Why I don't (usually) read the comments on media blogs

[rhu]

From the comments on the NYT coverage of the bank-stock crisis:

The stock market should be abolished. Simply. It’s a cancer within the economy, sometimes benign, never positive. Ask yourselves why we needed it, you won’t find an answer. It is the equivalent of a mob running a government, or a family whose head has a gambling problem. WHY do we need Wall Street?

While we're at it, we should abolish the Internet, too. And beer. And crossword puzzles.

Seriously, how do you even start to respond to such an assertion? The stock market is what made the American Century possible.

It’s not like the money disappeared.

Um, no. It's exactly like the money disappeared. Paper profits are not real money, and when bubbles burst, the money that never existed goes back to the noplace from which it came. It's like a Feynman diagram of virtual particles undergoing mutual annihilation. The money is gone. (And, yes, some of the money that is gone used to be mine. No, I'm not angry; I knew when I invested in AIG that even large insurance companies sometimes lose, and I'll take my lumps. And the tax loss.)

I don't know why I'm even bothering to post this, except to vent my spleen.

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of a few phrases from here and there:

"Money is not wealth. Potatoes is wealth."

"Your money's in Joe's house."

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Potatoes?

I thought it was tulip bulbs?

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

The quote actually contrasted potatoes and gold. The idea was that one can eat potatoes, making them much more valuable than gold.

[sethg]

Think of the author of that comment as the twin of all those people who were saying, during the bubble's inflation, about how if only the government would get more the hell out of the way, the magical dynamic power of free enterprise would give prosperity, carefree retirement, and warm fluffy ponies to everyone.