Slashdot Mirror

You have faith in the axioms was the argument I was making. Apparently, you actually claim to base your belief in the axioms to have evaluated econometric results, so it is a pragmatic position. Or alternatively, perhaps you claim a science based result. I am not sure which to respond to. But are you aware that a finite axiom set of a minimal complexity cannot yield the truth? So I am attacking your reliance on axioms instead of attacking pragmatism or economics as science. I am happy to attack any of the three.

Sometimes I like to run slugs entitled Wall Street Blotter on who is being indicted today. Of course, Enron was the moral equivalent of a serial killer. We agree! But let us suppose I buy up all the future contracts on a commodity and then squeeze. Where do you classify that in terms of a True Price?

Actually, the Israeli threat was yesterday. Or actually, April 30, 2004. Here is what I have on it. Unfortunately, your cite and my cite should be seen as complementary.

Your tariff argument I think I now understand. Its difficulty is that it embeds the free trade axioms by arguing the result under pertrubution would be symmetrical. You do not really believe that, do you? I guess some people do. I used to go to beer with a guy who would make arguments like that. It was a real struggle to get him to buy off on simple exceptions for the general welfare, and then he would backslide a month later.

The IMF was constituted as part of the Bretton Woods package. It had a charter I can approve of. So does the World Bank. In practice, since I have been paying attention, their policy has been to collect debt at any cost to the population. I am not happy with Kerry, almost all indications are that he is planning to be a towel boy for the financial capitalists. But he did say, when pressed on the Argentina situation, that people come before debt. I think the IMF has it the other way. Actually, probably it is speculation before production. I am thinking about the fuss made about Malaysia successful imposition of capital controls.

So what you going to be doing with yourself when all the speculative bubbles burst at once. Might be happening right now. Maybe the Dutch had a better deal because maybe tulips are eatable. (troll)

I like your reply since it was to the point.

Now with respect to the apology for speculation. I think oil is nicely immeadiate. Suppose the say Saudi's ship a barrel of oil. Before it lands in the U.S., say, it has changed hands 150 times. Each exchange demands some profit. Notice that only your smoothness of price is supposedly added. There is no other value-added. The cost, attributed to hedge funds, is $10 a barrel. Oil was $38/barrel when I looked today. So about a fourth of the cost is siphoned out by the hedge funds as a premium and then I claim used to support more speculation in oil and other areas. On the other hand, it would be quite feasible to set the price of oil in the neighborhood of $25/barrel by intergovernment agreements and cut out the speculators and make the price more stable than it is now, which is not very stable. Of course, the speculative gamblers control both Bush and Kerry, so this is not happening soon, assuming normalacy.

Your defense of speculation is pretty standard, but the reality is casino economics and a herd instinct. In oil, the herd went long and made money so they are going long again and their aggregate behavior pushes up prices just in itself. Here is the German Chancellor on the subject yesterday. I have this handy because it is on my website.

On size of speculative flows, again looking at oil, and again doing a google on my website, this is just filled with numbers. Unfortunately, these sort of figures are not confined to oil. Somewhere I have the memory that world speculative flows are in the neighborhood of $200 trillion and world gnp is in the neighborhood of $10 trillion.

On Hawley-Smoot, this is just another one of Hoover's disasters. Give him a few more years and he and his controllers would have been dining with Hitler. Hoover hated FDR's policies, which policies did get us out of the depression, so much that Hoover stripped the White House and refused to cooperate in making a transition, so that when FDR took office, the office did not have a pencil in it. I said protectionism was part of the answer. With regard to protectionism itself, it needs a certain context of bilateral agreements for the general good.

The other major thing we need is $10 trillion in infrastructure development, which topic is saved for another day.

I like your reply since it was to the point.

Now with respect to the apology for speculation. I think oil is nicely immeadiate. Suppose the say Saudi's ship a barrel of oil. Before it lands in the U.S., say, it has changed hands 150 times. Each exchange demands some profit. Notice that only your smoothness of price is supposedly added. There is no other value-added. The cost, attributed to hedge funds, is $10 a barrel. Oil was $38/barrel when I looked today. So about a fourth of the cost is siphoned out by the hedge funds as a premium and then I claim used to support more speculation in oil and other areas. On the other hand, it would be quite feasible to set the price of oil in the neighborhood of $25/barrel by intergovernment agreements and cut out the speculators and make the price more stable than it is now, which is not very stable. Of course, the speculative gamblers control both Bush and Kerry, so this is not happening soon, assuming normalacy.

Your defense of speculation is pretty standard, but the reality is casino economics and a herd instinct. In oil, the herd went long and made money so they are going long again and their aggregate behavior pushes up prices just in itself. Here is the German Chancellor on the subject yesterday. I have this handy because it is on my website.

On size of speculative flows, again looking at oil, and again doing a google on my website, this is just filled with numbers. Unfortunately, these sort of figures are not confined to oil. Somewhere I have the memory that world speculative flows are in the neighborhood of $200 trillion and world gnp is in the neighborhood of $10 trillion.

On Hawley-Smoot, this is just another one of Hoover's disasters. Give him a few more years and he and his controllers would have been dining with Hitler. Hoover hated FDR's policies, which policies did get us out of the depression, so much that Hoover stripped the White House and refused to cooperate in making a transition, so that when FDR took office, the office did not have a pencil in it. I said protectionism was part of the answer. With regard to protectionism itself, it needs a certain context of bilateral agreements for the general good.

The other major thing we need is $10 trillion in infrastructure development, which topic is saved for another day.

I like your reply since it was to the point.

Now with respect to the apology for speculation. I think oil is nicely immeadiate. Suppose the say Saudi's ship a barrel of oil. Before it lands in the U.S., say, it has changed hands 150 times. Each exchange demands some profit. Notice that only your smoothness of price is supposedly added. There is no other value-added. The cost, attributed to hedge funds, is $10 a barrel. Oil was $38/barrel when I looked today. So about a fourth of the cost is siphoned out by the hedge funds as a premium and then I claim used to support more speculation in oil and other areas. On the other hand, it would be quite feasible to set the price of oil in the neighborhood of $25/barrel by intergovernment agreements and cut out the speculators and make the price more stable than it is now, which is not very stable. Of course, the speculative gamblers control both Bush and Kerry, so this is not happening soon, assuming normalacy.

Your defense of speculation is pretty standard, but the reality is casino economics and a herd instinct. In oil, the herd went long and made money so they are going long again and their aggregate behavior pushes up prices just in itself. Here is the German Chancellor on the subject yesterday. I have this handy because it is on my website.

On size of speculative flows, again looking at oil, and again doing a google on my website, this is just filled with numbers. Unfortunately, these sort of figures are not confined to oil. Somewhere I have the memory that world speculative flows are in the neighborhood of $200 trillion and world gnp is in the neighborhood of $10 trillion.

On Hawley-Smoot, this is just another one of Hoover's disasters. Give him a few more years and he and his controllers would have been dining with Hitler. Hoover hated FDR's policies, which policies did get us out of the depression, so much that Hoover stripped the White House and refused to cooperate in making a transition, so that when FDR took office, the office did not have a pencil in it. I said protectionism was part of the answer. With regard to protectionism itself, it needs a certain context of bilateral agreements for the general good.

The other major thing we need is $10 trillion in infrastructure development, which topic is saved for another day.

But maybe I do not know enough. Certainly, the fundies are a strategic threat to the United States, and a realized strategic threat at that. For instance, consider General Boykin. The lead article on my web site today, Memorial Day, has some new dirt on this fundie crusader. Now we can place him at the center of Iraq torture authorizations, which has caused perhaps the U.S.'s biggest foreign debacle in recent memory, and has been and will be highly damaging to the United States. But the torture authorizations came from higher up. Still, when Boykin spewed filthy nonsense in 2002 about the Arabs being Satan, he was protected and promoted. So perhaps the fundie networks you describe are involved in protecting Boykin. This would not surprise me. I just cannot directly reach fascist mass movement.

Problems with the supreme court are a little more fundamental. You might note that the Nazis had a rule of law. Some of the laws they kept secret, because they were so bad that even the "good" German would be outraged. We are so degenerate that we make equivalent laws public, and few protest. But it was a rule of law. Their law theory came largely from a guy named Carl Schmitt who later went to the United State and was moderately influencial. Some like Rinquist use arguments identical to Schmitt.

When you hear about some case that was decided on a "positive law" theory, you are hearing about something that is indistinguishable from Schmitt theories.

Put another way, there was a fascist architecture and there was fascist music, hmm, see my web site and look at the Wagner article someone submitted. And there was fascist law, justified by a fascist theory of law, and that theory now pretty well dominates the US Supreme Court. And that fits, because the laws we are getting are in prominent occasions fascist laws. You are probably thinking I am thinking about the Patriot act, but what I have most clearly in mind is a civil service reform recently done at the federal level.

The US is "administratively" fascist. What we are missing is a fascist mass movement. And it might be a left movement or a right movement. Then thing will really pop. The dynamics look like this: institutions continue to collapse, economic shocks dominate, people look for solutions and so new institutions come into existence. If there is not a vigorous positive alternative institution coming into being, then the fascist mass movement will take off instead. Do a reality check when oil hits seventy dollars a barrel.

809adam.com Arch-ware.com Banapana.com Chemslash.com Cluster-rant.com Deadpenisbird.com Fat-chicks-r.us Fircrestwa.com Gamerzion.com Geekizoid.com Geekizoid.net Geekizoid.org Gnubians.org Gridguru.com Guppylog.com Hpc-design.com Ingenuitas.org Kinosis.com Kistneratlaw.com Lrsehosting.net Lrsehosting.biz Lrsehosting.com Lrsehosting.org Pdkmarketing.com Phishblog.com Politechnews.com Powervacuum.org Rawdeal.org Rockervillegold.com Scoopnet.org Slovenian-mission.org Spacesci.org Sporks-r-us.com Theblundellfamily.com Theleatherhood.com Thelitmuspapertest.com