CO2 throws the existing system out of whack. We don't know by how much - most estimates are pretty pessimistic, though even the optimistic ones aren't exactly reassuring.
Here's an optimistic estimate: CO2 has NO significant impact on temperatures.
There's no data to suggest otherwise.
So far all I've seen (and I've looked, trust me) is "If CO2 does X, then THIS will happen"... Well please, for the love of G_d, where $#!@ did you get X from??
The only reason Vioxx existed was because aspirin is the absolute king of stomach bleeding--something which Vioxx and Celebrex don't do (theoretically at least).
Stomach bleeding can kill. So can many of the other things aspirin does. Does the relative risk of death compare unfavorably to that of Vioxx (which contributes to stroke and MI)? We don't know.
Why don't we know? Well you can't compare Vioxx users to the general population because they're generally more overweight. Obesity is a huge contributor to joint pain--which is the main thing Vioxx was prescribed for. Obesity is also a major contributor to stroke and MI. However, when it goes to court, every person on Vioxx who has a MI automatically assumes it's because of Vioxx, even though that's impossible, given that the rate of MI is not that different from the overall population (even given the skewed numbers, like I mentioned before).
There's a reason why Merck stated that they would fight every case tooth and nail: it's because the drug is actually fairly safe, and the media hyped it to death because they hate the drug companies.
Do I think Aspirin should be by prescription only? No, I'm just saying: Aspirin IS MORE DANGEROUS than many prescription drugs--we've proven it! We have the numbers! The only reason it's OTC is because it was Grandfathered in.
I mean, if Nexium caused Renal failure and stomach bleeding at the rates Aspirin does, it'd be taken off the market in no time.
I also find it funny I was modded as "troll" for simply stating a company has the right to advertise about its products (as long as they're honest). As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like the way the drug companies do business, you can boycott and buy generic. If you absolutely must have the latest and greatest drugs, then you can kiss the butt of the company that spent millions (billions?) of dollars creating and testing the product for you. Don't think of it in terms of right and wrong, think of it in terms of necessity: There is no other way to get the drugs you need coming out at the frequency you want without profit incentive.
NSAIDS like aspirin kill way more people per year than Vioxx ever could (7,600 yearly).
If aspirin were going through the FDA today, it would never get approved as OTC. It aggravates asthma, inhibits blood clotting, and if you give it to a kid with a fever, there's a chance they can get something called Reye's syndrome--where their brain and liver are attacked. It can cause permanent brain damage! Especially in infants!
People have no concept of how safe or unsafe drugs really are. Just because they're by prescription doesn't mean they're that dangerous, and just because they're over the counter doesn't mean they're safe. The FDA sucks.
As for Merck inventing a shill magazine to sell their products, I don't see any problem with that, so long as they tell the truth.
The slashdot stub says that Merck's robot publication states that Fosamax performs better than alternatives. That's factual information! What's the problem?
"one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?
And yet the headline seems to imply Obama's being tough on government abuses. If I were more cynical, I'd say this whole NSA smackdown is a sacrificial lamb to show he's "pro-civil liberties" after all, even though his administration recently won the warrantless wiretap case.
Again, if I were cynical, I'd also say the media is eating it up. (on a related note)
"How do you find an empowered woman? My advice would be to stop treating women like alien creatures and assuming they're always trying to deceive you."
That's right. Greedy politicians and powerful corporations didn't exist till the 1980's.
I suppose you'd have to ignore the Railroads of the 1860's which were practically made a branch of government by Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and the car companies in the 1950's... oh, I forgot about TWA, the phone companies, and yes, even bananas...
I'd really like to live in a world where all we have to fix are laws and not human nature.
[paraphrased] Corps were given 200B to lay line and they never did!
if you look at the legislative history of the 200 billion, there is simply no basis for jailing anybody.
That's the thing that bugs me the most (looking at GP post): with Government subsidy, things always go awry, and it's always business that gets blamed. Rarely do people ever blame government when money is wasted in this way. It's always the agribusiness (farm subsidies), or the telecoms (1990's), or Haliburton (Iraq war), or the car manufacturers (bailed out in the 80's and again recently), or the banks (current bailout). Nobody ever seems to blame government for wasting the cash in the first place, even though this happens most of the time with subsidy. If you pay people to waste money, three guesses as to what they're going to do?
I'm getting a little tired of the relentless bashing of the guy a genuine majority of the country elected. Where were you asstards when Bush "won" with less than 49% of the voters?
No. Less than 30% of people in the US went to the polls and voted for Obama. Even if he'd gotten more than 50%, that hardly means I'm not allowed to ridicule him. That would mean you weren't allowed to complain about Bush after he won by over 50% (of voters) in 2004.
Their goals are unknown, so it's not anyone's place to assume. However, the traditional hacker motive has been to discover how a (often closed) system works, figure out if there are any defects, and share the information gained with other hackers and the public. Hackers of all walks (including and perhaps especially open source developers) have a natural distaste for technology whose details are intentionally hidden from them.
You watch too many movies. Finding an exploit in something is exciting, and equally exciting is reporting your findings to others and making a name for yourself.
Also, your bit about how hackers have a "distaste for hidden details" is BS: why the heck would they care? Are they righteous do-gooders in the unending quest for truth? Closed, proprietary, systems are usually secretive because they know they've got something to hide. That's the only reason hackers focus so much on them--not because they have a moral imperative to seek the truth, but because they know that's where the juiciest exploits are.
Hackers end up being great for society in that they hack for fun recognition and not for a more evil purpose. Through their own self-interest they end up being a positive force. I would much rather have someone like Kevin Mitnick hack the pentagon before China does. That's not to say I respect why he does it.
Since changing my SSH ports to something really high (above 50000)
Because they were really going to portscan you anyway. I bet putting at 23 (as opposed to the default) would be almost as effective.
At a web message board I setup, I used some popular software and was getting a ton of spam bots. So I added a simple "are you a human" question--no captcha or anything, just another checkbox to check... Not 1 single piece of spam. Same principle: the bots aren't that smart--you avoid the norms even by a little, and you're okay.
What the crap? Who are all these other parties? Since there are ONLY two viewpoints on every issue, why do you need more than two parties?
Isn't your government unstable? How does it function with so many voices? Clearly you need to revise your election laws to keep these 3rd (4th, 5th, 6th) parties from being part of the political process.
>Apple has NEVER used the kill switch, so there is NO evidence of Apple's intention
Remember when all those jailbroken iPhones broke with the next software revision? Okay, so it's not the official kill switch, but it sure shows if someone annoys them, they're going to get axed in a truly draconian fashion by Apple (who, I guess you didn't know it, owns your phone).
Google's response is simple: If you want to use OUR application store (and you can install apps without it, btw), you follow our rules, and if not, we can axe you and banish you from our service... but you can still use your app on our phones, just can't sell it at our store. It's like a Rolex store refusing to sell Casio... your wrist is compatible with many watches, go to a different store. Apple says they own your wrist, and will erase whatever unauthorized watches you have on there each time you upgrade your software (wait, abort metaphor!)
Whatever. Clear difference here. F Apple, I'm not buying an iPhone.
Google: Some apps we say are okay, some we don't, but we still let you install the ones we don't okay freely and easily
Apple: Some apps we say are okay, but if you install others we're going to fry your phone.
So yeah, google good, Apple bad. Not to mention the fact that Apple blocks apps that "do too much." God (Jobs) forbid you have too much functionality in an app. Google only "doesn't recommend" apps that "suck", but if you disagree you can still install them.
There's a reason why we have incredibly smart people holding differing opinions on nearly every single issue. Joe six pack who has never even read a book might have the "best" idea to solve a problem, even with no idea when the War of 1812 went down. This concept of being right just because you've thought it through is just arrogance. Yes, it probably helps to have an education, but ultimately a lot of decision making is guesswork and judgment calls.
When I called about the issue, they claimed that they hadn't heard of the problem before. I wonder what happened in two months for them to change their tune?
Remember "The Formula" from Fight Club? If it costs more to do a recall than to lose those customers burned* by bad products, they don't do one.
They must have recalculated it recently and got a different answer than they've been getting for the past 17 months. This is not new for Apple, it takes forever for them to publicly admit there's a problem with their product, sometimes (perhaps most times) they quietly fix or update a product without ever mentioning there was a problem to begin with, regardless of the problem's severity. The X1900's in the Mac Pros are a good example.
I disagree with fiscal infusions in the majority of cases, but this doctrine, like everything else practical, is NOT absolute.
Well we at least agree on that. Obviously it's good for gov't to build most roads/electric power/water supply using taxpayer funds. If they're going to get used, they're going to make it worth the price of their construction. However, I don't agree with "investing in infrastructure" when you have no money to pay for it, especially in the name of stimulus. If Gov't has the money, fine, stimulate away (Greenspan even said so of the Bush tax cut in 2002 when we had a surplus... and then wanted to repeal it when we ran out of surplus).
Yes, I get what you're saying about deflation "needing" correcting (through fiscal policy, you say). I just don't agree with government intervention to that kind of extent, because it hurts other markets and the middle class. A lot of bank failure is "market correction", like saying "hey, if you make stupid loans, you have to pay for them!" Yes, they have an effect on the money supply, but, again, government should let it work itself out. There's no evidence showing fiscal stimulus having any long term benefit since it's self-negated by inhibiting real growth.
Right, I got all that. However, FDR's spending did a lot more than prevent the banks from going down.. that was only at first. After he bailed out the banks, he spent sums of money dwarfing his bailouts on work and social programs. These programs not only require inflationary spending but at a rate far exceeding the normal "organic" rate of banks borrowing money from the Fed (which they do at their leisure, at the interest rate raised and lowered to encourage loans or discourage inflation).
Force-feeding the economy money doesn't help anybody. That's why monetarists like Alan Greenspan stick to the fed inflating instead of the government inflating currency. To put it another way, building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska does nothing for anyone, and in fact hurts the economy, the taxpayers, and/or anyone who has money in a bank account they didn't want made less valuable.
Like Ron Paul always says: Government spending using inflation is just another tax on people whose assets and paychecks aren't solid like those on wallstreet. Like it or not, the real value of Wal*Mart stock has nothing to do with inflation, whereas the real value of your paycheck or your bank balance are 100% inverse to inflation.
Wow you're assuming I'm a republican, so let me make this clear
You say: "[FDR] engineered the end to the depression" I say: No he didn't You say: The social programs established during the depression didn't [...] help the private sector recover
My reply: Exactly, that was my main point. My main point with the greenspan article was that he doesn't like deficit/inflationary spending, and thinks ANY stimulus/subsidy (or tax break, if you don't call tax breaks stimuli) using borrowed or inflated money is a bad idea. This would include --ALL-- of FDRs programs, by that logic.
You can say he helped keep the country in order with the programs until the depression blew over, I really don't want to debate that (I don't know enough about that situation to say one way or the other). However, he more than likely extended and maybe even deepened the depression with inflationary spending. At one point, he dropped, in one day, the value of Gold:Dollar by one third... Try and tell me that's good for a Gold-standard currency. If that kind of damage to the economy was okay in light of keeping a nation-wide bread riot from ensuing, that's fine, just saying: it was damaging
Wow you're assuming I'm a republican, so let me make this clear
You say: "[FDR] engineered the end to the depression" I say: No he didn't You say: The social programs established during the depression didn't [...] help the private sector recover
My reply: Exactly, that was my main point. My main point with the greenspan article was that he doesn't like deficit/inflationary spending, and thinks ANY stimulus/subsidy (or tax break, if you don't call tax breaks stimuli) using borrowed or inflated money is a bad idea. This would include >allextended and maybe even deepened the depression with inflationary spending. At one point, he dropped, in one day, the value of Gold:Dollar by one third... Try and tell me that's good for a Gold-standard currency. If that kind of damage to the economy was okay in light of keeping a nation-wide bread riot from ensuing, that's fine, just saying: it was damaging
Whoa, I take it back, it looks like you're way off on the gramm-leach-biley act. The thing may have actually cushioned this collapse.
Factcheck.org article Just a random quote from the article: Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill....You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.
I have yet to read any economic publication which disagrees with the government intervention.
Are you referring to those wackos in the austrian school?
You just contradicted yourself: You say you don't know any economists who thought FDR did wrong, and then you mention a group of economists who do.
It's more than just them, by the way. Ever hear of Alan Greenspan? He says stimulus through debt spending/inflationary spending is a bad idea. Here, chew on this this.
Tax cuts are way more liked in the academic circles than work programs. At least tax cuts are more organic and the money introduced into the economy doesn't make people dependent. Think about it: what happened with the WPA ended? We had all these people out of work, once again, only this time they'd grown used to their cushy government job doing. In the meantime, the gov't inflated the crap out of the currency, f-ing up the economy, in order to pay for it.
My post said nothing about whether or not that government bank was a good idea. That's a separate issue, I was just proving parent poster wrong since he was so high and mighty on "facts," not saying corporatism is evil. I left that end open.
See, this is the post where I say corporatism is evil, and FDR was a moron who unconstitutionally expanded government and started the trend of bribing people with their own money. Ended the great depression? I don't agree, and neither do most modern economists.
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 throws the existing system out of whack. We don't know by how much - most estimates are pretty pessimistic, though even the optimistic ones aren't exactly reassuring.
Here's an optimistic estimate: CO2 has NO significant impact on temperatures.
There's no data to suggest otherwise.
So far all I've seen (and I've looked, trust me) is "If CO2 does X, then THIS will happen"... Well please, for the love of G_d, where $#!@ did you get X from??
Find me that, I might believe you.
>Now, how many asprin are sold?
The only reason Vioxx existed was because aspirin is the absolute king of stomach bleeding--something which Vioxx and Celebrex don't do (theoretically at least).
Stomach bleeding can kill. So can many of the other things aspirin does. Does the relative risk of death compare unfavorably to that of Vioxx (which contributes to stroke and MI)? We don't know.
Why don't we know? Well you can't compare Vioxx users to the general population because they're generally more overweight. Obesity is a huge contributor to joint pain--which is the main thing Vioxx was prescribed for. Obesity is also a major contributor to stroke and MI. However, when it goes to court, every person on Vioxx who has a MI automatically assumes it's because of Vioxx, even though that's impossible, given that the rate of MI is not that different from the overall population (even given the skewed numbers, like I mentioned before).
There's a reason why Merck stated that they would fight every case tooth and nail: it's because the drug is actually fairly safe, and the media hyped it to death because they hate the drug companies.
Do I think Aspirin should be by prescription only? No, I'm just saying: Aspirin IS MORE DANGEROUS than many prescription drugs--we've proven it! We have the numbers! The only reason it's OTC is because it was Grandfathered in.
I mean, if Nexium caused Renal failure and stomach bleeding at the rates Aspirin does, it'd be taken off the market in no time.
I also find it funny I was modded as "troll" for simply stating a company has the right to advertise about its products (as long as they're honest). As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like the way the drug companies do business, you can boycott and buy generic. If you absolutely must have the latest and greatest drugs, then you can kiss the butt of the company that spent millions (billions?) of dollars creating and testing the product for you. Don't think of it in terms of right and wrong, think of it in terms of necessity: There is no other way to get the drugs you need coming out at the frequency you want without profit incentive.
"Aspirin is good medicine."
NSAIDS like aspirin kill way more people per year than Vioxx ever could (7,600 yearly).
If aspirin were going through the FDA today, it would never get approved as OTC. It aggravates asthma, inhibits blood clotting, and if you give it to a kid with a fever, there's a chance they can get something called Reye's syndrome--where their brain and liver are attacked. It can cause permanent brain damage! Especially in infants!
People have no concept of how safe or unsafe drugs really are. Just because they're by prescription doesn't mean they're that dangerous, and just because they're over the counter doesn't mean they're safe. The FDA sucks.
As for Merck inventing a shill magazine to sell their products, I don't see any problem with that, so long as they tell the truth.
The slashdot stub says that Merck's robot publication states that Fosamax performs better than alternatives. That's factual information! What's the problem?
"one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?
And yet the headline seems to imply Obama's being tough on government abuses. If I were more cynical, I'd say this whole NSA smackdown is a sacrificial lamb to show he's "pro-civil liberties" after all, even though his administration recently won the warrantless wiretap case.
Again, if I were cynical, I'd also say the media is eating it up. (on a related note)
"How do you find an empowered woman? My advice would be to stop treating women like alien creatures and assuming they're always trying to deceive you."
It's a trick! That's just what they want!
It was thanks to Ronald Reagan
That's right. Greedy politicians and powerful corporations didn't exist till the 1980's.
I suppose you'd have to ignore the Railroads of the 1860's which were practically made a branch of government by Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and the car companies in the 1950's... oh, I forgot about TWA, the phone companies, and yes, even bananas...
I'd really like to live in a world where all we have to fix are laws and not human nature.
That's the thing that bugs me the most (looking at GP post): with Government subsidy, things always go awry, and it's always business that gets blamed. Rarely do people ever blame government when money is wasted in this way. It's always the agribusiness (farm subsidies), or the telecoms (1990's), or Haliburton (Iraq war), or the car manufacturers (bailed out in the 80's and again recently), or the banks (current bailout). Nobody ever seems to blame government for wasting the cash in the first place, even though this happens most of the time with subsidy. If you pay people to waste money, three guesses as to what they're going to do?
I'm getting a little tired of the relentless bashing of the guy a genuine majority of the country elected. Where were you asstards when Bush "won" with less than 49% of the voters?
No. Less than 30% of people in the US went to the polls and voted for Obama. Even if he'd gotten more than 50%, that hardly means I'm not allowed to ridicule him. That would mean you weren't allowed to complain about Bush after he won by over 50% (of voters) in 2004.
You watch too many movies. Finding an exploit in something is exciting, and equally exciting is reporting your findings to others and making a name for yourself.
Also, your bit about how hackers have a "distaste for hidden details" is BS: why the heck would they care? Are they righteous do-gooders in the unending quest for truth? Closed, proprietary, systems are usually secretive because they know they've got something to hide. That's the only reason hackers focus so much on them--not because they have a moral imperative to seek the truth, but because they know that's where the juiciest exploits are.
Hackers end up being great for society in that they hack for fun recognition and not for a more evil purpose. Through their own self-interest they end up being a positive force. I would much rather have someone like Kevin Mitnick hack the pentagon before China does. That's not to say I respect why he does it.
Since changing my SSH ports to something really high (above 50000)
Because they were really going to portscan you anyway. I bet putting at 23 (as opposed to the default) would be almost as effective.
At a web message board I setup, I used some popular software and was getting a ton of spam bots. So I added a simple "are you a human" question--no captcha or anything, just another checkbox to check... Not 1 single piece of spam. Same principle: the bots aren't that smart--you avoid the norms even by a little, and you're okay.
Programmer sought to bring about Armageddon.
What the crap? Who are all these other parties? Since there are ONLY two viewpoints on every issue, why do you need more than two parties?
Isn't your government unstable? How does it function with so many voices? Clearly you need to revise your election laws to keep these 3rd (4th, 5th, 6th) parties from being part of the political process.
My name is slughead and
I A M A M E R I C A N!!!
850 angry comments can't be wrong. You are currently feeling rage.
>Apple has NEVER used the kill switch, so there is NO evidence of Apple's intention
Remember when all those jailbroken iPhones broke with the next software revision? Okay, so it's not the official kill switch, but it sure shows if someone annoys them, they're going to get axed in a truly draconian fashion by Apple (who, I guess you didn't know it, owns your phone).
Google's response is simple: If you want to use OUR application store (and you can install apps without it, btw), you follow our rules, and if not, we can axe you and banish you from our service... but you can still use your app on our phones, just can't sell it at our store. It's like a Rolex store refusing to sell Casio... your wrist is compatible with many watches, go to a different store. Apple says they own your wrist, and will erase whatever unauthorized watches you have on there each time you upgrade your software (wait, abort metaphor!)
Whatever. Clear difference here. F Apple, I'm not buying an iPhone.
> "Google good, Apple bad."
Google: Some apps we say are okay, some we don't, but we still let you install the ones we don't okay freely and easily
Apple: Some apps we say are okay, but if you install others we're going to fry your phone.
So yeah, google good, Apple bad. Not to mention the fact that Apple blocks apps that "do too much." God (Jobs) forbid you have too much functionality in an app. Google only "doesn't recommend" apps that "suck", but if you disagree you can still install them.
"best and brightest" != correct
There's a reason why we have incredibly smart people holding differing opinions on nearly every single issue. Joe six pack who has never even read a book might have the "best" idea to solve a problem, even with no idea when the War of 1812 went down. This concept of being right just because you've thought it through is just arrogance. Yes, it probably helps to have an education, but ultimately a lot of decision making is guesswork and judgment calls.
When I called about the issue, they claimed that they hadn't heard of the problem before. I wonder what happened in two months for them to change their tune?
Remember "The Formula" from Fight Club? If it costs more to do a recall than to lose those customers burned* by bad products, they don't do one.
They must have recalculated it recently and got a different answer than they've been getting for the past 17 months. This is not new for Apple, it takes forever for them to publicly admit there's a problem with their product, sometimes (perhaps most times) they quietly fix or update a product without ever mentioning there was a problem to begin with, regardless of the problem's severity. The X1900's in the Mac Pros are a good example.
*see movie for full pun appreciation
I disagree with fiscal infusions in the majority of cases, but this doctrine, like everything else practical, is NOT absolute.
Well we at least agree on that. Obviously it's good for gov't to build most roads/electric power/water supply using taxpayer funds. If they're going to get used, they're going to make it worth the price of their construction. However, I don't agree with "investing in infrastructure" when you have no money to pay for it, especially in the name of stimulus. If Gov't has the money, fine, stimulate away (Greenspan even said so of the Bush tax cut in 2002 when we had a surplus... and then wanted to repeal it when we ran out of surplus).
Yes, I get what you're saying about deflation "needing" correcting (through fiscal policy, you say). I just don't agree with government intervention to that kind of extent, because it hurts other markets and the middle class. A lot of bank failure is "market correction", like saying "hey, if you make stupid loans, you have to pay for them!" Yes, they have an effect on the money supply, but, again, government should let it work itself out. There's no evidence showing fiscal stimulus having any long term benefit since it's self-negated by inhibiting real growth.
We've had one since 1940. Thank you, FDR!
Right, I got all that. However, FDR's spending did a lot more than prevent the banks from going down.. that was only at first. After he bailed out the banks, he spent sums of money dwarfing his bailouts on work and social programs. These programs not only require inflationary spending but at a rate far exceeding the normal "organic" rate of banks borrowing money from the Fed (which they do at their leisure, at the interest rate raised and lowered to encourage loans or discourage inflation).
Force-feeding the economy money doesn't help anybody. That's why monetarists like Alan Greenspan stick to the fed inflating instead of the government inflating currency. To put it another way, building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska does nothing for anyone, and in fact hurts the economy, the taxpayers, and/or anyone who has money in a bank account they didn't want made less valuable.
Like Ron Paul always says: Government spending using inflation is just another tax on people whose assets and paychecks aren't solid like those on wallstreet. Like it or not, the real value of Wal*Mart stock has nothing to do with inflation, whereas the real value of your paycheck or your bank balance are 100% inverse to inflation.
HTML error.... reposting.
Wow you're assuming I'm a republican, so let me make this clear
You say: "[FDR] engineered the end to the depression"
I say: No he didn't
You say: The social programs established during the depression didn't [...] help the private sector recover
My reply: Exactly, that was my main point. My main point with the greenspan article was that he doesn't like deficit/inflationary spending, and thinks ANY stimulus/subsidy (or tax break, if you don't call tax breaks stimuli) using borrowed or inflated money is a bad idea. This would include --ALL-- of FDRs programs, by that logic.
You can say he helped keep the country in order with the programs until the depression blew over, I really don't want to debate that (I don't know enough about that situation to say one way or the other). However, he more than likely extended and maybe even deepened the depression with inflationary spending. At one point, he dropped, in one day, the value of Gold:Dollar by one third... Try and tell me that's good for a Gold-standard currency. If that kind of damage to the economy was okay in light of keeping a nation-wide bread riot from ensuing, that's fine, just saying: it was damaging
Wow you're assuming I'm a republican, so let me make this clear
You say: "[FDR] engineered the end to the depression"
I say: No he didn't
You say: The social programs established during the depression didn't [...] help the private sector recover
My reply: Exactly, that was my main point. My main point with the greenspan article was that he doesn't like deficit/inflationary spending, and thinks ANY stimulus/subsidy (or tax break, if you don't call tax breaks stimuli) using borrowed or inflated money is a bad idea. This would include >allextended and maybe even deepened the depression with inflationary spending. At one point, he dropped, in one day, the value of Gold:Dollar by one third... Try and tell me that's good for a Gold-standard currency. If that kind of damage to the economy was okay in light of keeping a nation-wide bread riot from ensuing, that's fine, just saying: it was damaging
Whoa, I take it back, it looks like you're way off on the gramm-leach-biley act. The thing may have actually cushioned this collapse.
Factcheck.org article ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.
Just a random quote from the article:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.
I have yet to read any economic publication which disagrees with the government intervention.
Are you referring to those wackos in the austrian school?
You just contradicted yourself: You say you don't know any economists who thought FDR did wrong, and then you mention a group of economists who do.
It's more than just them, by the way. Ever hear of Alan Greenspan? He says stimulus through debt spending/inflationary spending is a bad idea. Here, chew on this this.
Tax cuts are way more liked in the academic circles than work programs. At least tax cuts are more organic and the money introduced into the economy doesn't make people dependent. Think about it: what happened with the WPA ended? We had all these people out of work, once again, only this time they'd grown used to their cushy government job doing. In the meantime, the gov't inflated the crap out of the currency, f-ing up the economy, in order to pay for it.
>FDR [...] I guess that man was soo incompetent
My post said nothing about whether or not that government bank was a good idea. That's a separate issue, I was just proving parent poster wrong since he was so high and mighty on "facts," not saying corporatism is evil. I left that end open.
See, this is the post where I say corporatism is evil, and FDR was a moron who unconstitutionally expanded government and started the trend of bribing people with their own money. Ended the great depression? I don't agree, and neither do most modern economists.