That's obviously a different thing. That takes money that would have been spent on other things and instead spends it on replacing the glass. It just moves things around and hence there is no net difference (other than the loss of the windows which is clearly a loss of capital and hence a bad thing).
There's no movement in this case, the government is just creating money out of thin air and handing it out to some volcano monitoring types to buy stuff with. Hence whatever they buy and cause the production of is new and not* just a movement of things around.
* In reality the money is either borrowed and hence needs to be repaid in the future, so we have just moved things around in time (and due to interest at a net loss). Or it's printed in which case inflation destroys the equivalent amount of capital/wealth in the future, so again it's a movement around in time.
Stimulus by definition is burden on future generations.
It is the government spending money it didn't just take out of the economy somewhere else. In other words it must be borrowed or printed, and hence either must be repaid by future generations or devalues people's savings (which at some point are handed down to future generations).
It doesn't matter what the job is. The standard pay one guy to dig a hole and the other guy to fill it is stimulus (since those two guys now have more money to spend).
As I said other things have better multiplier effect and hence would be a better use, but still that spending is *stimulus*.
To pay people's wages? That sounds exactly like stimulus.
To buy equipment? That sounds exactly like stimulus too.
Sure less multiplier effects than say building roads and bridges to connect industries to transport hubs/people, but you can't say it "does nothing to STIMULATE the economy", since clearly it does.
Of course stimulating the economy by borrowing/printing money is retarded anyway, but that's beside the point.
True, though people who play online poker are more likely to know that (and not bother anyway) than people playing some virtual world game.
And is isn't "some $ limit in your account". It's "if you have $10,000 or more total in *all* your offshore acocunts at any point during the year you must report *all* your offshore accounts".
Given the magnitude of exchange rate moves these days it's a joy to keep track of...
If you have more than $10k in foreign accounts and you don't tell them and then they later find out - even if you didn't earn any interest and hence owe no taxes - you are in a world of hurt.
Stupid me, I though the entire reason we want to be productive and spend time earning money and producing things is so that we can have leisure time without starving to death when we aren't doing those things.
But no we should just work in factories 24x7 so we earn money and be add something productive to the world. Not sure who is going to use the things we produce since everyone will be working making them 24x7...
"The fact that many people use something incorrectly does not make it proper usage, or even defensible."
Yes it does. Welcome to language, that thing which is defined by usage.
Just like "a moot point" is correct, even though it literally means the opposite of how it is used. Just like "begs the question" is just fine for "raises the question" even though that isn't what the term of art means.
Selfish would be expecting to live on credit for a decade and never have to pay it back. It's not a matter of "letting" the bubble burst completely. There are only two options:
1. House prices return to normal, the US standard of living declines significantly.
2. House prices are kept artificially high, some of the money printed to do that spills over into the rest of the economy and inflation runs rampant, the US standard of living declines significantly and takes much longer to recover than option 1.
Yes I'd prefer they government didn't unleash inflation and make the problem worse, but I guess that's being selfish.
Of course either way I'll be fine. I have enough savings to survive the big down turn in option 1. Enough of those savings (nowhere near all though) are non-US based and will do OK in the inflation of option 2. Is that selfish too?
The problem is that people consumed based on credit and surprise surprise you can't do that forever. The bust is actually a good thing, the problem was the ridiculous "live on credit" crap.
Most mortgages in the US are nive to the borrower in that they can walk away and the lender is stuck with the loss. Since the lenders were insane for lending in the first place they deserve it anyway so all is well.
Yes add some price controls to keep home prices high. So that people not prepared to enter into a ridiculous loan can't afford one.
Why not let the damn prices fall to normal levels so that normal people can buy them and not just the super rich, the super stupid, and the super dishonest?
It is pretty funny that Greenspan who ran basically the most interventionist Fed the USA has ever seen (of course Bernanke has out done him already) is trying to blame the free market for his idiot acts of intervention by faking up an apology.
It's not so funny that people just believe him.
Using "Greenspan" and "free market" without a negation is the same sentence is absurd.
I was fooled by the site's "STORE" linking being a "coming soon" on mouse over. The "Buy Now" icon on the main image is outside my view area and I didn't scroll right...
If you didn't do it then the claim was false and hence is completely irrelevant to this particular instance which is all about "if Libel is Truthful" - it's in the title, surely we haven't progresses so far as to not read them either???
You know your legal system is completely fucked when Judges don't even know the damn laws...
"US District Court Judge Morris E. Lasker dismissed the claim, writing that "truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action under Massachusetts law."
which was obviously false due to the law allowing the appeal. Since he was ruling on a libel case, you would expect the judge to try and look up the laws related to it before making such a declaration.
So how are we non-judges supposed to know what the damn law says?
The first one isn't released, the second one won their game of the year last year - they can;t put it it in every month for all time, the third one also doesn't seem to be released?
So you want the monthly games to include stuff from last year and from next year???
Slashdot Mirror
That's obviously a different thing. That takes money that would have been spent on other things and instead spends it on replacing the glass. It just moves things around and hence there is no net difference (other than the loss of the windows which is clearly a loss of capital and hence a bad thing).
There's no movement in this case, the government is just creating money out of thin air and handing it out to some volcano monitoring types to buy stuff with. Hence whatever they buy and cause the production of is new and not* just a movement of things around.
* In reality the money is either borrowed and hence needs to be repaid in the future, so we have just moved things around in time (and due to interest at a net loss). Or it's printed in which case inflation destroys the equivalent amount of capital/wealth in the future, so again it's a movement around in time.
It obviously is stimulus.
It creates more spending (either indirectly by the workers spending their wages, or directly by purchasing equipment/fuel/etc) and is thus a stimulus.
Yes other things are much better, because they have multiplier effect.
Just because something is not the best way to do something, doesn't mean it doesn't do it at all.
Stimulus by definition is burden on future generations.
It is the government spending money it didn't just take out of the economy somewhere else. In other words it must be borrowed or printed, and hence either must be repaid by future generations or devalues people's savings (which at some point are handed down to future generations).
It doesn't matter what the job is. The standard pay one guy to dig a hole and the other guy to fill it is stimulus (since those two guys now have more money to spend).
As I said other things have better multiplier effect and hence would be a better use, but still that spending is *stimulus*.
It's spending money, right?
To pay people's wages? That sounds exactly like stimulus.
To buy equipment? That sounds exactly like stimulus too.
Sure less multiplier effects than say building roads and bridges to connect industries to transport hubs/people, but you can't say it "does nothing to STIMULATE the economy", since clearly it does.
Of course stimulating the economy by borrowing/printing money is retarded anyway, but that's beside the point.
Yes, completely on topic for an article about putting malware in bios.
Completely!
I'm using my phone/out of the house and someone else (sat the 13 year old kid) wants to watch a DVD?
Or does everyone need a smart phone as opposed to one $20 remote on the coffee table?
True, though people who play online poker are more likely to know that (and not bother anyway) than people playing some virtual world game.
And is isn't "some $ limit in your account". It's "if you have $10,000 or more total in *all* your offshore acocunts at any point during the year you must report *all* your offshore accounts".
Given the magnitude of exchange rate moves these days it's a joy to keep track of...
If you have more than $10k in foreign accounts and you don't tell them and then they later find out - even if you didn't earn any interest and hence owe no taxes - you are in a world of hurt.
So now if you manage to collect a bunch of money in a game you have to file an FBAR with the IRS.
Stupid me, I though the entire reason we want to be productive and spend time earning money and producing things is so that we can have leisure time without starving to death when we aren't doing those things.
But no we should just work in factories 24x7 so we earn money and be add something productive to the world. Not sure who is going to use the things we produce since everyone will be working making them 24x7...
"The fact that many people use something incorrectly does not make it proper usage, or even defensible."
Yes it does. Welcome to language, that thing which is defined by usage.
Just like "a moot point" is correct, even though it literally means the opposite of how it is used. Just like "begs the question" is just fine for "raises the question" even though that isn't what the term of art means.
Maybe you could try learning some English?
Yes it's a phase not liked by some people, but it's been used for hundreds of years and anyone who isn't being an idiot understands what it means.
Google actually has the Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage half page on it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA908
They are slightly more polite than me, but you can feel the "those commentators are idiots" between the lines...
And we would take him at his word, why?
Actually
Solution: an update to the code to behave as idiot application programmers require with a simple mount option.
Are you seriously trying to claim that 293K is twice as hot as 283K? And at the same time 566K is twice as hot as 283K?
Now *that* is "some mega fail".
Selfish would be expecting to live on credit for a decade and never have to pay it back. It's not a matter of "letting" the bubble burst completely. There are only two options:
1. House prices return to normal, the US standard of living declines significantly.
2. House prices are kept artificially high, some of the money printed to do that spills over into the rest of the economy and inflation runs rampant, the US standard of living declines significantly and takes much longer to recover than option 1.
Yes I'd prefer they government didn't unleash inflation and make the problem worse, but I guess that's being selfish.
Of course either way I'll be fine. I have enough savings to survive the big down turn in option 1. Enough of those savings (nowhere near all though) are non-US based and will do OK in the inflation of option 2. Is that selfish too?
There's an obvious bottom, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Case-shiller-index-values.jpg . It's a long way to go still, trying to prop prices up above those level will screw the economy even more than letting them fall.
The problem is that people consumed based on credit and surprise surprise you can't do that forever. The bust is actually a good thing, the problem was the ridiculous "live on credit" crap.
Most mortgages in the US are nive to the borrower in that they can walk away and the lender is stuck with the loss. Since the lenders were insane for lending in the first place they deserve it anyway so all is well.
Yes add some price controls to keep home prices high. So that people not prepared to enter into a ridiculous loan can't afford one.
Why not let the damn prices fall to normal levels so that normal people can buy them and not just the super rich, the super stupid, and the super dishonest?
It is pretty funny that Greenspan who ran basically the most interventionist Fed the USA has ever seen (of course Bernanke has out done him already) is trying to blame the free market for his idiot acts of intervention by faking up an apology.
It's not so funny that people just believe him.
Using "Greenspan" and "free market" without a negation is the same sentence is absurd.
Who'd have thought you'd want to fingerprint every tourist entering getting off a plane.
Amen!
Free Madoff!!! A completely non-violent crime and the potential for life in jail.
Election fraud by tampering with voting machines, another completely non-violent crime - don't even bother investigating.
I was fooled by the site's "STORE" linking being a "coming soon" on mouse over. The "Buy Now" icon on the main image is outside my view area and I didn't scroll right...
If you didn't do it then the claim was false and hence is completely irrelevant to this particular instance which is all about "if Libel is Truthful" - it's in the title, surely we haven't progresses so far as to not read them either???
You know your legal system is completely fucked when Judges don't even know the damn laws...
"US District Court Judge Morris E. Lasker dismissed the claim, writing that "truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action under Massachusetts law."
which was obviously false due to the law allowing the appeal. Since he was ruling on a libel case, you would expect the judge to try and look up the laws related to it before making such a declaration.
So how are we non-judges supposed to know what the damn law says?
The first one isn't released, the second one won their game of the year last year - they can;t put it it in every month for all time, the third one also doesn't seem to be released?
So you want the monthly games to include stuff from last year and from next year???