98% of all climate studies do not even attempt to address the cause, yet you somehow think otherwise and are pretending instead that 98% of all studies do attempt to address the cause.
We both pulled a figure out of our asses.. but my pull is actually approximately correct.
but what do you do after a big engineering firm blows up and suddenly you are competing with 50,000 professional engineers with years or decades of experience for maybe 5,000 jobs?
Would you rather have "high-functioning" children on the autistic spectrum that grow to become productive members of society, or for these same children to flounder without society meeting their needs early in life.
That depends how much is costs.
You people seem to want to discuss this like we arent making trade-offs in the process, that apparently money is no object when it comes to "special needs." Explain to me that it only costs twice as much per special needs student per year and I'm all for it, as long as we arent classifying large swaths of students as such.
but you frame it as the government showing the audacity to suggest that kids should have their dietary needs met.
Lets be honest about what we are talking about.
The government is NOT mandating that kids have their dietary needs met. Thats a whole different ball game than mandating that schools follow dietary guidelines.
You seem to want to attribute the virtues of the former to the later, while ignoring the problems of the later.
We are #1 in spending per student, but rank 17th in the world in actual achievement.
The system we have in place is horribly broken and needs to be gutted from the top. Lets get that down to 17th in the world in spending and then figure out what to do from there.
Barney Frank blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie in 2003, stating "I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and will withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were a problem the federal government doesnt bail them out." - Citation
Barney Frank then blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie again in 2005, stating "Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble" - Citation
While he didnt singlehandedly create the problem, combined with other democrats he made sure that nothing was done it.
The fact that the Treasury holds the printing presses in no way makes your make believe world a reality. The treasury may only print notes at the request of the central banks, and the treasury must then hand the notes over to the central banks in exchange for $0.04 per note (the cost of printing a note of any size at this time.)
When you learned that your starting premises were wrong, you went down the road of make believe and wild stretching. Its your move again.
The powers of congress to mint coin still exists.. however you seem to be unaware that we now trade on Federal Reserve Notes, aka The U.S. Dollar, which the federal government does not have the power to print.
Because it really is getting printed, and whoever is doing the printing can always do more.
"Whoever is doing it" are the central banks, and they are not an arm of the federal government. Your argument requires that the FDIC backers (the federal government, the executive branch to be precise) can order the printing of money for the purpose of paying off depositors. The problem with your argument, as you have been told, is that the central banks are not a part of the federal government.. and thats by design.
Your starting premises are wrong, but you refuse to re-evaluate your conclusion and instead argue that the premise still holds true when we ignore reality. It is also informative that you spread your opinion so easily while being so misinformed about even the basics of the subject.
So your claim then is that the amount in circulation is unchanging, or that the federal government has no influence over the amount in circulation? And you also claim that it's impossible for congress to pass an amendment ordering the treasury department to literally print money in the event of a banking emergency?
Once you have decided that the rules will change or dont matter, you can make all sorts of silly bullshit claims. The fact remains that our federal government is not in control of the money supply.
I understand that you didnt know this, and I understand that the error that your ignorance generated is embarrassing to you. Instead of venturing into the land of make believe in order to continue to justify hastily made conclusions based on wrong information, you should instead re-evaluate your conclusion.
The federal government, in the case of America, cannot print money. It can borrow money, even from those with the power to print it, but it cannot print money itself nor can it order the printing of money. Period.
Come back when you know whats actually going on in the world.
This is not true. How many millions of American households live on less than $5,000/year? How many on less than $10,000/year?
Fewer today than 50 years ago, and thats adjusting for inflation.
You don't know? It's b/c you haven't bothered to find out
I just didnt bother dwelling on meaningless metrics such as "$5000/year" and instead focused on meaningful ones such as, you know, the goal of a higher standard of living for our people (something that apparently you only pretend to think is important.)
We the rational American observe that our standard of living is near the theoretical maximum value, that is has continually grown, and that its 4th in the world. We don't dwell on petty jealousy statistics that mean nothing.
The idea is that while people are better off in the US then they are in the third world, that in no way justifies the fact that in the past 20 years there has been a 30% increase in GDP per Capita, but only 1% increase in Median household income
,br>
So its Wealth as defined by absolute dollars instead of standard of living... hello meaningless metric. Did you even read what I posted?
Nobody said anything about 8-bit audio, and of course you can decode MP3's on an 8-bit turing-complete machine.
Furthermore, since we are going to be talking about irrelevant crap because of the Hatta's in this world, most DAC's in digital audio players are only 1-bit.
They are holding onto a large amount of the stock while simultaneously trying to undermine the leadership which made it blossom, and all-the-while their claim is not that new leadership would increase the value of the stock but instead that the current leadership is distasteful to their ideology.
You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
And even disregarding the sorry state of the US government budget, the wealth discrepancy in the US appears to have been growing consistently for over half a century which shows that if there are too much entitlements, they don't appear to be going to the poor.
"Wealth discrepancy" isnt a bad thing by itself. Americans that are considered "poor" are mainly only "poor" by American standards, which is a ridiculous standard to be using when trying to formulate how "fair" things are. Our "poor" are way ahead of the majority of the people on the planet in terms of general welfare and other meaningful metrics. Our "poor" have gotten wealthy but either don't know it or wont admit it.
Just being here, even as an illegal alien subject to expulsion, is so attractive that tens of millions of people have snuck across the borders into the country. The idea that we have somehow "not done enough" is clearly fallacious. No other country in the world has as big a problem with illegal immigration as we do, because we've all, "rich" and "poor", got it damn good.
Really? The government failing to crack down on malfeasance is a market distortion caused by government influences?
The government influence was on Fannie and Freddie to give out lots of bad home loans, which greatly distorts the entire housing market. Homes go up in value because of increased demand. Higher prices increases the number of people that cant actually afford to buy a home. Banks then find that their lending services are in reduced demand because they aren't Fannie and Freddie, causing unnaturally risky lending practices.
Seriously? You seriously believe that millions of people bought houses that they knew they would not be able to pay for? That millions of people went into it knowing they would be foreclosed? You really believe that such a large number of people -- in fact, a very large percentage of the people who bought between 2004 and 2007 -- would buy a house, fully understanding that it would get foreclosed?
You dont seem to know the difference between the set of people that couldn't afford their loans and the set of people that later decided not to honor their loans.
When housing prices crashed because of all the defaulting from the first set, a far greater number of people that could still afford their loans began walking away from them because they were suddenly upside down. Average house prices have fallen 30% since the bubble burst. If you owe more than the home is worth, walking away is the rational decision to take.
The question is why is someone who claims to be an economist not know what most of the home loan defaults are all about?
As far as your "maximizing GDP growth" = "maximizing income"... perhaps nobody gets it because as stated, its wrong. You need to "maximize income growth".. maximizing income growth is not the same as maximizing income. Please refer to John Kelly for a citation.
Pretending that we arent already somewhere deep into the middle ground between Capitalism and Socialism is equally as stupid.
We've got entitlement programs that are scheduled to cost us $100 Trillion Dollars just for the folks that are currently alive, let alone what adding another generation or two to the list of those Entitled will add to the cost. Thats pretty fucking deep into socialism.
This isnt about Rich vs Poor. This isnt about Left vs Right. This is the fucking baby boomers making promises to themselves that the next 6 generations will have to pay for, and nobody in government has the balls to say "fuck you!" because those baby boomers go out on election day and vote for people that wont touch their entitlements.
The 66% were companies not covered under the CRA, which did not have to give out the loans. The only reason the loans were a good investment was because they could be repackaged into CDOs and sold off, leaving the risk with the last sucker holding the bag, which was not the underwriting firm.
The investment vehicles used were created to offload bad debt in the 80's, but rapidly became frowned upon because everyone who did it went belly-up and it simply didnt look like the government would tolerate it on a large scale..
It was only when the worst Fannie and Freddie loans started being packaged that way in the 90's that the rest of the market then saw an opportunity to also offloaded bad loans in the same way, with the idea that the government was now never going to crack down on the practice of rating worthless paper as AAA and further that paper wasnt so worthless if the government was guaranteeing at least some of it.
So it was indeed a market distortion caused by government influences.
The individuals who could not pay the mortgage lacked the sophistication to tell they couldn't afford it was only part of the problem.
This is bullshit that assumes that people that take loans that they cant afford simply don't know what they are doing. Poor people arent naive. Most of the time they know exactly what they are doing.
This idea that there is a large class of people too stupid to make decisions is fallacious.. in fact the idea that a lot of people need government to help them was the fucking problem to begin with. Families that bring home $35K/year know that they cannot afford a fucking $300,000 home. Don't let some twat trying to lay all the blame on the banks tell you differently.
Those Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act were the Dixiecrats, the same Southern traders in bigotry and ignorance that pollute politics to this day. They became Republicans after the CRA fight.
Brainwashing has also misinformed you that a significant number of CRA-opposition in the Democrat party joined the Republican party. Byrd, Gore (Senior), Fulbright.. the leaders of the Democrat filibuster of the CRA, did not join the Republican party after the CRA was passed, and in fact they never joined the Republican party.
You are speaking from the perspective of revisionists that want you to believe something that isnt true. In the 60's the claims that the Republicans were the racists were laughed at. In the 70's those same claims started to be believed by the younger generations. In the 90's it was "well known." and now post 2000 its taken for granted.
If it was a lie in the 60's then its still a lie today, regardless of how many years the Democrat-dominated system has thumped falsehoods about the 60's into children. You are one of those children.
Only 63% of House Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 80% of House Republicans voted for it. In the Senate things werent much better for the Democrats, as only 69% voted for the Civil Rights Act while 82% of Republicans voted for it.
Did your liberal brainwashing in school forget to tell you that it was the Democrats that tied up the floors for 83 days in a record-setting filibuster attempting to stop the Civil Rights Act?
You think that todays liberals might try to stop the civil rights act? Fuck dude.. it was yesterdays liberals that did try to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
98% of all climate studies do not even attempt to address the cause, yet you somehow think otherwise and are pretending instead that 98% of all studies do attempt to address the cause.
We both pulled a figure out of our asses.. but my pull is actually approximately correct.
but what do you do after a big engineering firm blows up and suddenly you are competing with 50,000 professional engineers with years or decades of experience for maybe 5,000 jobs?
Start an engineering firm.
Would you rather have "high-functioning" children on the autistic spectrum that grow to become productive members of society, or for these same children to flounder without society meeting their needs early in life.
That depends how much is costs.
You people seem to want to discuss this like we arent making trade-offs in the process, that apparently money is no object when it comes to "special needs." Explain to me that it only costs twice as much per special needs student per year and I'm all for it, as long as we arent classifying large swaths of students as such.
but you frame it as the government showing the audacity to suggest that kids should have their dietary needs met.
Lets be honest about what we are talking about.
The government is NOT mandating that kids have their dietary needs met. Thats a whole different ball game than mandating that schools follow dietary guidelines.
You seem to want to attribute the virtues of the former to the later, while ignoring the problems of the later.
We are #1 in spending per student, but rank 17th in the world in actual achievement.
The system we have in place is horribly broken and needs to be gutted from the top. Lets get that down to 17th in the world in spending and then figure out what to do from there.
Barney Frank blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie in 2003, stating "I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and will withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were a problem the federal government doesnt bail them out." - Citation
Barney Frank then blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie again in 2005, stating "Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble" - Citation
While he didnt singlehandedly create the problem, combined with other democrats he made sure that nothing was done it.
A 100-year trip would end with the travelers arriving in a star system already visited by people that left later than they themselves did.
The fact that the Treasury holds the printing presses in no way makes your make believe world a reality. The treasury may only print notes at the request of the central banks, and the treasury must then hand the notes over to the central banks in exchange for $0.04 per note (the cost of printing a note of any size at this time.)
When you learned that your starting premises were wrong, you went down the road of make believe and wild stretching. Its your move again.
The powers of congress to mint coin still exists.. however you seem to be unaware that we now trade on Federal Reserve Notes, aka The U.S. Dollar, which the federal government does not have the power to print.
Because it really is getting printed, and whoever is doing the printing can always do more.
"Whoever is doing it" are the central banks, and they are not an arm of the federal government. Your argument requires that the FDIC backers (the federal government, the executive branch to be precise) can order the printing of money for the purpose of paying off depositors. The problem with your argument, as you have been told, is that the central banks are not a part of the federal government.. and thats by design.
Your starting premises are wrong, but you refuse to re-evaluate your conclusion and instead argue that the premise still holds true when we ignore reality. It is also informative that you spread your opinion so easily while being so misinformed about even the basics of the subject.
So your claim then is that the amount in circulation is unchanging, or that the federal government has no influence over the amount in circulation? And you also claim that it's impossible for congress to pass an amendment ordering the treasury department to literally print money in the event of a banking emergency?
Once you have decided that the rules will change or dont matter, you can make all sorts of silly bullshit claims. The fact remains that our federal government is not in control of the money supply.
I understand that you didnt know this, and I understand that the error that your ignorance generated is embarrassing to you. Instead of venturing into the land of make believe in order to continue to justify hastily made conclusions based on wrong information, you should instead re-evaluate your conclusion.
The federal government, in the case of America, cannot print money. It can borrow money, even from those with the power to print it, but it cannot print money itself nor can it order the printing of money. Period.
Come back when you know whats actually going on in the world.
0B8000h for some video modes, 0A0000h for others.
Is "how to do [it]" obvious? Thats the test, since patents cover 'how.'
This is not true. How many millions of American households live on less than $5,000/year? How many on less than $10,000/year?
Fewer today than 50 years ago, and thats adjusting for inflation.
You don't know? It's b/c you haven't bothered to find out
I just didnt bother dwelling on meaningless metrics such as "$5000/year" and instead focused on meaningful ones such as, you know, the goal of a higher standard of living for our people (something that apparently you only pretend to think is important.)
As measured by HDI:
1980 - 0.810
1990 - 0.857
2000 - 0.893
2010 - 0.902
We the rational American observe that our standard of living is near the theoretical maximum value, that is has continually grown, and that its 4th in the world. We don't dwell on petty jealousy statistics that mean nothing.
The idea is that while people are better off in the US then they are in the third world, that in no way justifies the fact that in the past 20 years there has been a 30% increase in GDP per Capita, but only 1% increase in Median household income
,br> So its Wealth as defined by absolute dollars instead of standard of living... hello meaningless metric. Did you even read what I posted?
Nobody said anything about 8-bit audio, and of course you can decode MP3's on an 8-bit turing-complete machine.
Furthermore, since we are going to be talking about irrelevant crap because of the Hatta's in this world, most DAC's in digital audio players are only 1-bit.
Stop posting.
They are holding onto a large amount of the stock while simultaneously trying to undermine the leadership which made it blossom, and all-the-while their claim is not that new leadership would increase the value of the stock but instead that the current leadership is distasteful to their ideology.
You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
And even disregarding the sorry state of the US government budget, the wealth discrepancy in the US appears to have been growing consistently for over half a century which shows that if there are too much entitlements, they don't appear to be going to the poor.
"Wealth discrepancy" isnt a bad thing by itself. Americans that are considered "poor" are mainly only "poor" by American standards, which is a ridiculous standard to be using when trying to formulate how "fair" things are. Our "poor" are way ahead of the majority of the people on the planet in terms of general welfare and other meaningful metrics. Our "poor" have gotten wealthy but either don't know it or wont admit it.
Just being here, even as an illegal alien subject to expulsion, is so attractive that tens of millions of people have snuck across the borders into the country. The idea that we have somehow "not done enough" is clearly fallacious. No other country in the world has as big a problem with illegal immigration as we do, because we've all, "rich" and "poor", got it damn good.
The trouble with reform is that it must come from both ends: revenue and reduced spending.
This isnt true. There are 3 ways it can come.
a) Increased revenue
b) Reduced spending
c) Both
Why is (c) correct? Why is (a) or (b) incorrect?
Really? The government failing to crack down on malfeasance is a market distortion caused by government influences?
The government influence was on Fannie and Freddie to give out lots of bad home loans, which greatly distorts the entire housing market. Homes go up in value because of increased demand. Higher prices increases the number of people that cant actually afford to buy a home. Banks then find that their lending services are in reduced demand because they aren't Fannie and Freddie, causing unnaturally risky lending practices.
Seriously? You seriously believe that millions of people bought houses that they knew they would not be able to pay for? That millions of people went into it knowing they would be foreclosed? You really believe that such a large number of people -- in fact, a very large percentage of the people who bought between 2004 and 2007 -- would buy a house, fully understanding that it would get foreclosed?
You dont seem to know the difference between the set of people that couldn't afford their loans and the set of people that later decided not to honor their loans.
.. maximizing income growth is not the same as maximizing income. Please refer to John Kelly for a citation.
When housing prices crashed because of all the defaulting from the first set, a far greater number of people that could still afford their loans began walking away from them because they were suddenly upside down. Average house prices have fallen 30% since the bubble burst. If you owe more than the home is worth, walking away is the rational decision to take.
The question is why is someone who claims to be an economist not know what most of the home loan defaults are all about?
As far as your "maximizing GDP growth" = "maximizing income"... perhaps nobody gets it because as stated, its wrong. You need to "maximize income growth"
Pretending that we arent already somewhere deep into the middle ground between Capitalism and Socialism is equally as stupid.
We've got entitlement programs that are scheduled to cost us $100 Trillion Dollars just for the folks that are currently alive, let alone what adding another generation or two to the list of those Entitled will add to the cost. Thats pretty fucking deep into socialism.
This isnt about Rich vs Poor. This isnt about Left vs Right. This is the fucking baby boomers making promises to themselves that the next 6 generations will have to pay for, and nobody in government has the balls to say "fuck you!" because those baby boomers go out on election day and vote for people that wont touch their entitlements.
The 66% were companies not covered under the CRA, which did not have to give out the loans. The only reason the loans were a good investment was because they could be repackaged into CDOs and sold off, leaving the risk with the last sucker holding the bag, which was not the underwriting firm.
The investment vehicles used were created to offload bad debt in the 80's, but rapidly became frowned upon because everyone who did it went belly-up and it simply didnt look like the government would tolerate it on a large scale..
It was only when the worst Fannie and Freddie loans started being packaged that way in the 90's that the rest of the market then saw an opportunity to also offloaded bad loans in the same way, with the idea that the government was now never going to crack down on the practice of rating worthless paper as AAA and further that paper wasnt so worthless if the government was guaranteeing at least some of it.
So it was indeed a market distortion caused by government influences.
The individuals who could not pay the mortgage lacked the sophistication to tell they couldn't afford it was only part of the problem.
This is bullshit that assumes that people that take loans that they cant afford simply don't know what they are doing. Poor people arent naive. Most of the time they know exactly what they are doing.
This idea that there is a large class of people too stupid to make decisions is fallacious.. in fact the idea that a lot of people need government to help them was the fucking problem to begin with. Families that bring home $35K/year know that they cannot afford a fucking $300,000 home. Don't let some twat trying to lay all the blame on the banks tell you differently.
Those Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act were the Dixiecrats, the same Southern traders in bigotry and ignorance that pollute politics to this day. They became Republicans after the CRA fight.
Brainwashing has also misinformed you that a significant number of CRA-opposition in the Democrat party joined the Republican party. Byrd, Gore (Senior), Fulbright.. the leaders of the Democrat filibuster of the CRA, did not join the Republican party after the CRA was passed, and in fact they never joined the Republican party.
You are speaking from the perspective of revisionists that want you to believe something that isnt true. In the 60's the claims that the Republicans were the racists were laughed at. In the 70's those same claims started to be believed by the younger generations. In the 90's it was "well known." and now post 2000 its taken for granted.
If it was a lie in the 60's then its still a lie today, regardless of how many years the Democrat-dominated system has thumped falsehoods about the 60's into children. You are one of those children.
Only 63% of House Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 80% of House Republicans voted for it. In the Senate things werent much better for the Democrats, as only 69% voted for the Civil Rights Act while 82% of Republicans voted for it.
Did your liberal brainwashing in school forget to tell you that it was the Democrats that tied up the floors for 83 days in a record-setting filibuster attempting to stop the Civil Rights Act?
You think that todays liberals might try to stop the civil rights act? Fuck dude.. it was yesterdays liberals that did try to stop it.