centralized... was so that coordinating them would be easier?

The euro was established first and foremost to contribute to the simplification of capital flows within the EU's single market, thus eliminating transaction costs/risks, maintaining macroeconomic stability etc.

You're mistaking monetary policy (setting interest rates etc.) with the oversight of financial institutions, the latter is currently still being conducted at a national rather than supranational (EU) level. Sharing the same currency has nothing to do with the ease of coordinating relief actions, it's the differences between member states' policies regarding bank failures that make it hard to do so. There are already calls from member states and independent organizations such as the IMF to centralize the oversight though, and I support this idea as well.

[Jerome Scuggs]

The euro was established first and foremost to contribute to the simplification of capital flows within the EU's single market, thus eliminating transaction costs/risks, maintaining macroeconomic stability etc.

You're mistaking monetary policy (setting interest rates etc.) with the oversight of financial institutions, the latter is currently still being conducted at a national rather than supranational (EU) level. Sharing the same currency has nothing to do with the ease of coordinating relief actions, it's the differences between member states' policies regarding bank failures that make it hard to do so. There are already calls from member states and independent organizations such as the IMF to centralize the oversight though, and I support this idea as well.

Definitely my mistake, I should probably go absorb information on the EU's economic regulations/institutions - especially, I guess, fiat currency/exchange rates. Currencies are still sort of unclear to me.

You bring up a good point - there are calls for this financial crisis to now be "coordinated" globally. If this is the true solution - why didn't we give up our sovereign powers to a global actor in the first place? Does this mean that the other regulations and government oversight was, in fact, a bad idea? Or, to re-state it from another angle: if we knew now the effects of recent government actions, would they have been passed?

It's as if these regulations are flawed because they fail to account for future, uncertain events - and that the inevitable result is increasing centralization.

[Jerome Scuggs]

jerome scuggs' weekly "bail out? more like FAIL-out!" politix thread

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...33_chart_.html

1. "We will not have any more crashes in our time."
- John Maynard Keynes in 1927


2. "I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool's paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future."
- E. H. H. Simmons, President, New York Stock Exchange, January 12, 1928

"There will be no interruption of our permanent prosperity."
- Myron E. Forbes, President, Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co., January 12, 1928


3. "No Congress of the United States ever assembled, on surveying the state of the Union, has met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at the present time. In the domestic field there is tranquility and contentment...and the highest record of years of prosperity. In the foreign field there is peace, the goodwill which comes from mutual understanding."
- Calvin Coolidge December 4, 1928


4. "There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash."
- Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist , New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929


5. "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months."
- Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929

"This crash is not going to have much effect on business."
- Arthur Reynolds, Chairman of Continental Illinois Bank of Chicago, October 24, 1929

"There will be no repetition of the break of yesterday... I have no fear of another comparable decline."
- Arthur W. Loasby (President of the Equitable Trust Company), quoted in NYT, Friday, October 25, 1929

"We feel that fundamentally Wall Street is sound, and that for people who can afford to pay for them outright, good stocks are cheap at these prices."
- Goodbody and Company market-letter quoted in The New York Times, Friday, October 25, 1929


6. "This is the time to buy stocks. This is the time to recall the words of the late J. P. Morgan... that any man who is bearish on America will go broke. Within a few days there is likely to be a bear panic rather than a bull panic. Many of the low prices as a result of this hysterical selling are not likely to be reached again in many years."
- R. W. McNeel, market analyst, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929

"Buying of sound, seasoned issues now will not be regretted"
- E. A. Pearce market letter quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929

"Some pretty intelligent people are now buying stocks... Unless we are to have a panic -- which no one seriously believes, stocks have hit bottom."
- R. W. McNeal, financial analyst in October 1929


7. "The decline is in paper values, not in tangible goods and services...America is now in the eighth year of prosperity as commercially defined. The former great periods of prosperity in America averaged eleven years. On this basis we now have three more years to go before the tailspin."
- Stuart Chase (American economist and author), NY Herald Tribune, November 1, 1929

"Hysteria has now disappeared from Wall Street."
- The Times of London, November 2, 1929

"The Wall Street crash doesn't mean that there will be any general or serious business depression... For six years American business has been diverting a substantial part of its attention, its energies and its resources on the speculative game... Now that irrelevant, alien and hazardous adventure is over. Business has come home again, back to its job, providentially unscathed, sound in wind and limb, financially stronger than ever before."
- Business Week, November 2, 1929

"...despite its severity, we believe that the slump in stock prices will prove an intermediate movement and not the precursor of a business depression such as would entail prolonged further liquidation..."
- Harvard Economic Society (HES), November 2, 1929


8. "... a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall."
- HES, November 10, 1929

"The end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most."
- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University, November 14, 1929

"In most of the cities and towns of this country, this Wall Street panic will have no effect."
- Paul Block (President of the Block newspaper chain), editorial, November 15, 1929

"Financial storm definitely passed."
- Bernard Baruch, cablegram to Winston Churchill, November 15, 1929


9. "I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism... I have every confidence that there will be a revival of activity in the spring, and that during this coming year the country will make steady progress."
- Andrew W. Mellon, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury December 31, 1929

"I am convinced that through these measures we have reestablished confidence."
- Herbert Hoover, December 1929

"[1930 will be] a splendid employment year."
- U.S. Dept. of Labor, New Year's Forecast, December 1929


10. "For the immediate future, at least, the outlook (stocks) is bright."
- Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in Economics, in early 1930


11. "...there are indications that the severest phase of the recession is over..."
- Harvard Economic Society (HES) Jan 18, 1930


12. "There is nothing in the situation to be disturbed about."
- Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, Feb 1930


13. "The spring of 1930 marks the end of a period of grave concern...American business is steadily coming back to a normal level of prosperity."
- Julius Barnes, head of Hoover's National Business Survey Conference, Mar 16, 1930

"... the outlook continues favorable..."
- HES Mar 29, 1930


14. "... the outlook is favorable..."
- HES Apr 19, 1930


15. "While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed through the worst -- and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There has been no significant bank or industrial failure. That danger, too, is safely behind us."
- Herbert Hoover, President of the United States, May 1, 1930

"...by May or June the spring recovery forecast in our letters of last December and November should clearly be apparent..."
- HES May 17, 1930

"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over."
- Herbert Hoover, responding to a delegation requesting a public works program to help speed the recovery, June 1930


16. "... irregular and conflicting movements of business should soon give way to a sustained recovery..."
- HES June 28, 1930


17. "... the present depression has about spent its force..."
- HES, Aug 30, 1930


18. "We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression."
- HES Nov 15, 1930


19. "Stabilization at [present] levels is clearly possible."
- HES Oct 31, 1931


20. "All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S."
- President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933

[HateTheFake]

cant u just keep this with all your other "Jerome's Weekly Threads"

It seems they are all linked by the word government anyways

[Vehicle]

In other news... Massachusetts, recognized for it's progressive step towards Universal Healthcare, is running out of money. No worries, Massachusetts. The market always bounces back. Always. And if it doesn't - then fuck, we'll pass a law forcing it to.

Hopefully, they haven't spent too much time trying to get smokers to quit - because their healthcare is financed in part by a $1 tax on each pack of cigarettes. Of course, since insurers can't discriminate against citizens who have bad health, cigarette smokers can always get the best healthcare - so hell, why quit? Wait, no... smoking is bad, which is why they raised the tax on it. Man... smokers... can't live with 'em, can't finance the rest of the population's healthcare without 'em. In a way I'm glad marijuana's illegal - a government that says and does something wrong is marginally more tolerable than a government thats says one thing wrong while doing another thing wrong.

First of all, the universal healthcare here is failing because thousands more than expected signed onto the program AND the federal government isn't being as forthcoming with the dinero as was originally planned. (See, the first 2000 words of your post.)

As a resident smoker of Massachusetts this fact makes me cry my poor-ass-self to sleep at night. When I came to school here in 2006, a pack of cigs was 5 bucks, a welcome upgrade from the 6.75 I was paying in Jersey. At this point, I'm paying anywhere from 6-7 bucks for a pack depending where in Boston I am which, over two years, is a ri-fucking-diculous increase.

On top of all of this, there's a new ban that got passed a little while back that bans the sale of tabbacco products on college campuses and in pharmacies. WHAT THE FUCK! It's practically unconstitutional to say that because this area is filled with young people, who are of legal age but we still don't want smoking, you can't sell cigarettes in said area. It's equally ridiculous to think that a 70 year old grandma filling her osteoperosis perscription is going to see that delicious Skoal sitting behind the counter and think "you know what, maybe I'll try this out."

It's total bullshit, and I plan on going to city hall to bitch them out about it. On the off chance that someone else is from MA and is equally angry, the public hearing is this Wednesday at 5 PM on 35 Northhampton St, which I believe is by Government Center but don't hold me to that because I haven't hopstopped it yet.

[Jerome Scuggs]

First of all, the universal healthcare here is failing because thousands more than expected signed onto the program AND the federal government isn't being as forthcoming with the dinero as was originally planned. (See, the first 2000 words of your post.)

So they can't afford to pay for healthcare without going into debt, the government failed to plan their system accurately, and this has, in the long-run, created the possibility of not only impoverished people, but everyone potentially losing health insurance?

My initial cause has become two causes and a further verification of my over-arching point :P

On top of all of this, there's a new ban that got passed a little while back that bans the sale of tabbacco products on college campuses and in pharmacies. WHAT THE FUCK! It's practically unconstitutional to say that because this area is filled with young people, who are of legal age but we still don't want smoking, you can't sell cigarettes in said area. It's equally ridiculous to think that a 70 year old grandma filling her osteoperosis perscription is going to see that delicious Skoal sitting behind the counter and think "you know what, maybe I'll try this out."

It's as ridiculous as using cigarette taxes to fund healthcare, and then reducing that source of funding.

In the battle between the well-being of its people and having money, the government will choose money. Don't worry, considering recent events they might lift that ban pretty soon, though certainly after the "outraged" special interest settles down.

It's total bullshit, and I plan on going to city hall to bitch them out about it. On the off chance that someone else is from MA and is equally angry, the public hearing is this Wednesday at 5 PM on 35 Northhampton St, which I believe is by Government Center but don't hold me to that because I haven't hopstopped it yet.

...and speaking of recent events, though, you might find your view hard to present to people who probably have more urgent and pressing issues at hand.

[kthx]

I know how to solve that Jerome.

Stop giving free education to illegals, giving free health care to illegals, and letting illegal immigrants sit in our jail cells. Kick em all out.

[Jerome Scuggs]

cant u just keep this with all your other "Jerome's Weekly Threads"

It seems they are all linked by the word government anyways

if i kept it all in one thread then i'd only have one thread of interest to read on these forums