Rants Go Here!

Now and then we all have a need to get something off our chests - or just piss and moan.

So here's a sticky topic for all those times.

If no one minds, I will lead off.

I watched a program last night about the drug trade. At one point, it was mentioned that seventy percent of the US population lives "within one day's drive of Chicago."

I fucking hate it when data are presented in such a manner. How many miles are they talking about? Do they even know? Is the driver in a 60 mph Yugo or a 280 mph  Koenigsegg One:1? Do the drivers drive for twelves hours? Eight hours? Twenty-four hours? Are they accounting for shitty roads?

"Enough to fill an Olympic size swimming pool."
I've heard that one many times and I still don't know how many gallons an Olympic size pool holds, nor am I interested in finding out.

"As big as a football stadium."
Again, meaningless. Not all stadiums are close to the same size. Which stadium are they talking about, specifically? And why can't they just say how many cubic feet or yards or meters they mean?

"An area equal to the state of Delaware."
Quick, just off the top of your head, how many square miles in Delaware?

And it goes on. Inaccurate, nearly-meaningless data presented in non-fiction programs which, one assumes, are intended to convey accurate information.

The vast majority of people have trouble visualizing a billion dollars, or a million gallons, or a million years. Such "back of the envelope" approximations as you mention are intended to get viewers into the right order of magnitude -- not an exact measure, but a household example that people can visualize.

Nobody knows the exact contents of an Olympic-size pool or a football stadium, but they can visualize them. Saying it is "660,000 gallons of sewage spill" would mean nothing to most viewers.

By the way, there are no roads in America where you can drive in one direction at 280 mph for a full day.

_Howard wrote:

"Enough to fill an Olympic size swimming pool."

Excellent idea, a rant thread! It boggles the mind why we haven't thought of that before, we do an awful lot of it, lol.

Olympic pools like olympic sized bars are an exact size. When I walk into a gym and the person tells me "we have Olympic sized bars" I know the bars are precisely 45 pounds, not the smaller ones that run anywhere from 25 to 45 pounds. Olympic pools are precisely 50 by 25 meters. This is because competition goes either long course (the 50 meters) or short course (25 meters). The only variable is depth and water temperature. Can't swim hard in hot water though, so even temp has a prescribed range. All the markings are equally precise, the lanes are 1.5 meters across with 10 lanes. (But interestingly, there isn't ever a lane 10, they are numbered 0 to 9.)

So right now my rant would about how I have to interact on school "threads" and nobody can even get their grammar together. It is soooo hard to say anything close to nice or positive especially as they specifically say not to do "yeah, what you said" kind of posts. They want actual content. It's worse than trying to have a conversation with a bunch of drunken lemurs.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The vast majority of people have trouble visualizing a billion dollars, or a million gallons, or a million years...Saying it is "660,000 gallons of sewage spill" would mean nothing to most viewers.

And I say, "Fuck most viewers." If the program is intended to present information, it should do so accurately, and care not about those who cannot comprehend reality.

NoCoPilot wrote:

By the way, there are no roads in America where you can drive in one direction at 280 mph for a full day.

No shit, Sherlock. That would also be approximately twice the width of the continent.

Jenni wrote:

The only variable is depth and water temperature.

Exactly. The comparison would be meaningless, because with varying depth, the volume of the pool is undefined.

Actually, no. An Olympic competition pool does not have a diving board. They're all 3m deep and 660,000 gallons.

The "Olympic-sized" term is often used for meter pools (as opposed to yard pools), with or without ten lanes (often six) and sometimes even misapplied to 25m pools.

NoCoPilot wrote:

They're all 3m deep and 660,000 gallons.

Not according to about a dozen articles I just read. There is a minimum depth specified (and it can vary slightly), but no other requirement for any specific depth.
.

Wikipedia: Final Authority On Everything.

What is your point?

No point, as always. I'm not stubborn -- my way is just better.

Wikipedia wrote:

Depth:
Swimming Pools for Olympic Games and World Championships: minimum 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in); recommended 3.0 m (9 ft 10 in)

Only minimum depth requirement is specified.

New rant : I HATE having to be in the stock market.  My retirement is mostly in municipal bonds, not the stock market because I firmly believe the market will crash again in 2016 in an event that'll make 2008 look small by comparison.

But still, I can't get away from public investments.  Even bonds are at risk in a general collapse.  If I put my retirement money in a bank I'd get no returns.  In fact I wouldn't even be FDIC insured. I could keep it under a mattress but we'd probably get broken into again.

Last week we went to a seminar put on by a financial planning corporation, they made a big deal about their strategies for dealing with "volatile markets."  How did they do in 2008?  Their funds lost 25% of their value.  That may not be as bad as most, but I'd rather not lose anything thank you.

I asked the missus if we should buy an apartment building or something.   She said, no, you wouldn't want the hassle & responsibility (she's right).

Having accumulated enough to retire on, I'm now required by circumstance to hand it over to gamblers known as Wall Street hedge fund managers who have entirely different agendas than mine.

I told the wife:  you know what'll still have value after the economy collapses?

No, she said.

Guns, say I.  We should take all our money and buy assault weapons up the gumpstump.

They don't have FDIC insurance in Seattle?

I'm fairly well informed about how FDIC insurance works. You said , "If I put my retirement money in a bank I'd get no returns. In fact I wouldn't even be FDIC insured." Why would you not be covered by FDIC insurance?

$250k limit per institution, and all bets are off in a general collapse (ask the victims of Washington Mutual).

Chase bought Washington Mutual and all deposits were transferred to Chase. No one lost any money in FDIC accounts. I don't believe there were any losses in non-FDIC-covered accounts, either, although that's a possibility; I just haven't read of any.

There's a $250K limit for individuals; joint accounts are $500K max. You can have savings, checking and CD accounts covered to the maximum, and also have an IRA which has additional coverage of the same amounts. You can create trust accounts or POD accounts, which covers each beneficiary to $250K.

And, of course, you can do as I have and open accounts in various banks and credit unions. They are all covered to the maximum. Note that the accounts must be in different banks - they can't be in different branches of the same bank.

Yes, you can spread your accounts around. You still get zero dividends.

Don't I know it. But you still get FDIC insurance, and I believe that's very important now. More important that a couple of percent interest.

_Howard wrote:

Chase bought Washington Mutual and all deposits were transferred to Chase. No one lost any money in FDIC accounts. I don't believe there were any losses in non-FDIC-covered  accounts, either, although that's a possibility; I just haven't read of any.

Depends on what you considered a "non-FDIC-covered account." Shareholders, people who held stock in the company, were completely shut out of the bailout. My dad lost a substantial chunk of money. Many local pensions and funds were totally bankrupted.

Not "deposits" per se I know, but losses in the billions.

Your comment: "$250k limit per institution, and all bets are off in a general collapse (ask the victims of Washington Mutual)." seemed to be suggesting that depositors lost money.

I'm sorry your dad lost stock value when the bank failed. My wife also lost a significant amount when the market crashed, primarily in financial stocks.

But none of that has to do with FDIC insurance or depositors losing money.

Depositors are losing money today, and for the foreseeable futures because the banks no longer pay interest on deposits. I tried once to calculate how much that has cost us and the sum got big enough that I quite before finishing.

I erred when I said "ask WaMu victims" - only shareholders got screwed, not depositors.

However, when I said "all bets are off in a general collapse" I was referring to this:
http://www.mybudget360.com/fdic-banking-industry-continued-insolvency-bankruptcy-11-percent-us-banks-financially-troubled-ceo-export-us-middle-class/

FDIC cannot cover even a FRACTION of the FDIC-insured deposits if the shit really hits the fan.

That's very true. In fact, not too many years ago, the FDIC suspended the collection of insurance premiums from banks for some years because they thought there was no chance any of it would ever be needed.

Do not doubt. however, that if it is needed, the FDIC will borrow money from the general fund to cover costs.