The Perfect Solution

(Godwin be appeased, I did not say FINAL)...

Hi there. I want to talk to you, instead of at you, for a second. No worries, it's not to address differences in opinions of right/wrong, politics, religion, how science is the only rational approach to understanding the real world we live in, or any of the other things I usually address.

No, today, right now, just between you and me- here alone (in the cold)- I'd like to talk about something I think we all know; but that we overlook FAR too often: There are no PERFECT Solutions. Everything benefits one group more than another; and most things hurt some group.

Do you enjoy the fact that you've probably never had malaria? It's because we changed the way sanitation works, and we killed an ass ton of mosquitoes. The mosquitoes lost out, and we won, hands down.

When there's a solution that negatively effects a group- like banks, automobile makers, or the airports/airlines- but positively effects another- usually consumers- it's not the right time to start trumpeting the cause of corporations. Case in point, the 250bn Stock Injection Plan that banks and bankers oppose(d). The VAST majority of economists, the world over, support the idea AND the idea that the banks want (where we buy up toxic sub-prime mortgage backed debts) is HORRIBLE- in every way- for the consumers. Trickle down economics didn't work under Ronny Ray-gun and they don't work now.

When the airports and airlines decree auctioning off runway slots, and the arguments run into how it will hurt local business in the future because investors don't want to invest in a place without direct-to-NYC flights, take a look at the facts. (1) It doesn't hurt the vast majority of consumers in any way, form, or fashion {Aren't flights with lay overs cheaper?}. (2) The groups decrying the measures are airports and airlines. (3) Nothing is perfect.

This simple, logical approach to issues will mean we can stop spending hours repeating sob stories of the people who get hurt, and start looking at the actual issues: Does this HELP the most people, Is there a feasible way of helping MORE people?

Prognosticating on uncertain futures by espousing WHAT IF and IT COULD (as well as similarly vague terms) is pointless. When you're in the store you don't debate whether to buy toothpaste because WHAT IF or IT COULD, you buy the toothpaste and brush your teeth because it's a fact that brushing your teeth means less trouble down the road.

In economics and politics it's much harder to know for sure what will or won't work. However, it's INCREDIBLY easy to see what DOESN'T WORK. For instance, I don't know how to get the world out of the financial crisis; but I do know that de-regulation, lack of transparency, and self-oversight all helped cause the problem. Which means anything that includes those, or tries to limit how much of that can be changed, is BAD.

Yes, that means more work for banks, and more work means more workers and more stuff. That means less profits for the companies. But does it matter if a company goes from making 5 trillion in a world market valued at 60 trillion, to making 1 trillion in a world market valued at 12 trillion? Does it matter if it means they make 4 trillion in a market worth 63 trillion? What if the changes guarantee no future crisis, like this?

The point is, nothing will satisfy everyone, there's no way and we both know it. So, stop bitching about something that doesn't work for everyone, and legitimately provide a better solution, or point out flaws in the current one and how to fix them, or shut the fuck up. But, for fuck's sake, stop championing the cause of the industries and groups that fucked themselves because the solutions don't benefit them!

Thanks for listening- News Media, Bloggers, Bitchers, Moaners, Whiners, and Fuckheads.

I hope you have a nice day, before burning to death in a slow and pain-filled manner on the morrow.

-Tom