Yes, the economy is in a bad way, and we’re all worried. No, things are not good. It’s not a sellers market for much of anything. Buyers might find lots of bargains for certain goods once over valued.

In my neighborhood a house bought six years ago for 350K could be on the market for 5 or 550k. Even these days houses show a great deal of market value in my small town. This is all absurd. We know that the Monopoly money deals have revealed problems with how value is defined in a market with or without controls. How much, for example, is the 700B in Paulson’s chest actually worth. That depends, right?

I’m not an economist but it seems to me that the value of most market items is up for grabs in the transfer system. For example, how much is an average 20k auto actually worth? Doesn’t this depend on the cost of smelting equipment and labor? How much is labor worth? If pay is not proportional to the cost of necessary goods vs luxuries, then what is the worth of the luxury market with its limited cycles (you know, cell phones, TVs).

At the moment, chicken and butter are really expensive. But what is the value of butter?

Paul Boutin writes

Writing a weblog today isn’t the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths. It’s almost impossible to get noticed, except by hecklers. And why bother? The time it takes to craft sharp, witty blog prose is better spent expressing yourself on Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter.

I disagree with Boutin on the entirety. Consider the logic: If the blogosphere (here cast as a monoculture) has been “flooded by . . . bilge” then this does not mean that the oases have disappeared. Have the “authentic voices” been drowned out, or has the blogosphere sprung lots of different “authenticities” (polyculture)? As to the last sentence: why? Is or has the objective been to get noticed?

Sure, you can get noticed, but you can also gather a few readers, just as you would a few friends, and keep truckin’. What’s wrong with that? I don’t have a lot of readers but I love the readers and writers who do come by.

Boutin’s is a corruption argument. But people are writing and reading weblogs. The culture will evolve and change, as will Facebook. Good text-based weblogs will continue with people who love to write and read. And, by the way, is it easier to load video onto YouTube than write into a weblog? Hm, where do I get the video?

Thanks to Susan for the link.

P.S. Why can’t the same argument be made against writing of poetry, fiction, or non-fiction?

Someone stole our front lawn Obama sign.

I keep asking myself, what is the angle behind the failbill?

What is the inverted syntax?

I’ve suspected this sort of thing too. And why not?

The way Davis sees it, the system has become dysfunctional. Bush has so destroyed the party’s public standing and Congress has become so infected with a win-at-all-costs mentality that there is no point in staying. “You know, the Cubs fans used to put the bags over their heads,” he told me when we met for eggs at Mickey’s Dining Car in St. Paul the first morning of the Republican National Convention. “That’s what I feel when you say you’re from Congress, because there are just so many things we’re not doing.”

This might be dismissed if it came from a fringe player on Capitol Hill, but for years Davis was one of the rising stars, a quintessential inside player who as part of the leadership managed to steer his party to election victories in even-numbered years while working with Democrats on legislation in odd-numbered years. He ran the House Republican campaign committee for two elections and later bypassed more senior congressmen to become chairman of the House Government Reform Committee until his party lost control of Congress. He spent a lifetime getting to this point and is now washing his hands of it, even as he foresees a fiscal reckoning after so much unbridled government spending, most recently to bail out Wall Street.

It’s not really the narrative that matters here. But the “kind” of work being done. Which doesn’t appear to be much. The votes mentioned sound like maneuverings.

From Janet Stemwedel.

To Prove: Is it [sic] not better to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas, and groceries–allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy–instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess.

Proof

1. Healthcare reform is needed to shore up our economy. (premise)
2. Job creation is needed to shore up our economy. (premise)
3. One in five jobs created today are created in the trade sector. (premise)
4. Taxpayer money will fund the $700 billion bailout. (implicit premise)
5. Reducing taxes has got to accompany tax reductions. (tautology)
6. ???? (modus ponens?)
7. Job creation is trade is healthcare reform is tax relief. (constructive dilemma??)
8. Therefore, bailing out the big financial institutions is no worse than spending $700 billion helping middle-class families. (something here about “completeness”?)

An analysis of Palin’s response to a K Couric question.

We’re staying at the wonderful Thomas Farm Bed and Breakfast for the night.  Then lots of work tomorrow.  Currently, I’m working on the text portion of our Blurb collaboration. Wifi might be spotty.

Soon it will be time to do some trimming around here. The lists are getting long and some in the link lists have gone on to other endeavors.

My buddy John has two new members of the family.

Here’s to my daughter, Kendra.

Congratulations on being a wonderful human being!

And here’s to the next phase.