Go here.
Per Entertainment Weekly:
The recession came to South Park this week. The show's metaphor for our real-world mortgage crisis was a "Margaritaville" machine, an over-priced, pointless gadget that makes the green-colored alcoholic beverages. Stan's dad Randy owned one, Stan tried to sell it so the newly-poor family would have more to eat than "sliced hot dogs and tomato slices," but no store or bank would take the gizmo in exchange for actual money. "Defaulting on your Margaritaville," was one weasel-businessman's phrase.
Panic set in, with some citizens blaming the banks, some blaming "materialistic hedonists," and some -- well, the always reliably-appalling Cartman cranked up his anti-Semitism and started blaming Jewish people for hiding all our money in a "secret Jew cave." (Among its many achievements, South Park has exposed anti-Semitism to such relentless ridicule over the years, it deserves some sort of humanitarian award.)
Pretty soon, South Park residents turned, inevitably, to religion to help them understand -- or in South Park terms, further confuse -- matters. Kyle becomes a savior-like figure who tells people they should spend more, and in a tableau designed to resemble "The Last Supper," Cartman was positioned as Judas, ready to betray and kill his friend. In the end, it was Kyle's use of an AmEx card with no spending limit ("Faith is what makes an economy exist") to forgive everyone's debt that saved the day.
The episode was the most back-handed endorsement imaginable of President Obama's economic bailout plan. Or the most withering dismantling of it. As usual, South Park had it both ways. As Randy said to the assembled multitudes (i.e., us): "Instead of paying for cable, let us watch clouds!"
11 comments:
So you prefer Bush's economic strategy then? Or the GOP's only-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-can-save-us plan? What would you change in the bailout plan to make it effective/acceptable to you and still be politically viable (unfortunate as that is)? Or is do-nothing better?
I read this blog regularly and while you are clearly gifted at your analysis and timing, the writing here often decends into nothing but armchair criticism and hyperbolic sarcasm totally lacking in alternative ideas (except more sarcasm).
There's nothing wrong in tearing apart flawed legislation and pointing out what is wrong. You do that from time to time (and even occasionally why it's wrong). But the constant, persistent, blanket mocking with nothing else behind is getting old.
Keep it up Mark...Its fun and entertaining...
i havent watched southpark in a long time...years probably....but i did watch this one, and it was worth my 20 minutes
there are 3 or 4 little things in there that had me rolling on the floor. the "secret jew cave (....probably built in the 60's)" had me in tears.
if you are a regular reader of this blog, you will enjoy this episode.
I never understand why people come to a blog to criticize. There are 40,000 finance blogs out there. Go find one you enjoy and leave this one to people who enjoy it. I assume there is no gun leveled at your head each day to come to this specific url?
dtre, in my "solution" set we'd never of gotten here because there would be no Federal Reserve to constantly inflate bubbles. Every problem we've had for since 87 has been treated with free money. We refuse to take our medicine, and we thought we could defeat the business cycle. So it built, and built, and built, and built, until finally the mirage could no longer last. Now you want me to give solutions on how we can STILL not take the medicine? Sorry - we need to take the medicine and go back to a real economy.
In the interim, we have spent some $3 Trillion of $12 Trillion committed. I believe the whole mortgage market is $7 Trillion so instead of practicing the US version of corporate socialism if I "HAD" to bail out, I'd just pay off half of everyone's mortgage - we could of done that with the money we've already spent. People who did not have mortgages (renters or people who saved) would rightly compain but they are getting screwed the exact same way now.
I'd guarantee all US desposits - every last penny but say to shareholders and bondholders you get zero taxpayer money. You took the risk and now your investment is done. So Citigroup would not exist, but its deposits would be safe. Same for Bank of America. Same for WaMu, same for whomever. They would be extinct - their investors would howl! My gosh we expected the government to save us. By inflicting the full pain maybe investors of the next generation will not allow excessive risk taking and massive compensation culture. They will demand money is spent wisely and they will demand risk is curtailed to sensible levels. Otherwise they will know they could lose all their money. Now they are happy - especially bondholders - that NO MATTER what is done, the taxpayer is there to save the day.
Let them all get wiped out. We need the medicine. We need a rational risk taking system and we need investors who actually supervise the board of directors.
Something like 90% of assets are in the top 10 banks. We have 8000 banks. That makes no sense. The current solution/ Make those big banks bigger? Give Bear to JP Morgan. Give WaMu to Wells. (after they tried to give it to Citi). So what have you solved? I'd of let those equity and bond holders go to zero and sell off piecemeal the assets/deposits to banks in the 500 to 2000 size range. To people who did not engage in this nonsense.
I'd provide a basic social safety net to people which we lack in many ways. But other than that I'd ask for a real free market. Where interest rates are set by "the market" not a group of 12 wise men who constantly reinflate this country (and world) with fake prosperity. I'd let the business cycle play out and weak companies go out, and good companies take over assets of bad companies like capitalism is SUPPOSED TO DO.
I'd make a short term (1-3 years) bank solely for small businesses who are getting creamed because no one cares - they only care about big political donors.
I'd end all lobbying. All of it. I'd make all political campaigns tax funded with a set amount of money. I'd end congressional redistricting. I'd allow 10-20-50 parties instead of these 2 that have us by the throats.
I'd staff up the SEC by 500-1000% and put in much higher pay and bring in finance people off the Street who know the shenanighans instead of lawyers and "paper pushers". Markapolous (sp?) of Madoff fame could be the new head.
If you want socialism I'd at least ask we do it like those shady Europeans... you know, socialism for the common person. Not socialism for corporations.
I'm sure I have more but you said what was politically viable? In that case - have politicians do anything, do something in completely random manner throwing money in every direction so as to appease their base that they are doing "something". And most of all let them throw as much as possible at those who fund their campaigns - because that is the "free market" at its best.
p.s. I did not find the South Park piece attacking just one party's policy or the other - it was indeed both. And it is funny you think I might be a "cut taxes for the top 2%" to create prosperity for all, people who know me would get a chuckle out of that perception.
This is my top read piece, and should pretty much show where I lean. And its not a party - its with people in this country outside the top 0.5% who are being shafted for years.
http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2007/12/do-bottom-80-of-americans-stand-chance.html
I like your ideas Mark and I would certainly vote for you if I was in the USA.
The video doesn't work though. Would your polices include the scrapping of harmful copyright and patent laws?
Sorry Australia
Full Episodes Coming Soon
We are working hard to resolve our pre-existing contractual obligations and bring you Full Episodes as soon as possible.
Please leave your email address and we will notify you as soon as the videos are available.
very good reply mark, as always
well said
Thanks for the reply, Mark, much appreciated and well-said and more in-line with what I've read from you before. And I agree.
As to the anon who told me to go elsewhere, I've followed Mark's insightful ramblings since the first post, and this was the first time I felt like saying something after so many similar posts. I just felt like the side material was becoming only sarcastic opposition to anything and everything. It was good to read his response.
The whole episode was ... well, entertaining, but pretty much bullshit :P
Post a Comment