I think back to when I was in college, those with very strict and controlling parents usually ended up being the kids who drank heavily and skipped class and ended up having strained relations with their family.
Correlation. Causation. There's a slashot chant involving them somewhere...
Possibly the shithead kids are the cause and the strict and controlling parents the effect as they try and help their idiot offspring make a good choice once in a blue moon. Hey they made it to college so maybe it worked?
Might there not also be a set of dickhead kids who didn't have strict and controlling parents and rather than ending up skipping classes in college didn't make it through high school or whatever the "bad option" is these days?
Though clearly there's a mechanism for your theory - overly controlling parents end up with kids who never learned self discipline because they never got to make a choice themselves. But the other way works too - idiot kid gets more and more restrictive rules applied as they keep making the stupid choices over and over again.
Because teenagers are famous for always making great choices. They'd never decide, for example, that playing WoW until 5AM was worth the trade off of plummeting grades at school.
Sure there are some control freak parents out there who just make arbitrary rules for no apparent reason. But there are also teenagers out there who make bad choices that might lead to long term problems and it's perfectly reasonable for parents to remove some options. Lots or research points to teenage brains' reward systems being much more active than those of adults, which can be a good thing and a bad thing in different situations but does tend to cause a favoring of short term fun.
Do you really think that we should let every 13 year decide whether they will go to school or play video games each morning?
Taking the story at face value and ignoring the allegedly component. Do you really think a 15 year old who decided that drugging her parents so she could use the internet after 10pm was not only a great idea but followed through on it is going to make great choices in general? She'll have her entire life to make terrible decisions, having a few better choices that have long term benefits is unlikely to make things worse.
Given her parents even considered the idea that they'd been drugged as an option (seriously it wouldn't cross my mind) and took her to the police station rather than having serious conversation with her at home I'm going out on a limb that this isn't the first stupid thing this particular teenager has done.
And sure, they could be terrible control freak parents who also took her to police last week because she left the fridge door open.
So what? You can also buy gas in one state and drive in another.
Things don't have to be perfect, they'll charge some people who drive out of state a lot more than is "fair", and they'll charge some people who drive out of state less (the ones from other states driving in their state).
Of course if you don't think we have inflation you are simply mad. What's the price of gold now, what was it 20 years ago? What's the price of oil now, what was it 20 years ago? What's the price of corn now, what was it 20 years ago? What's the price of copper now, what was it 20 years ago?
And no inflation hits the working class the hardest since income lags price rises. The wealthy will spend their effort investing their wealth in things that keep up with the inflation, which tends not to be productive investment that grows the economy, and do just fine (assuming you don't mean hyper inflation levels of inflation in which case everyone but the lucky is screwed - though the wealthy are the ones who can afford to put their money into the things that are more likely to be lucky too)
The words "more often" aren't just random letters, they have a meaning in English. They do not mean that whatever is being compared only occurs under one condition and not under the other and hence an example of it occurring under one says nothing about the validity of the claim and is hence irrelevant.
Statistical information about frequency of such events under each condition would be relevant since that's what actually is being claimed, a single instance is not.
Junk securities and a housing boom are irrelevant. The economics being talked about is government fiscal policy. And the buyers of government debt are also pretty much irrelevant (until you get to defaulting in which case it can make a difference who owns the debt in terms of what the government decides to do) the government decides how much debt to issue after all.
Junk securities and housing bubbles are impacted by government monetary policy so you could assign some blame on the government for those too - but again that isn't the part of economics being talked about and hence not relevant to the topic at hand.
NO. The republicans and the ~50% of the people who voted republican are "holding the country hostage". Of course they would say that the democrats and a bunch of crack mothers are holding the country hostage and leading us to financial ruin. That's really the problem.
It's no where near 50%.
The current bunch are still the leftovers from 2008 and 2010 (and 2006 for senators), right?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-age_population_and_voter_participation.html has numbers for "U.S. Representatives" I'm going to assume they mean that and that they aren't counting senate votes. In which case the voter turnouts 53.3% and 37.0% of the voting age population actually voted for the (including the senate would make the number "worse" since 2006 wasn't a Presedential election year and hence a turnout of 36%).
If we assume the votes really are 50/50 - we ignore third party votes and that there are more republicans in the house - then we have (0.5*53.3 + 0.5*37.0)/2 = 22.6% of the people being republicans and holding the country hostage, 22.6% of the people being democrats and holding the country hostage, and 54.9% of the people not thinking either side is better enough than the other to bother voting and just being held hostage.
Define "sufficiently economically free", or is it a moving definition set somewhere above max(min(economic_freedom(A), economic_freedom(B)) for A and B that have faught a war with each other?
Keynsian economics is horrible. You cannot deficit spend your way to prosperity, and the lie that debt is good is the greatest trick ever perpetuated on our society.
Keynesian economics doesn't claim any such thing, so nice straw man.
Keynesian economics boils down to running a deficit during down years and running a surplus during up years. There is no ballooning of debt, there is not "debt is good", there is not "spend your way to prosperity". It's simply reducing magnitudes by running the budget counter to the cycle with the bonus that if there's almost any sort of welfare system in place it happens on autopilot.
Deficit spending at all times is not Keynesian economics. It's fantasy land American economics. It worked for a little while, we're going to find out how it works over a longer term soon enough.
Yeah it's more during and after WWII. That every other significant industrialized nation had had it's factories bombed into oblivion couldn't possibly be part of why the essentially untouched US found itself in an economic boom.
You've made the assumption that the additional government spending made possible by borrowing doesn't cause the economy to grow (and hence increase government revenue in future years). That can more than cover the interest - it's a similar concept to a business going into debt to buy some factory machine which increases their production/reduces their costs and generates more additional revenue than the loan payments.
Not that I actually think the US is in that situation at the moment - given the magnitude of government spending and the state of the economy government spending isn't having that effect.
Of course built that entire theory is that either businesses aren't competing for financing with the government or that businesses won't make better investment choices than the government. The first half of that is probably partly true, I have serious doubts about the second though.
Stunting growth is the entire idea. Keynesian economics is all about smoothing out the boom bust cycle. The government uses deficit spending in bust years to reduce the magnitude of the downswing. The government uses a budget surplus to in the boom years to reduce the magnitude of the boom (and also to save the money it'll need for deficit spending later).
Running a deficit at all times is terrible under Keynesian economics. It's terrible under every school of economics except the fairy land one the US seems to be trying out.
These cuts were not fast, they have been on the books for a long time. Everybody knew this was coming. Though of course the government has built a reputation for bailing everyone out at the last minute and hence, surprise surprise, businesses run with that expectation in mind and don't plan for such things and take more risks in general.
If we were in a short term dip, then sure put it off a little. I don't think we are though (that's opinion of course, many economists disagree - of course they also thought everything was doing just great in 2005...) and putting it off will just mean it has to be done when the economy is in even worse shape.
0 would be terrible, since it isn't a zero length string and that's lying to the caller. Crashing is a better option, at least you stop the damage there and then rather than the program generating garbage output. An exception is better still, but C doesn't have those - segfaulting sort of works as one if you squint.
-1 isn't an option because the return value is a size_t which is unsigned.
Sure it's far from an ideal setup, but C is language built on a philosophy that the compiler and libc should be relatively simple to implement. And if that complicates programs written in C then that's the trade off that was chosen - there are other languages that made the opposite trade off.
But damn, the libc guys should check input pointers themselves.
And do what? Return a clearly wrong value so the caller can blindly continue? Burn some cpu on every call so that a broken caller can run a little longer and mysteriously crash later on or maybe just produce garbage output?
That said, undefined behavior is undefined, if I was writing a libc it'd have to return 97 just for the heck of it.
People keep saying that. Yes they don't ask you take your headphones off or unplug them, in fact they pipe the safety routine through the headphone jacks in the seats. So "headphones caught when you're trying to exit" doesn't make any sense.
They ask you to turn off devices with no audio function at all as well so "because you're not using your headphones to drown out all the noise" doesn't make any sense.
Seems more like a CYA scenario. Even though thousands of planes fly every day in the US with multiple passenger leaving their phones on and not in airplane mode without incident no one wants to be the guy who removed the rule and then a week later a plane crashes and the finger gets pointed at a cell phone tripping out the avionics (even if it didn't, any glitch for any reason can get blamed on a cell phone after all).
If tech stocks prices were about to fall, why are so many people buying them? If tulip bulb prices were about to fall, why are so many people buying them? If South Sea Company stock prices were about to fall, why are so many many people buying them? If Nikkei prices were about to fall, why are so many people buying them?
Just because lots of people put lots of money into something doesn't mean they are right. It also doesn't mean they are wrong of course.
Except it isn't the human body temperature is 37.0 C. Of course that's an average and it varies amongst people and by about 0.5 C during the day in an individual.
But there's a.0 there, it's three sginificant figures and so 98.6 F is not spurious accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation. Causation. There's a slashot chant involving them somewhere...
Possibly the shithead kids are the cause and the strict and controlling parents the effect as they try and help their idiot offspring make a good choice once in a blue moon. Hey they made it to college so maybe it worked?
Might there not also be a set of dickhead kids who didn't have strict and controlling parents and rather than ending up skipping classes in college didn't make it through high school or whatever the "bad option" is these days?
Though clearly there's a mechanism for your theory - overly controlling parents end up with kids who never learned self discipline because they never got to make a choice themselves. But the other way works too - idiot kid gets more and more restrictive rules applied as they keep making the stupid choices over and over again.
Because teenagers are famous for always making great choices. They'd never decide, for example, that playing WoW until 5AM was worth the trade off of plummeting grades at school.
Sure there are some control freak parents out there who just make arbitrary rules for no apparent reason. But there are also teenagers out there who make bad choices that might lead to long term problems and it's perfectly reasonable for parents to remove some options. Lots or research points to teenage brains' reward systems being much more active than those of adults, which can be a good thing and a bad thing in different situations but does tend to cause a favoring of short term fun.
Do you really think that we should let every 13 year decide whether they will go to school or play video games each morning?
Taking the story at face value and ignoring the allegedly component. Do you really think a 15 year old who decided that drugging her parents so she could use the internet after 10pm was not only a great idea but followed through on it is going to make great choices in general? She'll have her entire life to make terrible decisions, having a few better choices that have long term benefits is unlikely to make things worse.
Given her parents even considered the idea that they'd been drugged as an option (seriously it wouldn't cross my mind) and took her to the police station rather than having serious conversation with her at home I'm going out on a limb that this isn't the first stupid thing this particular teenager has done.
And sure, they could be terrible control freak parents who also took her to police last week because she left the fridge door open.
Do you have any justification for such a system other than that you would rather personally pay less?
I promise my bike can handle a surface that most cars can't.
So what? You can also buy gas in one state and drive in another.
Things don't have to be perfect, they'll charge some people who drive out of state a lot more than is "fair", and they'll charge some people who drive out of state less (the ones from other states driving in their state).
I made no such assumption.
Of course if you don't think we have inflation you are simply mad. What's the price of gold now, what was it 20 years ago? What's the price of oil now, what was it 20 years ago? What's the price of corn now, what was it 20 years ago? What's the price of copper now, what was it 20 years ago?
And no inflation hits the working class the hardest since income lags price rises. The wealthy will spend their effort investing their wealth in things that keep up with the inflation, which tends not to be productive investment that grows the economy, and do just fine (assuming you don't mean hyper inflation levels of inflation in which case everyone but the lucky is screwed - though the wealthy are the ones who can afford to put their money into the things that are more likely to be lucky too)
I already did, but apparently you can't read.
The words "more often" aren't just random letters, they have a meaning in English. They do not mean that whatever is being compared only occurs under one condition and not under the other and hence an example of it occurring under one says nothing about the validity of the claim and is hence irrelevant.
Statistical information about frequency of such events under each condition would be relevant since that's what actually is being claimed, a single instance is not.
Junk securities and a housing boom are irrelevant. The economics being talked about is government fiscal policy. And the buyers of government debt are also pretty much irrelevant (until you get to defaulting in which case it can make a difference who owns the debt in terms of what the government decides to do) the government decides how much debt to issue after all.
Junk securities and housing bubbles are impacted by government monetary policy so you could assign some blame on the government for those too - but again that isn't the part of economics being talked about and hence not relevant to the topic at hand.
No, you are part of the two 22.6% groups.
It's no where near 50%.
The current bunch are still the leftovers from 2008 and 2010 (and 2006 for senators), right?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-age_population_and_voter_participation.html has numbers for "U.S. Representatives" I'm going to assume they mean that and that they aren't counting senate votes. In which case the voter turnouts 53.3% and 37.0% of the voting age population actually voted for the (including the senate would make the number "worse" since 2006 wasn't a Presedential election year and hence a turnout of 36%).
If we assume the votes really are 50/50 - we ignore third party votes and that there are more republicans in the house - then we have (0.5*53.3 + 0.5*37.0)/2 = 22.6% of the people being republicans and holding the country hostage, 22.6% of the people being democrats and holding the country hostage, and 54.9% of the people not thinking either side is better enough than the other to bother voting and just being held hostage.
Define "sufficiently economically free", or is it a moving definition set somewhere above max(min(economic_freedom(A), economic_freedom(B)) for A and B that have faught a war with each other?
Keynesian economics doesn't claim any such thing, so nice straw man.
Keynesian economics boils down to running a deficit during down years and running a surplus during up years. There is no ballooning of debt, there is not "debt is good", there is not "spend your way to prosperity". It's simply reducing magnitudes by running the budget counter to the cycle with the bonus that if there's almost any sort of welfare system in place it happens on autopilot.
Deficit spending at all times is not Keynesian economics. It's fantasy land American economics. It worked for a little while, we're going to find out how it works over a longer term soon enough.
Yeah it's more during and after WWII. That every other significant industrialized nation had had it's factories bombed into oblivion couldn't possibly be part of why the essentially untouched US found itself in an economic boom.
You've made the assumption that the additional government spending made possible by borrowing doesn't cause the economy to grow (and hence increase government revenue in future years). That can more than cover the interest - it's a similar concept to a business going into debt to buy some factory machine which increases their production/reduces their costs and generates more additional revenue than the loan payments.
Not that I actually think the US is in that situation at the moment - given the magnitude of government spending and the state of the economy government spending isn't having that effect.
Of course built that entire theory is that either businesses aren't competing for financing with the government or that businesses won't make better investment choices than the government. The first half of that is probably partly true, I have serious doubts about the second though.
Stunting growth is the entire idea. Keynesian economics is all about smoothing out the boom bust cycle. The government uses deficit spending in bust years to reduce the magnitude of the downswing. The government uses a budget surplus to in the boom years to reduce the magnitude of the boom (and also to save the money it'll need for deficit spending later).
Running a deficit at all times is terrible under Keynesian economics. It's terrible under every school of economics except the fairy land one the US seems to be trying out.
These cuts were not fast, they have been on the books for a long time. Everybody knew this was coming. Though of course the government has built a reputation for bailing everyone out at the last minute and hence, surprise surprise, businesses run with that expectation in mind and don't plan for such things and take more risks in general.
If we were in a short term dip, then sure put it off a little. I don't think we are though (that's opinion of course, many economists disagree - of course they also thought everything was doing just great in 2005...) and putting it off will just mean it has to be done when the economy is in even worse shape.
0 would be terrible, since it isn't a zero length string and that's lying to the caller. Crashing is a better option, at least you stop the damage there and then rather than the program generating garbage output. An exception is better still, but C doesn't have those - segfaulting sort of works as one if you squint.
-1 isn't an option because the return value is a size_t which is unsigned.
Sure it's far from an ideal setup, but C is language built on a philosophy that the compiler and libc should be relatively simple to implement. And if that complicates programs written in C then that's the trade off that was chosen - there are other languages that made the opposite trade off.
And do what? Return a clearly wrong value so the caller can blindly continue? Burn some cpu on every call so that a broken caller can run a little longer and mysteriously crash later on or maybe just produce garbage output?
That said, undefined behavior is undefined, if I was writing a libc it'd have to return 97 just for the heck of it.
So why am I allowed to bring a diet coke onto the plane? Where is the proof it won't bring down the plane?
People keep saying that. Yes they don't ask you take your headphones off or unplug them, in fact they pipe the safety routine through the headphone jacks in the seats. So "headphones caught when you're trying to exit" doesn't make any sense.
They ask you to turn off devices with no audio function at all as well so "because you're not using your headphones to drown out all the noise" doesn't make any sense.
Seems more like a CYA scenario. Even though thousands of planes fly every day in the US with multiple passenger leaving their phones on and not in airplane mode without incident no one wants to be the guy who removed the rule and then a week later a plane crashes and the finger gets pointed at a cell phone tripping out the avionics (even if it didn't, any glitch for any reason can get blamed on a cell phone after all).
No one said "Republicans gerrymandered" so why do you feel the need to pretend they did?
See any ghetto overrun with gang activity for a counter example. You have a heavily armed society in which people are not polite.
Just because a sci-fi author says something doesn't mean it is true. Are L. Ron Hubbard's one liners also gospel?
If tech stocks prices were about to fall, why are so many people buying them?
If tulip bulb prices were about to fall, why are so many people buying them?
If South Sea Company stock prices were about to fall, why are so many many people buying them?
If Nikkei prices were about to fall, why are so many people buying them?
Just because lots of people put lots of money into something doesn't mean they are right. It also doesn't mean they are wrong of course.
We evacuated when it wasn't necessary and didn't evacuate when it was more often.
Except it isn't the human body temperature is 37.0 C. Of course that's an average and it varies amongst people and by about 0.5 C during the day in an individual.
But there's a .0 there, it's three sginificant figures and so 98.6 F is not spurious accuracy.