Needed in 2009: More Failure

no prescription adipex diet pills

B8ErBF Great site. Good info.

no prescription adipex diet pills of PA @ Aug 02, 2009 14:16:21 PM

free sex video man viagra hard

b5pJ0B Great work, webmaster, nice design!

free sex video man viagra hard of TX @ Aug 02, 2009 12:11:22 PM

f m pharmacy new york viagra

714p1j Great. Now i can say thank you!

f m pharmacy new york viagra of FL @ Aug 02, 2009 10:28:33 AM

Icybryej

jeCXbG

Icybryej of CO @ Jul 13, 2009 20:23:30 PM

You make great sense....

This is a perfect example of critical thinking and capitalism at its best and worst. I really feel like anyone who fails should be allowed to do so. The current culture in this country doesn't let it happen. How many people in the early 2000's and late 1990's filed bankruptcy's at an alarming rate and have turned around to get in financial ruin all over again? NO MORE BAILOUTS - let the strong survive - they will.

Kent Prine of OH @ Mar 12, 2009 17:39:07 PM

EMORY UNIVERSITE

1380 OXFORD ROAD ,NE ATALANTA GA 30322

Richardson of IL @ Mar 12, 2009 09:24:46 AM

Is failure good?

Mr. Newman presents a pretty good argument for some benefits arising from failure.

Mr. Arthur Gittleman makes a valid point that 1929 did not benefit the economy, but that World War II did (or Hitler did, as he put it).

Like many of us, I have been following the economic news closely, though I have absolutely no special expertise in any facet of economics, finance, etc. Much of the dispute I've read has been over FDR's response to the Crash of '29, some saying it helped, some saying it didn't.

Let me suggest both are true. That is, through federal efforts such as the WPA and CCC, a great many people did indeed get back on the payroll -- and the nation benefited from their work in the form, for instance, of the Hoover Dam. On the other hand, as far as putting the economy back on the road to prosperity, Mr. Gittleman is absolutely correct. (Well, I already said I lack expertise; that's my take, anyway.)

Returning specifically to failure and its results. It's axiomatic that we *can* learn from our failures -- and the part that's both operational and problematic here is *can.*

I saw this countless times in my many years teaching English at university level on two continents, teaching it to both native speakers and non-native speakers. Naturally, sometimes even bright students failed (usually through overconfidence). But I found again and again and again that most students who failed then would sit down, whether with me, someone else, or by themselves, and *think* about just *why* they failed could come up with a plan to get past their particular barriers.

A case in point: early in my career, I had a freshman student who used absolutely not capital letters, paragraphing, or much punctuation, nor did he arrange his essays logically. Yet I recognized his very first essay as reflecting through the murk a hint of brilliance. I summoned him for a conference, and at first he resisted, but through naked appeal to his ego, he eventually came around. A year or so later he came to see me to show me his first publication, a poem in a minor poetry journal. And he went on to write several short stories that were published. No, he never hit a best-seller list (as far as I know; haven't seen him in decades), but his case is the case in point.

I realize that getting a kid to write a good essay is a very remote cry from trying to pull the national and global economy out of its downward spiral, but the principle of the value (or lack thereof) of failure apply on both the micro and macro levels, across the spectrum of disciplines.

Mr. Gittleman, if you're reading this, please don't take my remarks as being an attack on yours -- not at all. I mean no more than to present a view from a somewhat different angle, one that perhaps you haven't thought of before. (Or, maybe you have, and dismissed it!) ;-)

Mekhong Kurt of TX @ Feb 10, 2009 01:43:55 AM

Real Failure is crucial, no neo failure, or Pseudo Failure

Your first commenter shows they know little about history and even less about economics. I will try to be short in my rebuttal.

Firstly, the market crash of ’29 was engineered by large banks in order to cause a capitol crunch which allowed the larger banks to buy out most of the small unassociated banks, and make the FED (A private company) even more powerful.

Wars and economics are by there very nature different animals with different rules and have a winner talk all outcome (usually), so applying the tactics and possible lessons of economics and business to war is simply a ludicrous analogy; similar to comparing skydiving to needlepoint.

Also, ” If we fail I am not sure people will want to give up there habit of eating?” Really, if GM fails we will all stop eating? Look my business will get hurt and I will have to cut costs, but I will look for opportunity not doomsday.

Remember, The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

Finally, and there is where you really show ignorance (in the same way those deluded people who think not keeping score keeps their kids from knowing they lost the game), It was not Vegas on wall street and stop watch Keith (far from superman) Oberman and MSNBC.

Simply put, and factually, Clinton pushed the home ownership idea on the country. Do you remember? I sure do! He did this by strongly suggesting to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to give sub prime notes out. Sub-Prime means to questionable borrowers. NOT the interest on the note.

Since Mae and Mac, had pseudo government status, others (like Lehman Bros.) bought the notes being strongly encouraged to do so by the Like of Rubin (clinton’s sec of treas. Who after leaving the treas. Made 115 million at citigroup), and who lead the way on repealing the Glass-Steagall act, which prevented commercial banks from dabbling in wall street.

What you must understand is someone had to buy those ailing sub-prime notes to infuse money into Mae and Mac. So the repeal was organized, and then the nods and winks were given.

So you see once again a pseudo like entity causes the actual entity to look bad. Neo Con GW makes real conservatives look bad, even though he is not in fact a conservative. Pseudo free market enterprises like Mae and Mac make the Free Market system look unworkable.

However if we simply kept people in the government that have the same or less knowledge of economics and business as you do, we would be just fine. Hey George, say hi to Jeb for me.

D of CO @ Jan 05, 2009 01:03:42 AM