FDR spent money on the arts too. His reasoning was "Artists and writers have to eat also."
I agree that it IS our money. I want the government to spend it on programs that improve our country, and I think it's pretty clear that money is best spent when invested into our poor and middle class.
And the Free Market iS NOT best to decide how money should be spent - or we would never have such things as bubbles in the first place. And no, you can't blame bubbles on regulation - otherwise you would have have had the Great Depression, which resulted from a LACK OF regulation. Just like credit default swaps in in the past few years.
It has occurred to a lot of people that government regulations may have led to this - and they have rejected that thought because it has no basis in fact. It is in fact **contrary** to known facts and provable logic.
What, you thought you could look away and trust corporations to magically do what's best for the whole country, rather than what's good for that division of that company for that quarter and screw everyone else? Double please.
It is the worst kind of magical thinking, isn't it? Rather than deal with issues, which is what they're hired to do.
Oy. Makes me wonder if I should invest in a houseboat and a fishing pole, and a motorcycle so I can reach it in time after the next collapse and sail into the sea.
Glass-Steagal should never have been repealed, and probably would have kept the stock crash from becoming the disaster it was, this is true.
But my understanding of Glass-Steagal is that it was akin to a series of firewalls - housing was sealed off from investment banking.
If that's correct, then Glass-Steagal didn't cause the housing boom or it's collapse - it just would have prevented the collapse of the housing sector from spreading through the investment sector.
What this really shows to me is the hollowness of American production. Since money is a symbol of value, eventually we have to make things which are of real and concrete value in order to keep accruing the symbols. We can work things so that we get the symbols without the actual value for a short period of time - but only for so long.
Unfortunately we based our economy on building houses for each other - and ran out of a need for houses at a price that could sustain us. If we're going to have real and lasting prosperity we're going to have to actually *make things* that *we need* again. Cars, tools, and many other things.
There is no way the recession of 1920 was more severe than the one 1929. 1929 was a near-total collapse. Hoover tried doing nothing, and there were two clear results: 1. things only got worse, and 2. FDR got elected.
Also most historians consider the recovery from the Great Depression to have been completed with the start of World War II - not the end, in which there was actually a recession due to lack of jobs at the war's end.
No, you're wrong. What got us out of the Great Depression was FDR's policies of keeping the economy alive via government spending on and investing in the poor and middle class, so that they in turn could spend the money they needed to live back into the economy.
And this is ***exactly what WWII was***, from a fiscal point of view: a massive government spending program that put the entire workforce to work, increased production, and poured all that money back into the economy.
This is the consensus of a clear majority of economists and economic historians, in addition to making logical sense.
As for this statement,
Nobody ever got rich by spending more money than they have.
....it is completely and utterly false. Many people have gotten rich and successful by spending money they don't have - it's called credit. Modern economies can't survive without it.
And it is ridiculous to blame the housing boom, the collapse of the housing boom, and the creation of credit default swaps on Bill Clinton, let alone Jimmy Carter. It would be fair to consider the 2001 stock crash as the eventual end of the Clinton economic boom - but not the collapse that occurred in 2007, 6 years into the Bush presidency - and during which Bush did things exactly opposite to the way Clinton did.
Disagree that Keynesian economics relies completely on "rationality", at least as defined as "free individual rational choice". Keynesian policies such as FDR used to help the US out of the great depression involved a massive increase of government spending to give money and jobs to the poor and middle class, regardless of deficits - and NOT leaving things to the "invisible hand of the free market". Which you can guess how I feel about by my sig.
And the current bubble collapse we're still suffering from, the housing market, is more adequately described as a Milton- Friedman-esque bubble. As it certainly was not produced by the Bush administration following Keynesian policies.
It seems clear to my personal experience, and friends of mine who are in computer security, that Os X and Linux are orders of magnitude more secure than Windows.
While I'm sure OS X and Linux can be exploited, I think we'd all be far safer if they were adopted to anywhere near the ubiquity of windows. And who knows? That may be soon, if Google apps and other productivity software is available for free or cheap as compared to Windows, and its current lock on business drone software.
Ian Copeland, the brother of one of the world's greatest drummers Stewart Copeland, got into business as a promoter. Riffing off of Stewart's band "The Police", and his other brother Miles' company the IRS (Illegal Records Syndicate), he decided to call it the FBI - Frontier Bookings International.
He was soon visited by a couple of FBI agents who told him he'd have to change the company's name. He basically laughed them out of the office, and then discovered REM.
As a side note, all three brothers were fond of names that played with stern authorities, because they found out later in life their father was actually a covert agent for the CIA.
Another argument I've heard is that "Why would the US invade Iraq for profit? Look how much it's cost!" Which ignores the fact that the cost is paid by taxpayers, while the profit goes to private businesses. Why should they care that the peasants have to pay?
In my experience, AT&T sucks for Los Angeles and SoCal as well. I literally can't take a call where I work, can barely receive text messages, can try to connect for minutes and not get through, and drop calls with exasperating frequency. To a degree that no other non-Iphone users are receiving. It's freaking ridiculous how bad it is.
I would love to see the poll broken down by geography. My inner cynic says the numbers are cooked by getting the opinions of people who aren't in NY, SF and LA.
True story. Winston Churchill: statesman, pimp and playa.
"We shall smack hoes on seas and oceans. We shall smack hoe's on the beaches. We shall smack hoes in the tunnels. Word, we shall defend our hood, whatever the price may be."
It's almost like most large corporations resisting unneeded upgrades knew what they were doing.
Seriously. Wtf. At this point I don't know if I will ever buy another post-XP windows OS again. Even after the 2012 Mayan/Martian apocalypse. WIndows 7 probably has a Mayan Calendar problem.
Chuck D of Public Enemy: "If you don't own the master then the master owns you."
Immortal Technique ( a paraphrase): "A label deal is nothing but a really bad loan that you can't spend how you want, where you don't even own what you paid for."
1. renting of all the fly gear
2. endorsements, merchandising, and money from touring - which is basically the only way musicians have been paying their bills for decades now.
"You know, those crazy ideas that are come from those new-fangled fads all the crazy kids are into, with their bell-bottom jeans and their "Yeah yeah yeah"."
Preview is my friend....although "are come" is technically accurate too, for other reasons having to do with young studly developers.
And it isn't locked into a particular platform. You know, those crazy ideas that are come from those new-fangled fads all the crazy kids are into, with their bell-bottom jeans and their "Yeah yeah yeah".
And it isn't locked into a particular platform. You know, those crazy ideas that are come from those new-fangled fads all the crazy kids are into, with their bell-bottom jeans and their "Yeah yeah yeah".
In theory, because plants are living things, they could benefit differently from different sorts of attention paid to them. It's a slight possibility, but not so completely impossible that it isn't worth ruling out for a valid test.
Give people limited resources, emergency situations and see what they come up with as the best plans to solve it; or gave people the options to actually architect sites based on the best geographical features, design efficiency, possibility of using fossil water, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
FDR spent money on the arts too. His reasoning was "Artists and writers have to eat also."
I agree that it IS our money. I want the government to spend it on programs that improve our country, and I think it's pretty clear that money is best spent when invested into our poor and middle class.
And the Free Market iS NOT best to decide how money should be spent - or we would never have such things as bubbles in the first place. And no, you can't blame bubbles on regulation - otherwise you would have have had the Great Depression, which resulted from a LACK OF regulation. Just like credit default swaps in in the past few years.
It has occurred to a lot of people that government regulations may have led to this - and they have rejected that thought because it has no basis in fact. It is in fact **contrary** to known facts and provable logic.
What, you thought you could look away and trust corporations to magically do what's best for the whole country, rather than what's good for that division of that company for that quarter and screw everyone else? Double please.
It is the worst kind of magical thinking, isn't it? Rather than deal with issues, which is what they're hired to do.
Oy. Makes me wonder if I should invest in a houseboat and a fishing pole, and a motorcycle so I can reach it in time after the next collapse and sail into the sea.
Glass-Steagal should never have been repealed, and probably would have kept the stock crash from becoming the disaster it was, this is true.
But my understanding of Glass-Steagal is that it was akin to a series of firewalls - housing was sealed off from investment banking.
If that's correct, then Glass-Steagal didn't cause the housing boom or it's collapse - it just would have prevented the collapse of the housing sector from spreading through the investment sector.
What this really shows to me is the hollowness of American production. Since money is a symbol of value, eventually we have to make things which are of real and concrete value in order to keep accruing the symbols. We can work things so that we get the symbols without the actual value for a short period of time - but only for so long.
Unfortunately we based our economy on building houses for each other - and ran out of a need for houses at a price that could sustain us. If we're going to have real and lasting prosperity we're going to have to actually *make things* that *we need* again. Cars, tools, and many other things.
There is no way the recession of 1920 was more severe than the one 1929. 1929 was a near-total collapse. Hoover tried doing nothing, and there were two clear results: 1. things only got worse, and 2. FDR got elected.
Also most historians consider the recovery from the Great Depression to have been completed with the start of World War II - not the end, in which there was actually a recession due to lack of jobs at the war's end.
No, you're wrong. What got us out of the Great Depression was FDR's policies of keeping the economy alive via government spending on and investing in the poor and middle class, so that they in turn could spend the money they needed to live back into the economy.
....it is completely and utterly false. Many people have gotten rich and successful by spending money they don't have - it's called credit. Modern economies can't survive without it.
And this is ***exactly what WWII was***, from a fiscal point of view: a massive government spending program that put the entire workforce to work, increased production, and poured all that money back into the economy.
This is the consensus of a clear majority of economists and economic historians, in addition to making logical sense.
As for this statement, Nobody ever got rich by spending more money than they have.
And it is ridiculous to blame the housing boom, the collapse of the housing boom, and the creation of credit default swaps on Bill Clinton, let alone Jimmy Carter. It would be fair to consider the 2001 stock crash as the eventual end of the Clinton economic boom - but not the collapse that occurred in 2007, 6 years into the Bush presidency - and during which Bush did things exactly opposite to the way Clinton did.
Disagree that Keynesian economics relies completely on "rationality", at least as defined as "free individual rational choice". Keynesian policies such as FDR used to help the US out of the great depression involved a massive increase of government spending to give money and jobs to the poor and middle class, regardless of deficits - and NOT leaving things to the "invisible hand of the free market". Which you can guess how I feel about by my sig.
And the current bubble collapse we're still suffering from, the housing market, is more adequately described as a Milton- Friedman-esque bubble. As it certainly was not produced by the Bush administration following Keynesian policies.
It seems clear to my personal experience, and friends of mine who are in computer security, that Os X and Linux are orders of magnitude more secure than Windows.
While I'm sure OS X and Linux can be exploited, I think we'd all be far safer if they were adopted to anywhere near the ubiquity of windows. And who knows? That may be soon, if Google apps and other productivity software is available for free or cheap as compared to Windows, and its current lock on business drone software.
Why, it's almost as if they were ALSO intelligent primates with language skills, EVEN THOUGH they didn't have televisions!
Ian Copeland, the brother of one of the world's greatest drummers Stewart Copeland, got into business as a promoter. Riffing off of Stewart's band "The Police", and his other brother Miles' company the IRS (Illegal Records Syndicate), he decided to call it the FBI - Frontier Bookings International.
He was soon visited by a couple of FBI agents who told him he'd have to change the company's name. He basically laughed them out of the office, and then discovered REM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Copeland
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2006-97810.asp
As a side note, all three brothers were fond of names that played with stern authorities, because they found out later in life their father was actually a covert agent for the CIA.
Bingo. Would mod up if I could.
Another argument I've heard is that "Why would the US invade Iraq for profit? Look how much it's cost!" Which ignores the fact that the cost is paid by taxpayers, while the profit goes to private businesses. Why should they care that the peasants have to pay?
In my experience, AT&T sucks for Los Angeles and SoCal as well. I literally can't take a call where I work, can barely receive text messages, can try to connect for minutes and not get through, and drop calls with exasperating frequency. To a degree that no other non-Iphone users are receiving. It's freaking ridiculous how bad it is.
I would love to see the poll broken down by geography. My inner cynic says the numbers are cooked by getting the opinions of people who aren't in NY, SF and LA.
True story. Winston Churchill: statesman, pimp and playa.
"We shall smack hoes on seas and oceans. We shall smack hoe's on the beaches. We shall smack hoes in the tunnels. Word, we shall defend our hood, whatever the price may be."
I hear you. People need to chill the frak out and not just run with the fears in their head.
I think what this actually reveals is how much people let their fears dictate their actions in normal, every day life.
It's almost like most large corporations resisting unneeded upgrades knew what they were doing.
Seriously. Wtf. At this point I don't know if I will ever buy another post-XP windows OS again. Even after the 2012 Mayan/Martian apocalypse. WIndows 7 probably has a Mayan Calendar problem.
Or conservative punditry, if you want to blame it on socialism and really make the evil bucks.
Chuck D of Public Enemy: "If you don't own the master then the master owns you."
Immortal Technique ( a paraphrase): "A label deal is nothing but a really bad loan that you can't spend how you want, where you don't even own what you paid for."
1. renting of all the fly gear
2. endorsements, merchandising, and money from touring - which is basically the only way musicians have been paying their bills for decades now.
But if anyone can find 72 monkey virgins, Allan can.
In fact, Allah is probably the only entity imaginable who can. Not even Hanuman would be that interested.
"You know, those crazy ideas that are come from those new-fangled fads all the crazy kids are into, with their bell-bottom jeans and their "Yeah yeah yeah"."
Preview is my friend....although "are come" is technically accurate too, for other reasons having to do with young studly developers.
In the sense that a plastic hammer is a construction tool.
And it isn't locked into a particular platform. You know, those crazy ideas that are come from those new-fangled fads all the crazy kids are into, with their bell-bottom jeans and their "Yeah yeah yeah".
Whoops. Wow, was that the wrong article for this comment. Parasites and soccer. Carry on...or should I say carrion?
And it isn't locked into a particular platform. You know, those crazy ideas that are come from those new-fangled fads all the crazy kids are into, with their bell-bottom jeans and their "Yeah yeah yeah".
In theory, because plants are living things, they could benefit differently from different sorts of attention paid to them. It's a slight possibility, but not so completely impossible that it isn't worth ruling out for a valid test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)#Skepticism
Give people limited resources, emergency situations and see what they come up with as the best plans to solve it; or gave people the options to actually architect sites based on the best geographical features, design efficiency, possibility of using fossil water, etc.