Blind Optimism

I am a generally optomistic person. I'm one of those "glass is half full" types. In fact, sometimes my optimism borders on fantasy. That is why pessimists like to call themselves "realists".

Anyway- the economy in America sucks, has sucked and seems like it will suck for the forseeable future. When called on it after a speech Bush said "I'm optimistic".

Now, maybe this is only me or maybe I am reading too much into those 2 words, but he is the President of the United States- leader of the free / Western world so to speak. I expect him to have a plan or a system- not optimism.

I am allowed to be optimistic. I am sometimes optimistic I will hit the lottery. I am often optimistic that my sports teams will do well this season. But, as the man who is supposed to be fixing **** I want the Prez to be more than optimistic. I want him to tell me how, when and why the economy will improve.

Here is a link to the article: Bush Says U.S. Economy 'Very Strong'

On 60 Miniutes this Sunday former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill will be on. He was fired in 2002 by Bush and he is quoted as saying that Bush in cabinet meetings is like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people" and that opinion and dissent are discouraged.

Here is a link to that article: Former Treasury Sec. Paints Bush as 'Blind Man'

With the dollar going down day after day (one Euro is worth $1.28USD already), there is no reason to be optimistic. Sure, the unemployment rate may be going down, and the national economy may be going up, but what good is that on the long term?

The OPEC is considering (again) to change to the Euro, and the day that happens, even Bush won't be optimistic anymore.

We were just talking earlier about how arbitrary the measurement of wealth is in the first place here at work earlier. The whole world bases their wealth on the gold standard. So, we have Fort Knox filled with gold and somehow that validates our wealth.

If we woke up tomorrow and decided that - you know what? gold is just a rock! it does't benefit mankind and serves no actual purpose- wealth as we know it would be meaningless.

Maybe we could adopt an oil standard and make the Mid-east the wealth capital of the world? Or, we could adopt a fresh water standard and make Michigan the epicenter of the globe.

I just think its ridiculous how much value is placed in money and wealth by so many people when the whole thing is just based on an arbitrary standard that has no real value to mankind.

So you want leaders who look at the half empty glass and perpetually communicate doom and gloom and feed our pessimistic side versus the optimistic side? I would prefer one who looks at the positive end of the scale. I too am optimistic of the economy; it’s not blind optimism it’s based on real hard facts. For the first time in 2 years I am scraping some money for stocks. If you indeed are and optimist, you see the same indicators I do. Or you see the world falling apart.

Back in the early 90s a single British pound cost me 2.50 US, did that indicate a weak US economy? I was optimistic then too. Today a Euro cost $1.2 and last January it was .93. That is 27 cents lost for every dollar. It’s been falling slowly all year (2003). Why is that? Is it a current indicator or does it lag? Not sure. It’s still falling, when will it stop? How does that affect my planned stock buy coming up? Do I see doom, nope. I see opportunities to invest in Asia or Europe. Do I look for the president for help? Nah, he doesn’t know **** as much as all these stock investors and international money traders. In fact you call for action…. Perhaps firing that dude was some of the action you call for?

edit/ As for Oil being a standard. Once it's burned it's gone forever.

i think the point is not whether these people are optimistic or pessimistic... the point is that when bush says he's optimistic it's just a statement. like "it'll fix itself" he's not doing anything to fix it. actually his new proposal may actually hurt the economy (allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country and recieve free visa's if they have a job.) and yet bush's respnse to economy problems is "i am optimistic" not "i have a solution or a plan" it's scary... i hope he loses this year...

wow I thought a lot of you would have liked the Free Visa BS?

I don't... It costs me over $3,000USD to do it the official way, and now people who didn't do it the official way will get amnesty?

I'm getting off topic here, but maybe this is an interesting side-discussion :)

OMG we agree Negative. :)

Don't get your hopes up too high. Heh :)
Must be American influences... first I turn into a corporate ass-licker, now I'm tending to the right in certain discussions... I'm about ready to join the neo-cons.

Yeah right... I wanna be a neo-com(munist) when I grow up!

Damnit Neg you're turning to the dark side...

I am interested in this situation mainly because of the vasy amount of illegal Irish in the US now getting their green cards, its roughly 30,000 maybe more.

There is no gold standard. Many small countries base their money on
the dollar. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

When looking to who is directing the economy, look to the chairman
of the Federal Reserve.
:cool:

I was taught in elemetary school that our monetary base was moved to silver?

edit/ Oh wait I think that was the other way around, it was silver and was moved to gold in the late 1800s.

Here's an interesting read on that new "visitor"-tracking system, dubbed US-VISIT (gotta love the government's acronyms... US-VISIT stands for United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology).

- Price: at least $10 BILLION.
Although...

Quote:

---

When the government tells you that it might cost as much as $10 billion to design, build and deploy such a system, increase that figure two or three times because US-VISIT is as complex and risky a project as some of the biggest weapons procurement programs in the country's history.

---

Nice Article but I don't agree with the comparrison to advanced weapons programs. Sure it may over run the initial cost as most projects but there is nothing risky or even inovative about it. Like I have stated in earlier posts, this has been used in my state for almost a decade. I have also run into its use on passenger ships several times over the years. It takes about 2 seconds and is OLD technology. You are being entered in and out of computer systems already in place. 27 countries are exept from this thing, provided you have a machine readable passport and only stay 90 days or less. I originally heard it was 28 countries but can only find a few ewferences, most reference 27? People make the assumption that the USA is leading the world in some kind of new process.

The verdict is still out for me on finger printing peaople traveling around the world. I am struggling with this. Does the American definition to a "write to privacy" include pretending to be someone else. One's passport identification number or visa has always been accociated with a person and then tracked, now there is more information added to that process. If you want to talk about the Bill of Rights, the info is already there in the computer itendifial traits such as a photgraph are already on the passport. 10 Billion is a lot of money though, I agree - I have researched many articles and some place it in the 400 million mark (about.com ) while others tout the 10 billion and more range. I would have to research actual contracts but that would be busywork for now. Outfitting 115 airports and 14 seaports with computer shouldn't cost 10 billion I would agree. I wonder how much the current computer system cost? For the record here are the countries that are exempt, no finger printing these guys and gals: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Portugal and Singapore.

Canada and Mexico fall under entirely different rules.

Here are some of the reasons it is risky and innovative, RoadClosed:

- All data will be digital, while most current data is not.
- There is no biometrics application out there yet that can do what they want it to do within a reasonable amount of time. If it would take over 30 seconds to scan one "visitor", the project is doomed before it even starts..
- There are other speed-issues as well... For this system to be effective, it would have to check all major American databases (including the FBI's - in the past, that turned out to be pretty difficult). But there's more: it'd also have to check Interpol, foreign embassies,...

This is a summary from this article... Others can probably come up with even more arguments.

Quote:

---

All data will be digital, while most current data is not.

---

The data: like your passport number, you name, place of birth, city address, etc., aren’t digitized and stored in databases already running? Your passport isn't capable of being scanned via electronic means using those little holes in it already? (I am using the US passport as an example) I am confused on the digital part? Sure I agree the photo and finger print aren't or weren't currently stored, but millions of drivers licenses are issued already, it's not new technology. I have seen it on passenger ships as long as 3 years ago. In fact they were scanning your print taking your picture and issuing IDs, much more complicated.

Quote:

---

There is no biometrics application out there yet that can do what they want it to do within a reasonable amount of time. If it would take over 30 seconds to scan one "visitor", the project is doomed before it even starts..

---

I am holding my drivers license in my hand. :) As for the 30 seconds... read the country list a vast majority of travel will be from those countries, they don't have to comply. People from Pakistan are pissed I have read several of their newspaper articles. Except for them... 30 seconds and less isn't the issue, it's being on the list in the first place. ;)

Quote:

---

There are other speed-issues as well... For this system to be effective, it would have to check all major American databases (including the FBI's - in the past, that turned out to be pretty difficult). But there's more: it'd also have to check Interpol, foreign embassies,...

---

Speed seems to be a focus factor here. This system was never designed to be instantaneous. That would definitely be a logistical nightmare. Even the article you posted mentions that data will be analyzed over time. The speed issue is only in capturing the data: photo, passport stuff and finger print. The scan against all those items mentioned isn't and was never intended to be real time. Only a few things could be checked in a reasonable amount of time, it only takes a few seconds to poll the national FBI crime list for example but I don’t even think they are doing that. Your second article hits right on the intended purpose:

Quote:

---

The program, known as United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT) and announced last week, is designed to give the government a better picture of who is entering the country, while collecting biometric data that can be stored and used later to identify visa holders.

---

Innovative?? Perhaps but my interpretation is the innovation lies in deploying the systems to around 130 locations. Corporate IT people do that all the time. I don't see that as DOOMING the system and I question the 10 billion price tag or attributing it to dramatic statements like “weapons programs.” Those are meant to "push buttons", I think. Heck retail outlets are doing it all the time, like SAMS club etc.