That wasn't meant to be a comprehensive explanation of everything wrong with the ending, just one part. (MASSIVE spoilers to follow)

Also, when you say "Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life", save them from what, exactly? Synthetics? And Reapers are what, exactly? Synthetics?

Aside from the circular reasoning, it's also based on a premise that is at the very least debatable: the created will always rebel against their creators. I got to that conversation having brokered peace between the Geth and the Quarrians. Why wasn't it even an option for Shepard to question whether this was some iron law of the universe? Why is the Catalyst assuming peace between organics and synthetics is impossible? Why was it impossible for any ending to leave the Geth and Quarians both physically the same, and independent? Why wasn't it possible for Shepard to be annoyed about this?

Moreover, why kill organics to prevent robot uprisings? Why not have reapers wipe out synthetic races if/when they start to rebel, rather than wiping out organics before they can build synthetics?

If the Reapers are really saviors of the galaxy, why do they shoot first and ask questions never? If being converted into a husk is really a form of ascension, why not try to convince races to volunteer? Why not stick around for thousands of years to persuade us, if necessary? For that matter, why make this be some sort of every 50K year thing? Why not just make ascension into Reaper form a part of galactic culture, a reward given to races who've advanced far enough to warrant it?

But my biggest problem is that we don't really get to see any kind of real consequence of that final choice. All three endings are virtually indistinguishable, and there's nothing about the ending that reflects the choices you've made along the way, not even the ones from ME3. There's no real resolution for any of your crewmates either. I'd like to know what happens to Garrus, Liara, Tali, etc. after it's all over. "Stranded on a strange jungle planet" wasn't what I was looking for, either.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^NetRunner:
http://markel.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/f3p6x.jpg

That's stupid. Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life throughout the galaxy. Sounds like whoever made that was dozing off during the conversations with the catalyst.

Hi, spent the weekend skiing. Lots of comments, and don't know where to begin.

@GenjiKilpatrick Banks are private; mortgage brokers are private; many good local hospitals are private; insurance companies are private; neighborhood associations are private. Should they be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion?

It's not just a case of not being allowed to eat at Nazi Joe's Diner. And before you answer, there have been recent cases of some of the entities above discriminating, despite a free market existing and racism somehow being bad for business.

And this being black history month, it would be good for you to read up and realize that in the past, many non-white americans were rich and prosperous, despite what you said above.

It looked like Romney had it in the bag, but Gingrich's firey invective managed to swing the vote heavily in his favor. A few weeks ago, intrade.com had Romney at something like 97% to win. Now it's down to 66%, with Gingrich at 25%. This is actually good news for your boy Ron Paul, who is banking on a brokered convention - meaning no candidate gets enough votes to win, hence 3rd and 4th place candidates can trade their delegates to the frontrunner in return for influence, veep status, cabinet positions, policy concessions, etc.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
Why is it that when an established front-runner starts to win is it a surprising turnaround? I hate our fucking news system...

>> ^Hastur:


I'm sorry to be pedantic here, but I don't see why you get to decide what an abstainer thinks. I think they don't like any of the candidates, so I say they're casting a vote for "none of the above". However you want to count them, the 69 million popular votes cast for Obama in 2008 represents about 23% of the 300 million residents. It's simply not the will of the majority. It's not even the will of a representative sample, being that it excludes everyone under 18 and everyone not a citizen.
In a country where people seem reasonably satisfied with two senators per state, unelected judges, and all kinds of other "transgressions" against one-person-one-vote that occur in a republic, I just think it's misguided to believe that the electoral college is some huge injustice. The US is called the United States for a reason; it's not conceived to work purely as a direct democracy on the federal level, and there's no prior reason to believe that's a more effective form of governance at that scale.


I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...

With that in mind, if Obama wins with 69 million votes in a popular election, it is still a majority of people who voted... EC's basically say that even once you take out the abstainers, a person with less than 50% of the actual voters can win office. Abstainers drop out of both systems, the important metric is total votes accrued per candidate vs total number of people who placed votes.

re: the second paragraph, just because problems aren't getting solved doesn't make them not problems. Essentially the apathy to change a flawed system is a democratic expression in itself, that does not make the system fair. And a popular vote for the president (ie. the executive) has little to do with the day to day running of towns/cities/states. A president might be hamstrung by a hostile congress and/or senate and achieve little during his term/s (see Obama and his great plans which were mostly stymied by the legislative branch of the Fed).

A direct popular vote means that instead of appealing to a few niche states, the candidates have to make a broader appeal to the electorate, and are less prone to pork barrel the power brokers of the electorate. It might not ever change but that doesn't mean we can't point out the inequalities in the current system.

imho they are all assholes. we elected obama to do something, instead he just fell in line. this isn't just mitt romney's america, it's the america of every politician, sucking from the corporate tit.

do we really need any more evidence that neither party represents the american people?
a republican congress and a democratic president (clinton) passed the repeal of glass-steagal, effectively de-regulating the banks and allowing them to operate as brokers and insurance companies, selling bad deals and then betting on the losses.
here's a very telling graphic which also underscores how our government was bought and sold, effectively ending any sort of control on monopolistic activity. note how it corresponds with the repeal of glass-steagal in 1999
http://i.imgur.com/9DQv5.jpg">timeline of bank mergers

what we have is largely a result of a concerted effort of the banks, brokers, and insurance companies to deregulate, which they did in 1999, repealing glass-steagal. it really should be re-enacted

I'm just surprised. It's one thing to know that U.S. corporations don't like paying taxes, but another to read it in the report.

The issue here being that it is government who is picking & choosing who does & doesn't get the plum breaks. It is changing (literally) from election to election. Government should NOT be in the position to be the power-broker who determines what companies/industries get massive subsidies and tax breaks year by year. All that does it create an environment of arbitrary modern patronage where companies are far more beholden to politicians than they are to the public. Think about it. GE could literally fall on its face as a company, but it would be OK because it is getting 'green' money shovelled at it along with tax-breaks, subsidies, and other gimmies. Why should they care jack-squat about whether they manufacture crap that no one wants when they have their CEO on Obama's cabinet?

That's the problem here. Government is the problem. Slap down government. Remove them from the marketplace. Set up a system of basic rules that ALL companies have to obey and that government cannot change and then put the government in a box and lock it away forever.

Wealth disparity is a red herring. It is one economic indicator out of literally thousands. Neolibs like to harp on it, but when the poorest schlub in the US has 2 cars, 2 flat screens, air conditioning, and more food than they can possibly eat then it holds very little meaning. I'm a statistician, and there is always a curve in wealth with extreme ends. Deal with it.

Again - they're focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is a corrupt and powerful government. Lobbyists push for bad laws, but bad laws can't get passed without corrupt legislators. In the past, the robber-barons just did what they wanted and government was too toothless and feckless to stop abuses. Today the robber-barons are back, but they are aided and abetted by a powerful, corrupt government that creates a maze of loopholes, exemptions, and laws to pick and choose which company gets to be the one to get away with murder.

The first thing that has to happen is that government needs to be reduced in size and power so that they cannot be the kingmakers. Then you pass a set of simple reforms that are clear and basic so everyone knows 'the rules'. Companies get away with crap because government passes laws that allows it (like the repeal of Glass/Steagall). Peel the lobbyists out of such a system, and all you do it create an all-powerful government that crushes (or blesses) specific industries according to its whimsy.

For example - Obama has been literally shovelling cash at the 'green' industry. Solyndra (and others) have shown that it was all a subsidy-scam. There was no possible way these solar companies could possibly turn a profit. Not to mention ethanol subsidies, et al... They all lobbied big time and got a pile of political payola. It is modern day patronage. Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to slap down oil and coal. The government is picking some industries to grow, and others to punish. That is totally bogus. And (just so you neolibs don't get mad) it is bogus when it happens to companies like Exxon or Haliburton too.

The government should not be this power broker that picks and chooses which industries get favoritism, and which ones get the thumbscrews based on the political preference of the legislators in power. That creates an unpredictable, uncertain, arbitrary system where industry is more beholden to politicians than the public. Who cares if a company makes a lousy or unprofitable product when they can just pay a lobbyist, or donate to a candidate, and end up getting piles and piles of taxpayer cash?

THAT is the real problem here. Wall Street, Solydra, Enron - all these companies are just symptoms. The disease is the government.

The sheer arrogance and stupidity of this guy, and his inflammatory rhetoric, perpetuates this ridiculous situation. Claiming that his imaginary god, acting as some sort of celestial real estate broker thousands of years ago, gave HIS "people" the land, and HE "came back and claimed it," is ignorant, bronze age nonsense. If it were palestinians building next door, and he was happy to live in harmony with them, as a fellow human being should, that would be true "progress my friend."

>> ^radx:

discard


booooring

Tags for this video have been changed from 'business brokers' to 'worst business broker ever, do not hire, unkempt, irresponsible' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

You're addressing two separate issues with one broad stroke.

The housing credit bubble was caused just as much by certain public institutions as it was private. The error on behalf on the parties involved was in misjudging expected defaults and in the moral hazard of entrusting mortgage brokers who had every incentive to lie to secure commissions.

Securitization is in and of itself not a bad idea and by your own admission it was a private invention (by investment banks). With the right due dilligence and management of risks, loans can be offloaded from commercial bank balance sheets to investors and the banks can then make additional loans (to credit worthy individuals) which generally benefits everyone.

The separate issue from all of this is how much you want to provide to citizens as a basic right. Personally I think this should extend extensively into basic food, shelter and medical assistance. Whether it's publicly or privately provided should be on a case by case basis. Some naturally monopolistic industries will gain nothing from being private as the competitive pressure that makes capitalism work will simply not be there.

If you don't agree with this that's fine but let's not conflate the two issues or pretend as if the GFC is somehow justification for the latter.

@westy

Yes nearly every business tries to game the system that's the point of capitalism and that's why it will always fail ( im not on about simply ballencing your books and deprecaiting assets and playing that sytem , evan though that is gamed in the same way) I'm on about the system at large , surely you can see the difference between a butcher and a company that offers high interest loans to desperate people , when instead of offering the loan the ethical thing would be for them to tell them to contact citizens advice ?

I don't think capitalism (by which I mean a regulated but moderately free market) will fail as (at least so far) it's provided the best manner of funneling people's naturally selfish/nepotistic tendencies in a productive way.

Let's be clear here, generally brokers were responsible for writing subprime loans with botched (or outright false) assessments of income and capacity to pay. These brokers were essentially gaming the investment banks (like Bear Sterns) into buying fraudulent securitised loans. Bear Sterns along with Lehman Brothers didn't survive and many other banks got taken over. There was clear motivation for them to perform more due diligence and they paid for their mistakes by going bankrupt or being taken over. The credit rating agencies and the insurers who backed CDOs also had poor judgement. My point is, the people who benefited from writing these bad loans weren't the banks.

thats the piont im making , you can have companies that game the system but also privde a service but the people that have caused this economic crisis are people that are at the pinicale of gaming the system and do not care to provide a service and purely participate to game the system purely exist to make money at whatever cost to society.

They're not gaming the system if they're going bankrupt. You know as well as I do that banks borrow money from those with savings and selectively lend them out to generally good investments thus creating economic growth and jobs. Let's not get carried away with populism here.

luckily we have people that are ethical and don't just think of the profit bottom line , but in general you will see that a good proportion of those successful at business and profiting are ones that couldn't give a shit about other people or there effect on the environment.

The difference between the butcher and a large financial institution is size. If this was a national specialty chain business, you can bet that they would be lobbying their congressman and receiving favors and payouts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crony capitalism and I understand that banks weild considerable leverage over the economy and politicians. They should be more regulated commensurate to their significance and intractability with the economy, particularly shadow banking system (securitisation of loans and credit derivatives) should be regulated to prevent crises. This is a failure of regulation though, not a failure of banking in general. As I mentioned, every large industry/corporate body curries favors.

"Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy"

so the bankers that turned a blind eye to the toxit assits were beneficail to the econimy ?

how about the lobiests and deregulation that made it possable ?
what about the real estate agents that knew the people they were selling the houses to could not maintain the mortgage?

What about the marketeers that designed the sales materail to obscure the mortgage rates to hide the fact that they would increase and specifcaly designed the brouchers and trained the sales teams to exploit unknowlageable people ?

No they weren't and many of their businesses went out of business. These are all issues of regulation. Corporations (as opposed to say partnerships) are by legal design geared towards maximising profit. If you come in with expectations that any corporation will not do this, you are making flawed assumptions.

"hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals"

Defanitoin of Gambling from Wikipedia - "Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."

something doesn't have to have unfavourable odds to be considered gambling for example there are many professional gamblers that make a living of horse betting , and in that exact same way there are many people that profestinaly gamble on the stock market , and I would argue that they are themselfs not providing a use to socity. I would however contrast that against sum-one that invests in a company because that company is doing good or employs many people or is developing beneficial technpligy.

the problem is in general capitalism in its current form is fucked , and i belive we need to move towards something that is what I would describe as a

"democratic socialist capitalist system" where we have as free a market as possable and that is achived through democratic regulation guided by socialist princapels. so you try to give every citizen as equal a chance as possible at having free will and succeeding in what they want to do.

the current system allows the top 10% fantastic freedom and chances but at the expense of the majorty of people.

It's not a wager of value, it's a transfer of value. Which is critically what makes it different from gambling. If you have agricultural produce and you want to hedge the risk that your harvest will go down in value when it comes to fruition, it's typically an investment bank/hedge fund/commercial bank that takes the counterparty position. Without someone taking that counterparty position, you couldn't eliminate your risk of a fall in prices. If someone buys a newly listed share of your company, they're contributing to your capacity to invest and pay wages. During the process of gambling before someone is declared the winner, there is no value being created. That's a pretty crucial difference. The main point is though that banking creates value, hopefully I've already illustrated that beforehand.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at the end, but as far as I'm concerned you should be resentful towards campaign finance rules. Instead, it's like trying to treat the symptom not the cause.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.