Welcome To The Depression...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

It might be time to say goodbye to this thread.[/B]

THIS THREAD MUST OUTLIVE US ALL.

How about this: why don't we start a discussion about what was going on in chess during the last Great Depression, and try to extrapolate from that what we think might happen during this one?

Why? Well, for one thing, this Depression has just begun and will IMHO both outlast and surpass the 1930's version. There will be a brief period of optimism as Obama takes office, but he is basically bereft of original ideas and out of the box thinking, slogans notwithstanding.

Gary, you have done well in your predictions, but you still put some faith in the market with your "Depression Portfolio". I could try telling you that gold and other precious metals are all you should be concerned with now, but that's just my opinion and besides, I don't know your investment timeline or even who you're investing for (yourself? Children? Grandchildren? Your 20-something MuchMusic VJ girlfriend? ).

Big Three auto executives are using terms like "nuclear winter" in their descriptions of what will ensue if a bailout isn't forthcoming. Personally I think nothing should be done for them, torpedoes be damned. They flew their Lear jets into Washington, and a very astute Washington official (possibly a Senator) asked them (paraphrasing): "Please raise your hand if you plan to sell your corporate jet and fly back to Detroit on a commercial airliner to help the cause." After a few moments of awkward silence, he spoke again: "Let the record show that no hands went up".

Anyway, what will be will be. Let's try and relate this thread to chess history and chess future! Will chess be fundamentally changed by this depression?

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Ah, a welcome break from my continuing misery learning (and losing) with 1.d4 ;-)

Why? Well, for one thing, this Depression has just begun and will IMHO both outlast and surpass the 1930's version. There will be a brief period of optimism as Obama takes office, but he is basically bereft of original ideas and out of the box thinking, slogans notwithstanding.

I agree with this 100%. The problem is that the world's economy has depended upon the US consumer spending more and more, and saving less and less. There is some upper limit on the debt that anyone can rack up before they have to either start paying it back or the burden becomes so great that they never can! These boom/bust cycles are a natural part of any free economy, in my opinion, and when government tries to intervene they almost always screw it up.

Big Three auto executives are using terms like "nuclear winter" in their descriptions of what will ensue if a bailout isn't forthcoming. Personally I think nothing should be done for them, torpedoes be damned. They flew their Lear jets into Washington, and a very astute Washington official (possibly a Senator) asked them (paraphrasing): "Please raise your hand if you plan to sell your corporate jet and fly back to Detroit on a commercial airliner to help the cause." After a few moments of awkward silence, he spoke again: "Let the record show that no hands went up".

Keeping companies in business for the sake of employment statistics is what has happened in Japan. Those who will recall know that 20 years ago Japan was the darling of the world's investor. The result of the upward surge of their market was the things like real estate bubbled to incredible heights. I believe the Nikkei's peak was around 1989 at roughly 39,000. Today it is 8,000.

The problem is that many Japanese companies are being propped up by the government. It seems they will NEVER be profitable.

The grandstand play that Rep. Sherman made misses the point, though it is great theatre. The Big Three CEOs are not the guys who are going to suffer if/when Ford, GM and/or Chrysler bite the big one. Even though it will be the assembly line worker who takes the hit, leaving these companies in business to continue to hemorrhage money into the indefinite future is just bad fiscal policy.

I was watching the news yesterday morning and two stories struck me. The first was concerning people moving out of their McMansions and into smaller, more affordable (in terms of price and upkeep) homes. The second was an economist who said (paraphrasing) "We are on the cusp of a period of deflation. This is bad for the economy as people hold onto their money in the hopes that prices tomorrow will be lower than prices today." Strange. I consider this quite rational behaviour.

The era of rampant consumerism is over. We are going to be reverting back to my grandparent's time when people exercised some restraint and discipline when it came to money. If anyone reading this has debt, you better pay it down now instead of buying more crap.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Gary, you have done well in your predictions, but you still put some faith in the market with your "Depression Portfolio". I could try telling you that gold and other precious metals are all you should be concerned with now, but that's just my opinion and besides, I don't know your investment timeline or even who you're investing for (yourself? Children? Grandchildren? Your 20-something MuchMusic VJ girlfriend? ).

Big Three auto executives are using terms like "nuclear winter" in their descriptions of what will ensue if a bailout isn't forthcoming. Personally I think nothing should be done for them, torpedoes be damned. They flew their Lear jets into Washington, and a very astute Washington official (possibly a Senator) asked them (paraphrasing): "Please raise your hand if you plan to sell your corporate jet and fly back to Detroit on a commercial airliner to help the cause." After a few moments of awkward silence, he spoke again: "Let the record show that no hands went up".

I do have confidence the turmoil will end eventually and I have some faith in the markets. I've also tried to pick carefully for that Depression Portfolio. No financials. The Seniors housing has a former Ontario Premier on the board of Directors (maybe the chair of the board) and he's been buying recently in the open market according to insider trading reports.

I'm mainly investing for myself and my wife. I have the feeling that buying and holding helps to stabilize the companies and helps to save jobs and keep people working. Sometimes with all the short selling which is going on even this is in doubt.

The U.S. has a problem with short selling and their financials. As soon as a big financial gets into problems the short sellers appear to step in. Investors start to bail out before the government steps in and bails them out in exchange for around a 79% equity interest in the company effectively reducing the existing shareholder to close to Zero. Look at Citygroup. It's gone from around 55 to slightly more than 3. Who's going to keep their money in a bank like that?

The uptick rule has to come back at the very least. That's where shorting can only be done on the uptick and players can't keep piling on a company and driving it to zero quickly.

You might well be right about gold. I'm not playing that because it costs a lot of money to bring a new mine online and the production costs per ounce are getting higher. The way the money printing presses are working these days the government could decide they want to return to some kind of gold standard for their money and peg the price of gold at an arbitrary price. For many years it was pegged at 35 dollar a troy ounce, I think it was. I've got a couple of penny gold stocks which have proved up reserves and no money right now. They are in the Timmins area of Ontario. I've held them longer than I care to remember. More than a decade.

On oil and gas, the drilling cost is too high and debt often gets out of hand. I don't know the break even costs for any given company. I'd rather wait until I think they have bottomed and buy an ETF based on the commodity itself. My favourite is a 2X ETF. Win or lose twice as fast as the rise or fall of the commodity. I could do that with gold as well but I have no particular feeling on which way the commodity will move.

Regarding the auto makers, one of my calls used to be a large auto maker. If they fail there will be a large domino effect. Even Western Canada will feel the pain because of the amount of energy they use.

I watched the natural gas numbers a few days ago. They were expecting a draw down of about 2 BCF (Billion Cubic Feet). They had a build (surplus) of 16 BCF which I guess goes into storage in the U.S. This in spite of the weather being at least as cold as last year. They said the "degree days" were higher this year meaning it was colder. To bring it in perspective, at that days posted price for natural gas, it was about 115 million dollars worth of natural gas that was paid for but not sold. If, like they say, it was not likely the heating causing the smaller use then it was industrial and commercial cutting back. My thought is the pricing will continue to go lower until the demand picks up.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Hi Gary:

Maybe, given the existing and continuing downward trend ( according to most analysts I've heard ), it's still a bit premature to consign this thread to the bins of " chess " history.

Bob

You're right. It's more fun to call these things before they happen rather than comment on an ongoing basis. Still, there are a lot of interesting things happening and changes which will likely be made to prevent this from happening again.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

It has been an interesting week. Both on the economy and politically.

Politically, it seems our government has introduced some measure to deal with the problems. They called it a fiscal update and the measures seem horribly inadequate. One deals with Seniors and the withdrawals from their RRIF's. Another with election financing.

It appears the Conservatives are simply carrying on where they left off before the last election, bullying the opposition into not defeating motions under threat of an election. I've been reading the opposition parties are discussing forming a coalition and bringing down the government, either by defeating the financial bill or with a non confidence vote. Likely being so soon after the election, the Governor General would have to ask the opposition if they can form a government. We will have to see how this unfolds over the next week.

I'm of the opinion we have to spend money to save jobs no matter how distasteful this is for some of us. My own thoughts on this are clouded by the fact that I know people who work in industries which are being hit by the current downturn (depression) and I don't want to see them out of a job.

As time passes it seems like the nations around the world (Canada excepted) might be doing some of the things which will moderate the effects of the huge meltdown in the financial system. We will have to see.

The stock markets are taking a breather from the recent despair and have made some gains. While I thought the low on the Dow would be around 6800, I'd be happy if we have seen the low. Bottoming out around 7,800 would suit me just fine if that's all there is to it. People's investments have been decimated by the turmoil and a nice turnaround would be more than welcome.

Tuesday I added to my Depression Portfolio. Sherrit International had fallen below my initial price and I doubled down. Bought it at 1.80. The dividend yield at that price is 7.77 percent. What I consider remarkable for such a resource company. Of course, it closed lower on the day. What else is new? The next day it started moving quite well and has had a couple of good days. This stock was over 16 dollars in June, a few short months ago. Of course, Nickel has fallen of the charts since then and oil and gas has fallen in price. They have all their thermal coal mines in Alberta and I think one in B.C. I think they are selling Thermal coal in Alberta. I was reading that around 80 per cent of Alberta electricity is generated from coal and this was a statistic which surprised me.

There are many other companies I like at today's prices. This remembering that just because a stock is cheap doesn't necessarily make it a good investment. With some, I can't buy them because they don't pay a dividend. I like to buy companies which make a lot of money and pay some back to the shareholders. The exception is when I take a flyer on a penny miner.

While we see some encouragement this week, who knows what next week will bring. I'm hoping for big infrastructure spending to create jobs and try to improve the situation. Get the money flowing.

DISCLAIMER: None of what I write should be used for investment decisions. I write this stuff for entertainment. Consult a financial adviser.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

News that the Tories are likely to fall has lifted my depression.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

I'm of the opinion we have to spend money to save jobs no matter how distasteful this is for some of us. My own thoughts on this are clouded by the fact that I know people who work in industries which are being hit by the current downturn (depression) and I don't want to see them out of a job.

[/B]

My thoughts are clouded only by the idea that everyone (the bankers, the government officials, and above all the consumers) should have known that a day of reckoning would come and they brought all of this on themselves. I don't see why my tax dollars should go to save someone else's job. Let them save their money and figure a way out of their own financial problems.

I see that McGuinty's solution here is for consumers to ignore all that picky, nasty stuff like personal debt and spend, spend, spend this holiday season. Stupid, stupid, stupid is anyone who will listen to these politicians. They want you to spend so that they can tax your consumption, and they want you to continue to consume evermore stuff so you have to work more and they can tax that.

Today Penny and I went down to the bank to register for one of our TFSAs (Tax-Free Savings Accounts). I asked the lady there if this were a busy time of year. After all, with all of these people surely interested in making some tax-free income, there must be stampede, right?

Uh, no. "People don't save anymore" she told me. I'm sorry but I am not interested in funding other people's live-it-up lifestyles. With the country aging, this is only going to get worse.

On a somewhat related note, I recommend "The 11th Hour", an admitedly somewhat dry documentary discussing the future of the planet.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

My thoughts are clouded only by the idea that everyone (the bankers, the government officials, and above all the consumers) should have known that a day of reckoning would come and they brought all of this on themselves. I don't see why my tax dollars should go to save someone else's job. Let them save their money and figure a way out of their own financial problems.

I see that McGuinty's solution here is for consumers to ignore all that picky, nasty stuff like personal debt and spend, spend, spend this holiday season. Stupid, stupid, stupid is anyone who will listen to these politicians. They want you to spend so that they can tax your consumption, and they want you to continue to consume evermore stuff so you have to work more and they can tax that.

Today Penny and I went down to the bank to register for one of our TFSAs (Tax-Free Savings Accounts). I asked the lady there if this were a busy time of year. After all, with all of these people surely interested in making some tax-free income, there must be stampede, right?

Uh, no. "People don't save anymore" she told me. I'm sorry but I am not interested in funding other people's live-it-up lifestyles. With the country aging, this is only going to get worse.

On a somewhat related note, I recommend "The 11th Hour", an admitedly somewhat dry documentary discussing the future of the planet.

Harper is in the process of graduating from the Joe Clark school of How to Govern with a Minority. I would suspect he'll spend the next week trying to come up with initiatives to stimulate the economy. I doubt it will be enough if a deal has already been struck by the opposition.

I think there are two possible scenarios if Harper is defeated. The GG will allow the opposition to try to form a government. Harper will have to survive his party if this happens as I would imagine there are others with leadership aspirations.

The second scenario is another election. I'm of the opinion Harper has nowhere to go but down. He has not shown he even understands there is a problem. The Americans have changed from a Republican to a Democrat president in an attempt to solve the economic problem and this is a model for Canadians to follow. If things are relatively unchanged after the next election and the Libs and NDP want to try form a government the GG will have to allow it. There can't be constant elections.

My thought is to avoid defeat, and it might not even be enough, Harper has to replace Flaherty and come up with a comprehensive economic plan to save jobs and industry. He has a week or 10 days to do it. It should be remembered the economy he inherited from the Liberals was OK. Two years of Conservative government and we're in dire straights.

As for your tax dollars, they are the same as mine. Whichever political party wins decides what to do with them.

Regarding the tax free savings accounts, I haven't paid any attention to them. Can you deduct the money you put in them from your taxes or is it only the interest on the account which is not taxable? Is it taxable at any point, like when it is withdrawn or are there some restrictions?

Don't worry about the aging population. I'm investing in Seniors Housing and nursing homes. It's in my Depression Portfolio. If I ever end up in one of those places I'll be a boss!

Not everyone is a spender even though your banker suggested this. I know my Depression Portfolio would probably not meet the bankers idea of a "saver" but it amuses me, even if it does cut into my grocery money. On the other hand, it's probably safer than in some bank and a system in which the government has to keep pumping liquidity. Why should the non savers have to bail out the savers such as yourself from a bank failure?

Have a look at the deposit insurance. What is it? CDIC? See how much they have in reserve to pay out in case of a bank failure. The last time I looked it seemed there was enough to cover a smaller institution but probably wouldn't cover a larger bank up to the 100,000. maximum. I had to look for the figures but they were on the site. If you pick the wrong bank I'd have to bail you out with my tax dollar. I can't see the difference between bailing out a bank or other financial institution and bailing out a large industrial employer so people can keep their job and the government can collect taxes instead of paying benefits to unemployed people with my money.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Harper is in the process of graduating from the Joe Clark school of How to Govern with a Minority. I would suspect he'll spend the next week trying to come up with initiatives to stimulate the economy. I doubt it will be enough if a deal has already been struck by the opposition.

Agreed.

I think there are two possible scenarios if Harper is defeated. The GG will allow the opposition to try to form a government. Harper will have to survive his party if this happens as I would imagine there are others with leadership aspirations.

Also agreed. I think anyone who watches the news would agree with this.

The second scenario is another election. I'm of the opinion Harper has nowhere to go but down. He has not shown he even understands there is a problem. The Americans have changed from a Republican to a Democrat president in an attempt to solve the economic problem and this is a model for Canadians to follow. If things are relatively unchanged after the next election and the Libs and NDP want to try form a government the GG will have to allow it. There can't be constant elections.

I think Harper has good reason to think his tally will go up, not down. Even though he may not have a plan for the economy, I think it is safe to say that the majority of Canadians are not happy with constant elections. Anyone who creates the conditions for the next election had better have an extremely good reason for doing so. I don't consider bailing out loser industries which produce products that people will not buy to be a good reason.

My thought is to avoid defeat, and it might not even be enough, Harper has to replace Flaherty and come up with a comprehensive economic plan to save jobs and industry. He has a week or 10 days to do it. It should be remembered the economy he inherited from the Liberals was OK. Two years of Conservative government and we're in dire straights.

I think most people understand that the problem is a worldwide one, not a Canadian one. Whether Liberals, Conservatives, or whomever is in power will not change the world economy.

As for your tax dollars, they are the same as mine. Whichever political party wins decides what to do with them.

Yes, but unlike you I have the right to complain. I voted. ;-)

Regarding the tax free savings accounts, I haven't paid any attention to them. Can you deduct the money you put in them from your taxes or is it only the interest on the account which is not taxable? Is it taxable at any point, like when it is withdrawn or are there some restrictions?

You cannot deduct the money you put into them on your taxes. The "interest" (it doesn't have to be placed in an actual savings account, but can be invested into stocks, mutual funds, etc.) is tax-free. You can withdraw it anytime (I think they will put some restrictions on this, but I haven't read of any yet). Very flexible.

Don't worry about the aging population. I'm investing in Seniors Housing and nursing homes. It's in my Depression Portfolio. If I ever end up in one of those places I'll be a boss!

I worry about the aging population because they don't bother to invest. They expect the Ponzi Scheme that is CPP to continue indefinitely. I personally think that the younger people will tell the oldsters to get off their collective keysters and re-enter the workforce. When Otto Von Bismarck instituted the first old-age pension over 100 years ago, the average person lived to what? 65-70? Now it is 85. You cannot have people dining at the trough for decades while other people pay their tab.

Not everyone is a spender even though your banker suggested this. I know my Depression Portfolio would probably not meet the bankers idea of a "saver" but it amuses me, even if it does cut into my grocery money. On the other hand, it's probably safer than in some bank and a system in which the government has to keep pumping liquidity. Why should the non savers have to bail out the savers such as yourself from a bank failure?

Of course your portfolio would meet the banker's idea of a saver. You don't really think we just opened a saving account paying 3% or whatever to get the tax-free status do you? Even your portfolio could serve as a TFSA. As for bank failures, obviously if there were no insurance, then you would get higher rates. ING, for example, has higher rates for uninsured deposits. The banks pay the insurance, not the taxpayer.

Have a look at the deposit insurance. What is it? CDIC? See how much they have in reserve to pay out in case of a bank failure. The last time I looked it seemed there was enough to cover a smaller institution but probably wouldn't cover a larger bank up to the 100,000. maximum. I had to look for the figures but they were on the site. If you pick the wrong bank I'd have to bail you out with my tax dollar. I can't see the difference between bailing out a bank or other financial institution and bailing out a large industrial employer so people can keep their job and the government can collect taxes instead of paying benefits to unemployed people with my money.

In the case of the bank I have most of my "savings" (as opposed to investments), they have five or six holding companies each of which pays insurance. So I would get burned if I had say more than 5 x $100,000 in the bank. I don't have even close to that amount in savings. Most of my money is invested. If the companies I invest in go bankrupt, I won't be able to sniffle around hoping for the government to bail me out.

Obviously the government should regulate the banks especially closely. Not because I have money in the bank (I could live without it still very well) but because banks hold a special place in the economic system.

The point about why it is bad to bail out automakers is that they do not produce products that people want! GM, Chrysler, Ford are lameducks which are not going to ever be profitable in their present forms. GM, for example, has 2.5 retirees on their books for every employee. Consider the cost of that for every car they sell. I anticipate the end of pension plans in the private sector over the next decade, if not sooner. Mature companies cannot hope to keep making payments to people who could conceivably be collecting for the next 20+ years. They may as well give all the auto workers a pick and a shovel and have them dig and fill up holes. Would be roughly as useful, and would be environmentally more sound.

[Ben Daswani]

my thread now

Best film I've seen in the past couple of weeks? The very anticipated Synecdoche, New York, which is finally showing in a Vancouver cinema. I give it a 9.75/10.



(Minor spoilers lurk ahead.)

The musings of critic Roger Ebert, who awarded the film four out of four stars:

--------------------------------------------------

I think you have to see Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York" twice. I watched it the first time and knew it was a great film and that I had not mastered it. The second time because I needed to. The third time because I will want to. It will open to confused audiences and live indefinitely. A lot of people these days don't even go to a movie once. There are alternatives. It doesn't have to be the movies, but we must somehow dream. If we don't "go to the movies" in any form, our minds wither and sicken.

This is a film with the richness of great fiction. Like Suttree, the Cormac McCarthy novel I'm always mentioning, it's not that you have to return to understand it. It's that you have to return to realize how fine it really is. The surface may daunt you. The depths enfold you. The whole reveals itself, and then you may return to it like a talisman.

Wow, is that ever not a "money review." Why will people hurry along to what they expect to be trash, when they're afraid of a film they think may be good? The subject of "Synecdoche, New York" is nothing less than human life and how it works. Using a neurotic theater director from upstate New York, it encompasses every life and how it copes and fails. Think about it a little and, my god, it's about you. Whoever you are.

Here is how life is supposed to work. We come out of ourselves and unfold into the world. We try to realize our desires. We fold back into ourselves, and then we die. "Synecdoche, New York" follows a life that ages from about 40 to 80 on that scale. Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a theater director, with all of the hangups and self-pity, all the grandiosity and sniffles, all the arrogance and fear, typical of his job. In other words, he could be me. He could be you. He could be Joe the Plumber. The job, the name, the race, the gender, the environment, all change. The human remains pretty much the same.

Here is how it happens. We find something we want to do, if we are lucky, or something we need to do, if we are like most people. We use it as a way to obtain food, shelter, clothing, mates, comfort, a first folio of Shakespeare, model airplanes, American Girl dolls, a handful of rice, sex, solitude, a trip to Venice, Nikes, drinking water, plastic surgery, child care, dogs, medicine, education, cars, spiritual solace -- whatever we think we need. To do this, we enact the role we call "me," trying to brand ourselves as a person who can and should obtain these things.

In the process, we place the people in our lives into compartments and define how they should behave to our advantage. Because we cannot force them to follow our desires, we deal with projections of them created in our minds. But they will be contrary and have wills of their own. Eventually new projections of us are dealing with new projections of them. Sometimes versions of ourselves disagree. We succumb to temptation -- but, oh, father, what else was I gonna do? I feel like hell. I repent. I'll do it again.

Hold that trajectory in mind and let it interact with age, discouragement, greater wisdom and more uncertainty. You will understand what "Synecdoche, New York" is trying to say about the life of Caden Cotard and the lives in his lives. Charlie Kaufman is one of the few truly important writers to make screenplays his medium. David Mamet is another. That is not the same as a great writer (Faulkner, Pinter, Cocteau) who writes screenplays. Kaufman is writing in the upper reaches with Bergman. Now for the first time he directs.

It is obvious that he has only one subject, the mind, and only one plot, how the mind negotiates with reality, fantasy, hallucination, desire and dreams. "Being John Malkovich." "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." "Adaptation." "Human Nature." "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind." What else are they about? He is working in plain view. In one film, people go inside the head of John Malkovich. In another, a writer has a twin who does what he cannot do. In another, a game show host is, or thinks he is, an international spy. In "Human Nature," a man whose childhood was shaped by domineering parents trains white mice to sit down at a tiny table and always employ the right silverware. Is behavior learned or enforced?

"Synecdoche, New York" is not a film about the theater, although it looks like one. A theater director is an ideal character for representing the role Kaufman thinks we all play. The magnificent sets, which stack independent rooms on top of one another, are the compartments we assign to our life's enterprises. The actors are the people in roles we cast from our point of view. Some of them play doubles assigned to do what there's not world enough and time for. They have a way of acting independently, in violation of instructions. They try to control their own projections. Meanwhile, the source of all this activity grows older and tired, sick and despairing. Is this real or a dream? The world is but a stage, and we are mere actors upon it. It's all a play. The play is real.

This has not been a conventional review. There is no need to name the characters, name the actors, assign adjectives to their acting. Look at who is in this cast. You know what I think of them. This film must not have seemed strange to them. It's what they do all day, especially waiting around for the director to make up his mind.

--------------------------------------------------

And from AVClub.com:

--------------------------------------------------

Without question the most original and distinctive screenwriter of his generation, Charlie Kaufman offered a portal into an effete thespian's head in his breakthrough Being John Malkovich, but it's really the recesses of Kaufman's own conscience that have been explored in films like Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. Now that he plumbs ever-deeper into Meta-ville with his directorial debut, Synecdoche, New York, it would be tempting to peg Kaufman as a narcissist, receding further and further from the world around him. But the charge doesn't stick, partly because he's mercilessly self-deprecating, but mainly because his work is more outward-looking than it appears, touching on themes of love, memory, desire, and, the pleasures and limitations of the creative impulse.

For this master of mindfuckery, Synecdoche, New York probably qualifies as a magnum opus, since it essentially multiplies Adaptation by an exponential factor and thus grows into a snarling, ungainly beast of self-reflexive absurdities. It's a movie that doesn't just benefit from repeat viewings but practically requires them, though Kaufman, for all his brilliance, fails to make the prospect as inviting as it should be. It helps that he finds the best possible on-screen surrogate in Philip Seymour Hoffman, who stars as a temperamental playwright longing to graduate from community theater into a higher artistic realm. At the same time his marriage to Catherine Keener falls apart, Hoffman receives a MacArthur genius grant and sets about making a play about life—not an aspect of life, but the whole enchilada. (Hence the ironic title: A "synecdoche" is when a word for part of something is meant to represent the whole.)

Such a project is impossible, of course, but Hoffman keeps expanding the set from warehouse to warehouse, adding more scenes and plotlines and doppelgangers until his play is the equivalent of dropping a Mogwai into a swimming pool. Scenes from his dissolved marriage and anxieties about his absent daughter are mixed up with bits from his current romantic adventures, to the point where he and flirty box-office attendant Samantha Morton both have doubles (Tom Noonan and Emily Watson) that follow them around. Kaufman allows the bafflements to pile up in a matter-of-fact way that recalls Luis Buñuel, and he comes to both endlessly witty and surprisingly poignant conclusions about how writers use their lives as grist for creative ventures. It can be an exhausting experience—and one that calls into question where Kaufman could possibly go from here—but as a brain-teaser, one that demands to be puzzled out.

--------------------------------------------------

A couple screens from this piece of brilliance:





And the film poster:



GO EXPERIENCE THIS FILM IMMEDIATELY.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: my thread now

Ben, you're the only person I know who is so boring that you make John Denver music sound exciting. After reading your post, which could bore a new a-hole in a minister while he sings Amazing Grace, I can see you have not benefited from hours of listening to John Denver music.

Possibly if you switch from Annie's Song to Rocky Mountain High for a few hours your perspective might change.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

I think Harper has good reason to think his tally will go up, not down. Even though he may not have a plan for the economy, I think it is safe to say that the majority of Canadians are not happy with constant elections. Anyone who creates the conditions for the next election had better have an extremely good reason for doing so. I don't consider bailing out loser industries which produce products that people will not buy to be a good reason.

I recall two precedents. John Diefenbaker called a quick election claiming the opposition would not allow him to govern and won a majority. Joe Clark was defeated by the Liberals after only 9 months and lost to Trudeau. In both cases the election was decided on issues and the fact they had to trek back to the polls had no bearing, as I recall. Those are the only two I remember.

I think most people understand that the problem is a worldwide one, not a Canadian one. Whether Liberals, Conservatives, or whomever is in power will not change the world economy.

We were specifically told during the election our economy was in good shape. Now they are telling us there are problems. Either they didn't tell us the truth or they didn't understand there was a problem.

Yes, but unlike you I have the right to complain. I voted. ;-)

I pay my taxes. That gives me the right to complain. Not voting is simply not allowing myself to be manipulated.

I worry about the aging population because they don't bother to invest. They expect the Ponzi Scheme that is CPP to continue indefinitely. I personally think that the younger people will tell the oldsters to get off their collective keysters and re-enter the workforce. When Otto Von Bismarck instituted the first old-age pension over 100 years ago, the average person lived to what? 65-70? Now it is 85. You cannot have people dining at the trough for decades while other people pay their tab.

I think mostly you hear about those who don't bother to invest. I didn't know the average age is now 85. The figures I saw as of 2005 were 78 for males and 82.7 for females born in 2005.

In 2005 Canadians lived to a mean age of 74.2 which is lower than you state.

Regarding the CPP, it's not the fault of the oldsters the government is losing billions of dollars in the financial markets with the invstments they made. They should have invested more wisely, wouldn't you think?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ath-stats.html

Of course your portfolio would meet the banker's idea of a saver. You don't really think we just opened a saving account paying 3% or whatever to get the tax-free status do you? Even your portfolio could serve as a TFSA. As for bank failures, obviously if there were no insurance, then you would get higher rates. ING, for example, has higher rates for uninsured deposits. The banks pay the insurance, not the taxpayer.

This year a lot of people would be happy to settle for a 3% return. I think the annual limit on the TFSA is relatively small.

If the companies I invest in go bankrupt, I won't be able to sniffle around hoping for the government to bail me out.

That's quite true. You really have to do your homework. Of course, you get a capital loss so in a way the taxpayer is paying some of your loses.

The point about why it is bad to bail out automakers is that they do not produce products that people want! GM, Chrysler, Ford are lameducks which are not going to ever be profitable in their present forms. GM, for example, has 2.5 retirees on their books for every employee. Consider the cost of that for every car they sell. I anticipate the end of pension plans in the private sector over the next decade, if not sooner. Mature companies cannot hope to keep making payments to people who could conceivably be collecting for the next 20+ years. They may as well give all the auto workers a pick and a shovel and have them dig and fill up holes. Would be roughly as useful, and would be environmentally more sound.

You may well be correct in what you say. However, the auto jobs and the spinoff jobs they create are of such an importance to the economy I don't think we can let them go. The amount of Nat Gas they use is large enough the impact would be felt in Western Canada. That's only one example of how the economy is intertwined.

I was listening to a large Nat. Gas user conference call replay a couple of weeks ago. The company owns Rogers Sugar in Western Canada and Lantic Sugar in Eastern Canada. At todays prices they are buying their future nat. gas contracts in varing degrees of the amount they will use right up to 2013, I think he said it was. I like a good sugar company. Solid and steady distribution to the unit holders.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

We were specifically told during the election our economy was in good shape. Now they are telling us there are problems. Either they didn't tell us the truth or they didn't understand there was a problem.

I'm in no position to defend the Conservative government. I didn't vote for them, though it didn't matter in my riding as their candidate won by a landslide. However, I think it is pretty clear that whether the PM is Conservative or Liberal or whomever, it won't matter. The problem isn't a Canadian problem. The problem is a world economy problem. Worse than that, it is a problem that has no pleasant solution. The problem is that we are rapidly reaching a tipping point where population and consumption have nowhere to go but ... down.

I think mostly you hear about those who don't bother to invest. I didn't know the average age is now 85. The figures I saw as of 2005 were 78 for males and 82.7 for females born in 2005.

In 2005 Canadians lived to a mean age of 74.2 which is lower than you state.

My apologies. I stand corrected. People get "only" 10-12 years' worth of a free ride - at the moment. However, as the site you reference points out, that number is on the rise. So let's say in 10 years or so, when the "average" Baby Boomer hits retirement age, it will be certainly higher. Also, the country is aging as the Baby Boomers are now just meeting retirement age. How are the young workers going to make enough money to sustain all of these people getting CPP? I think they won't.

Regarding the CPP, it's not the fault of the oldsters the government is losing billions of dollars in the financial markets with the invstments they made. They should have invested more wisely, wouldn't you think?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ath-stats.html

They shouldn't have invested at all. It is why government should not be in charge of funding people's retirement. People should fund their own retirement. If, after working for 40 years, a person doesn't have enough money to retire, then I guess they should either have saved more during their working life (either by working more or spending less), or continue to work until they have enough.
I think the introduction of the TFSA is the government's way of letting us know that citizens are going to be forced to do a lot of their own retirement planning, and to not expect much from the government.

This year a lot of people would be happy to settle for a 3% return. I think the annual limit on the TFSA is relatively small.

I wish it were 100 times larger than it is, but at the moment it is $5000 per person per year.

Here is more information about TFSAs:

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/pamphle...liant2-eng.asp

Consider that if you invest $5000 in Company X and it hits a five-bagger over 20 years, then that $30000 ($5000 initial investment plus $25000 in profit) is ALL tax-free. The government doesn't get their hands on the money that you risked.

You may well be correct in what you say. However, the auto jobs and the spinoff jobs they create are of such an importance to the economy I don't think we can let them go. The amount of Nat Gas they use is large enough the impact would be felt in Western Canada. That's only one example of how the economy is intertwined.

I was listening to a large Nat. Gas user conference call replay a couple of weeks ago. The company owns Rogers Sugar in Western Canada and Lantic Sugar in Eastern Canada. At todays prices they are buying their future nat. gas contracts in varing degrees of the amount they will use right up to 2013, I think he said it was. I like a good sugar company. Solid and steady distribution to the unit holders.

If government would let the dying companies just die, then those useless enterprises would be washed out of our system. Yes, people would lose their jobs. No job is guaranteed for life. The individual ought to prepare themselves for this possibility rather than buying a bunch of useless crap. Saving for retirement isn't the only reason to save, eh?

If I understand you correctly, you want companies to continue to make cars that people won't buy because their jobs are important. (?) Madness, that way lays.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

I'm in no position to defend the Conservative government. I didn't vote for them, though it didn't matter in my riding as their candidate won by a landslide. However, I think it is pretty clear that whether the PM is Conservative or Liberal or whomever, it won't matter. The problem isn't a Canadian problem. The problem is a world economy problem. Worse than that, it is a problem that has no pleasant solution. The problem is that we are rapidly reaching a tipping point where population and consumption have nowhere to go but ... down.

I live in one of those kind of ridings as well. The last Conservative who won was during the Mulroney years. The cause of the problem isn't Canadian but the fallout is being felt here. The document the government presented was inadequate to meet the needs of the nations. In any case, it appears the government will fall on the document. A precedent for what happens is here in Ontario where such an agreement was struck between the opposition and the Conservative stepped aside for the inevitable. It ended decades of conservative rule here in Ontario. Bob Rae made David Peterson the premier of Ontario. I think I've predicted in an earlier posting that I expected such and agreement and defeat of Harpers government that we are now seeing. The GG will have a big decision to make. If she calls another election after only 2 months history will not treat her kindly. In addition, Harper has now had 3 elections. The first one he lost and the other two brought him only a minority government. There is no indication he could improve on this at this time. This time I will be voting and it will be Liberal. Will you change your vote to Conservative?

My apologies. I stand corrected. People get "only" 10-12 years' worth of a free ride - at the moment. However, as the site you reference points out, that number is on the rise. So let's say in 10 years or so, when the "average" Baby Boomer hits retirement age, it will be certainly higher. Also, the country is aging as the Baby Boomers are now just meeting retirement age. How are the young workers going to make enough money to sustain all of these people getting CPP? I think they won't.

The age for those who died in 2005 were actual figures. The years those born in 2005 will live is a projection. It hasn't happened yet. The Harper government told us the CPP is actuarily sound only a short while ago. The CPP issued the following news release in June, 2008.

http://www.cppib.ca/News_Room/News_R..._06020801.html

They shouldn't have invested at all. It is why government should not be in charge of funding people's retirement. People should fund their own retirement. If, after working for 40 years, a person doesn't have enough money to retire, then I guess they should either have saved more during their working life (either by working more or spending less), or continue to work until they have enough.

I think you have to look at how some pension plans work. The employer deducts a certain percentage for the company pension plan and an amount of the CPP. With the defined benefit plan it works out to a percentage of a workers wage at retirement on a defined benefit play. (Not to be confused with a defined contribution plan in which the employee decides the investments.) After the 40 years the employee retires and gets the defined amount.

Now if the CPP didn't exist, the company would deduct the entire percentage (companys and what the government currently takes) and the employee would get the same at retirement as what he now receives as a total from both sources. In case you're interested, I paid into the CPP from it's inception and think I've paid for my CPP benefits. I had my private health insurance taken away from me when they brough in public health care and feel the government health care, which they promised me for life, is an entitlement. Here in Ontario, we pay annual premiums for our health care (OHIP) and I also pay that without complaining. At the time they promised us government health care for life.

Consider that if you invest $5000 in Company X and it hits a five-bagger over 20 years, then that $30000 ($5000 initial investment plus $25000 in profit) is ALL tax-free. The government doesn't get their hands on the money that you risked.

I'm too old to plan for 20 years in the future. For me it's in the "green banana" category. It looks OK for younger people but I think I'll just pay the tax.

If government would let the dying companies just die, then those useless enterprises would be washed out of our system. Yes, people would lose their jobs. No job is guaranteed for life. The individual ought to prepare themselves for this possibility rather than buying a bunch of useless crap. Saving for retirement isn't the only reason to save, eh?

If I understand you correctly, you want companies to continue to make cars that people won't buy because their jobs are important. (?) Madness, that way lays.

I think it's a little worse than that. Obama will likely throw them a life line and the companies won't go out of business but the jobs will leave Canada as part of the agreement. The parts makers will also leave and go where the automakers are.

I buy cars from the big three. I like them as well. I switched manufacturers 20 or more years ago over a maintainance issue. Reliability and quality of repairs made are more important to me than the cost of the fuel.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Welcome To The Depression...

Unusual events in unusual times.

It would appear PM Harper won a term as Prime Minister in a minority situation. It would also appear he didn't win it for a long time. Hopefully he has had a good time.

The opposition did not like the economic update which Harper's government presented. It appears the government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. A coalition has been formed to form a government and it is expected Harper will be defeated.

Of course, you all know that.

In my view, Harper's government has been treating the opposition poorly. Kind of reminds me of the school yard bully. Deep down, who minds seeing the school yard bully get his just due?

Of course, the opposition is being bad mouthed by the Conservatives. Something about a Coup. I think it's a bunch of nonsense. The reason the other parties are called the opposition is because it is their job to oppose. Now they have put together a coalition which will have enough support to govern. The Conservatives had a minority and that means they have to work with others to pass legislation. They simply controlled the largest number of the votes of any one party in the House of Commons. Now the others have formed a coalition which controls the majority of the seats.

It looks like Harper could lose power before Obama replaces Bush in the U.S. Who would have thought it? The only thing remaining for our lame duck Conservative government is to try to stall. The problem with stalling is by the time the Cons write a budget the coalition will have also written a budget which they will present after they defeat the govenment on that issue.

An election would appear to pose another problem which has a solution. The Libs and NDP could agree not to run a candidate in the others riding or a Bloc riding. In the Conservative ridings they could agree to run a candidate from only the party which came the closest to defeating the conservative incumbent.

It's hard to know how our economy would progress under political uncertainty if parliament is closed down for a month without this issue being decided.

DISCLAIMER: None of what I write should be used for investment decisions. I write this stuff for entertainment. Consult a financial adviser.