Good lord. The public is owned by the media, they vote the way they are told to vote. They are told red/blue, black/white, oh look Dancing with the Stars!
In the meantime the real power buy their influence in advance. By the time red/blue puppets get into power it's a done deal:
Obama (blue choice of 08):
University of California $1,648,685 Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 Harvard University $878,164 Microsoft Corp $852,167 Google Inc $814,540 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 Time Warner $624,618
Romney (red choice of 12):
Goldman Sachs $367,200 Credit Suisse Group $203,750 Morgan Stanley $199,800 HIG Capital $186,500 Barclays $157,750 Kirkland & Ellis $132,100 Bank of America $126,500 PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250 EMC Corp $117,300 JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The article only says the large debt will hurt growth. Smaller growth is hugely different than "sayonara economy."
It rather is when the debt is larger than GDP and increasing faster. If a large debt will hurt growth, what will a larger debt do? You could ask some Greeks.
Once you get past ~90%; sayonara economy. The US is facing decades of decline and there's really not much which can be done about it now. Well, war, maybe.
Thanks for pointing out my sig, it's out of date. The time for guillotines was last year.
No, the poor don't have access to significant credit, the poor live in a cash society. They can't afford debts, banks don't lend poor people money. They lend rich people money. The wealthier you are the more collateral you have and the better able you are to service debt. Banks will lend wealthy people lots of money and the wealthy do very well from inflation. Assets: Property valuations, stocks, dividends, commodities all increase. Debts, as you mentioned are devalued.
What credit is available to the poor tends to be of very high interest; tens of percent or more easily outstripping all but hyperinflation.
This is what is called a "Keynesian stimulus program"[2]. It's purpose is to spend 300 billion[1] into the economy in order to inflate the national debt away, save the banks and the contractors. At the taxpayers and citizens expense, the currency will be devalued causing inflation and taxpayers will have to service increased interest payments. The people who will be hit hardest by the additional inflation and taxation are the old, and the poor.
If they had spent the money on something useful, it would have crowded out the private sector, so they have to spend it on something which has no particular relevance; saving 20 mins between Birmingham and London is totally irrelevant.
[1] Yes, it says 32 billion now... [2] Google Keynes, bottles and coal mines.
self-discipline and aptitude for following rules and navigating bureaucracies. A degree is in part a certification that you've successfully followed a series of requirements and tasks for four years
The professions typically have a couple of years of professional qualifications to pass before going into practice. This is over and above a good education.
Education is not and should never be, professional qualification. They are entirely different things.
The problem seems to be that many professions, and HR "professionals" don't seem to realise they should be providing "badges and certificates" for professional qualifications.
A degree is not a professional qualification, it is and should be for education. MIT Online and Khan Academy are educational tools, again, not professional qualifications.
Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul's largest supporters are military.
Speaks volumes.
Student loans.
HTH.
Good lord. The public is owned by the media, they vote the way they are told to vote. They are told red/blue, black/white, oh look Dancing with the Stars!
In the meantime the real power buy their influence in advance. By the time red/blue puppets get into power it's a done deal:
Obama (blue choice of 08):
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Romney (red choice of 12):
Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
intended to help people who wanted to overthrow a dictator
You mean the bankers, and oil executives. Right?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613/Libyan_Rebels_Form_Their_Own_Central_Bank
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/wow-that-was-fast-libyan-rebels-have-already-established-a-new-central-bank-of-libya
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111122-713038.html
The article only says the large debt will hurt growth. Smaller growth is hugely different than "sayonara economy."
It rather is when the debt is larger than GDP and increasing faster. If a large debt will hurt growth, what will a larger debt do? You could ask some Greeks.
US economic growth rate: 1.8%
National Debt:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15 9%
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 13%
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 18%
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
Otherwise, a couple more years pretending to "enjoy team work" and you'll be up on a water tower with an AW50 taking pot shots at former "team" mates.
And other socially repulsive habits. Your problems interacting with other people will go away.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-14/too-much-debt-means-economy-can-t-grow-commentary-by-reinhart-and-rogoff.html
Once you get past ~90%; sayonara economy. The US is facing decades of decline and there's really not much which can be done about it now. Well, war, maybe.
Thanks for pointing out my sig, it's out of date. The time for guillotines was last year.
US national debt is over 100% of GDP. It's banana republic time from this point on. Well into PIIGS territory.
Why the fuck would they fear you?
Mostly because in security terms it's a fucking nightmare. Has to solve some very difficult maths.
QA? ...
Holy fuck. There's light.
Screw bind, what's needed is a non heirarchical name resolution mechanism.
The poor have debts, which
No, the poor don't have access to significant credit, the poor live in a cash society. They can't afford debts, banks don't lend poor people money. They lend rich people money. The wealthier you are the more collateral you have and the better able you are to service debt. Banks will lend wealthy people lots of money and the wealthy do very well from inflation. Assets: Property valuations, stocks, dividends, commodities all increase. Debts, as you mentioned are devalued.
What credit is available to the poor tends to be of very high interest; tens of percent or more easily outstripping all but hyperinflation.
No, really, it's purpose is to spend 32 billion+.
It is otherwise of no significance.
It's like the entire city decides to go for a walk in the country at the same time.
Crowds of inappropriately dressed people squashed into every little patch of green they can find.
This is what is called a "Keynesian stimulus program"[2]. It's purpose is to spend 300 billion[1] into the economy in order to inflate the national debt away, save the banks and the contractors. At the taxpayers and citizens expense, the currency will be devalued causing inflation and taxpayers will have to service increased interest payments. The people who will be hit hardest by the additional inflation and taxation are the old, and the poor.
If they had spent the money on something useful, it would have crowded out the private sector, so they have to spend it on something which has no particular relevance; saving 20 mins between Birmingham and London is totally irrelevant.
[1] Yes, it says 32 billion now...
[2] Google Keynes, bottles and coal mines.
Problem solved.
Pixie dust.
Then bury the charcoal in fields, improving soil fertility.
TADAAaaaa!
CO2 captured!
Energy produced!
Soil degradation reversed!
World saved!
Damn, I'm good. I am available on consultancy at ridiculously high rates.
You have nothing to worry about.
We already have dozens of readers and formats.
self-discipline and aptitude for following rules and navigating bureaucracies. A degree is in part a certification that you've successfully followed a series of requirements and tasks for four years
Which is kind of depressing.
The professions typically have a couple of years of professional qualifications to pass before going into practice. This is over and above a good education.
Education is not and should never be, professional qualification. They are entirely different things.
The problem seems to be that many professions, and HR "professionals" don't seem to realise they should be providing "badges and certificates" for professional qualifications.
A degree is not a professional qualification, it is and should be for education. MIT Online and Khan Academy are educational tools, again, not professional qualifications.
Plus automatic inventory system.
Seriously. Wikis are horrific databases. Once the information is in there making use of it is a nightmare.