That's funny, I frequently argue that the problem with people today is that they vote against their self interest, a la What's the Matter with Kansas, having fallen for a bait-and-switch that promises some pie in the sky morality based culture but delivers tax policies that favor the corporate executive over the line worker.
Personally, I have more respect for people who can put together coherent arguments about supply-side economics than I do for people who prattle on about how letting gay people share benefits undermines the sanctity of marriage. (I won't, however, hesitate to point out how the current financial situation is the direct result of the laissez faire, deregulation-is-always-a-good-thing mindset of people like Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan.)
From where I sit if your neighbors are gaming the economic system for their personal gain at others expense, voting to take some of their money for your gain is an appropriate response. And lets not kid ourselves, since any tax policy is, by definition, redistributive people who rail on redistribution really just want a tax policy that favors them or that they perceive will favor them in the future (e.g. "Joe the Plumber".)
The idea of a single chief executive is really useful when decisions have to be made fast, especially in wartime. The founding fathers thought a lot about how to properly balance government, and basically decided that congress was to be a slow and deliberate body, and the executive was to be able to make quick decisions. (it's also more nuanced than that, but I think my version is closer to the mark.)
That it worked well in 18th century diplomatic circles was a happy side effect.
You're absolutely right. The problem is being right, like being ethical, doesn't put food on the table.
The reason crises happen is three fold, first people with power see a competitive advantage in acting unethically, second people in charge or monitoring unethical/illegal behavior aren't up to the task, and third people tasked to do the work don't raise bloody hell when asked to do anything unethical.
In order to solve the problem you only need to fix one of those. The problem is, the first two options involve convincing people to act against their personal interests. People contain a remarkable survival mechanism, the ability to justify and rationalize difficult actions. Going after people who stand to gain by acting unethically is the business equivalent of abstinence only education.
This project is much more like advanced-F1 than NASCAR. NASCAR sucks from a technology standpoint because it basically hasn't progressed past the '60s. 16 valve cam-in-block 358 carbureted V8 engines... are you kidding me?
This project is less practical than F1, but at least it is forward looking, which makes it more practical than NASCAR.
Here's one from 1978. It's critical of Carter. It says he want's to do crazy things like shift away from oil to coal and nuclear.
Here's another. He foresaw the problem oil would become. He supported conservation and alternative energy. A frequent criticism of Carter is that he asked Americans to conserve - I'm still not sure I get that. He wanted to develop syngas. If anything he was ahead of his time, when oil prices went down again after the '79 energy crisis Carter's successor figured we wouldn't have to do anything, and that the status quo was just dandy.
Even with the dot-com bust (which incidentally pales in comparison to the housing bust) Clinton grew the economy more than anyone since JFK.
I like how you complain that Bush couldn't push an agenda because the GOP only had control of congress for 2 years (it's 4 and a half - i even gave you dates 1/20/01-6/6/01 and 2003-2007 - and it wasn't around 9/11) you blame Clinton's agenda for Bush's collapse, when the dems only actually controlled congress for two years ('93-'94). Blame Phil Gramm for Enron.
The CRA wasn't the problem. As I said 80% of subprime loans were issued by companies not bound by CRA regulations.
The real cost of the Iraq war is well into the trillions, and I'd rather spend that money on health care than nation building.
Bill Clinton ran the economy into the ground. It started 300 days before he left office. His policies are to blame: annualized GDP per capita change by president:
Eisenhower (R) +1.11% JFK (D) +3.48% Nixon (R) +1.70% Carter (D) +2.14% Regan (R) +2.45% G. H. W. Bush (R) +0.93% Clinton (D) +2.49% (+2.4% from 1999-2000) G. W. Bush (R) +1.39 as of 2006 (and dropping)
Nafta and Gatt sent jobs out of the country. George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W Bush all support NAFTA, you're going to have a hard time pinning that on liberals. Globilization and free trade are typical of modern conservative economists (which isn't to say that they're always bad ideas)
CRA required banks to make bad loans The CRA only applies to banks and thrifts whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. Mortgage companies like Countrywide Financial and fly-by-night cheapmortgage.com-type operations aren't CRA banks. Half of the subprime mortgages were made by companies that weren't covered by the CRA, and another 30 percent were written by organizations only loosely affiliated with CRA banks.
Enviromental policies against Drilling for Oil and Bulding Refineries There's been a conservative in the whitehouse (an oil man no less) for 8 years, and a republican congress for most of that time. So don't blame lack of an energy policy on liberals. No matter who you listen to the price of oil is going to continue going up as china and india come on line. The real solution is alternative energy and conservation. Carter had an energy policy, Reagan ripped the solar panels off the white house roof.
Now the Republicans are trying to be liberals and don't have the Guts to tell the American People that it is not Governments responsibility to provide Health Care, Welfare, etc. Obviously this rescue package is hardly conservative economics, and from a strictly economic standpoint, you're right, it's not the governments job to provide healthcare and welfare. However, here in reality, if the government doesn't administer it, no one will. Human dignity demands that we don't let our poor die in the streets from treatable ailments.
The Economy had recovered under Bush, but how long can an economy stand without manufacturing jobs, and with laws requiring banks to make bad loans? Bush has only had clear control of the Senate for 2 years of his administration (during and right after 911). Bush tried to fix the CRA but was shot down by Democrats. Bwahaha. The GOP controlled the both houses for half of 2001 and from 2003-2007. The GOP controlled the house for all of W's term until 2007.
Bush also has not been much of a conservative when it comes to Federal Education spending, Medicare, etc. Not gonna argue there, but I'd also add he's wasted a ton of money in Iraq.
Paul Krugman was an econimic consultant for Enron.(Nice job there) He also helped talk the Clinton Administration into "Free Trade." Maybe Krugman doesn't like the Bush Administration because they didn't listen to him like the Clinton administration did. McCain via Phil Gramm and Bush both also have ties to enron. Maybe if the Bush administration had listened to Krugman warn of the housing bust we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
Let me offer a correction to your analogy. CDSs aren't like buying an insurance policy, they're like selling one. So rather than buying a life insurance policy that pays on the failure of someone old and feeble, you sell one, in exchange for some cash upfront you offer to pay if someone young and virile (still AIG, Lehman, oops) kicks the bucket.
Then you can buy a CDS from someone else to cover your obligation if you have to pay on your CDS. And so on and so on, it's CDSs all the way down.
Of course when someone (horror of horrors) actually does default on a loan and the holder of the CDS comes to collect, and you can't pay not only is the bank going down, but they're taking you with them.
spreading a rumor is probably not a crime spreading a rumor with intent to damage apple is probably a civil matter spreading a rumor coupled with short selling to make yourself a profit is almost certainly a criminal matter.
Money is not a form of speech any more than a car is. Money is a possession not an action.
Donations to candidates are limited because people seeking to serve the public trust shouldn't be unduly influenced by one person with deep pockets.
If you want to say something say it. Form a PAC, spend as much money as you like. There are some restrictions, e.g. you can't coordinate with a campaign, but I think you'll find PACs have remarkable leeway, (see swiftboat veterans for truth and moveon.) I'm pretty sure the restrictions surrounding issue ads before an election have been struck down.
The volume (or pressure) most certainly would change.
Volume for solutions isn't strictly additive, especially when you're talking about liquids and gas. The packing of water and CO2 is tighter than the packing of CO2 and CO2.
The stock market is only a game of hot potato if there is an end condition AND investors know about it sufficiently in advance to prepare an end game.
Since the stock market is open-ended every stock purchase is an investment and every stock sale is a withdrawal. The act of buying or selling does not increase the value of the share, the time spent holding it does. Presumably during that time the company has increased it's worth and that value is reflected in the stock price. (again, if we buy index funds substitute economy for company and blunt your risk.)
Eventually, the universe will undergo a thermal death. On that timescale all value will eventually decrease to zero, but even on that timescale we have know way to identify the maximum until well after it's past. Up until that point there is no fundamental reason that the economy has to stop working. It is possible that it does stop working and there's a massive human die-off, but it is not necessary. (and if there's a catastrophe talk of investing is a moot point anyway.)
Are you predicting the end of economic growth? If so we've got more serious problems to worry about than the Dow.
If if and when we run against a boundary condition it's not going to matter whether you've invested in gold, stocks, or stuffed your mattress with cash.
Assuming, of course, that the companies you've invested in don't fold with a negative value. From that, there's no recovery.
Don't buy individual stocks
It's a legalized pyramid scheme
The economy is not a zero sum game
10-40 year investment is still a gamble
Yes it is, but as long as in the long term production is higher in the future than it is now, your (sufficiently diversified) investment will grant returns.
It looks like you're trying to repair a superconductor coolant loop. Would you like to: (a) vent all helium (b) order another 30 ton transformer (c) damn the torpedoes, lets make some black holes.
This didn't pop up on their personal computers, they were in a computer lab, and they thought they were supposed to be looking at medical information. I doubt you change the skin on every computer you sit down at.
Even in a country that holds capitalism as dear as the US (is that still true this week? - John McCain has changed "my friends" to "comrades") if a power plant sticks out their tongue and says they're not going to deliver power, the government will swoop in. And then the government can make the changes needed.
If you really did dig up the papers, and could date them, and this kid actually is using the same design as you, and it actually works in the real world, you can patent the idea and make a ton of money.
You know what else retains value in the midst of a financial panic? Skyscrapers.
That's true... Unless there's a real estate crisis coincident with the financial panic.
Sure, a sky scraper isn't going to lose all it's value, but it could be worth less than you paid for it - especially if companies are failing by the dozen and your prospects for new tenants aren't good.
Also from the irony department: Lehman didn't own it's London offices, and the rent Lehman paid for the space was 15% of the landlords total income. The landlord, thinking ahead carried insurance to protect against the eventuality that one of their major tenants would vacate. Their insurance company: AIG.
The thing the right is seemingly incapable of understanding is that the left, in general, allows for nuance. No one credible advocates abandoning Israel, and while anything other than a unconditional embrace will be tagged as ignoring our important ally, in reality (with it's well known liberal bias) there is not only room for, but any solution requires compromise - like a two state solution. There are, no doubt difficult details to work out, such as the how to handle Jerusalem, but just tow the idea that we shouldn't change our policy that we've been employing for the last eight^W sixty years because change is scary and we're doing oh-so-well is idiotic. Perhaps we should be trying to make and strengthen more alliances in the region than just clinging to one and alienating the rest?
If the left loses this election it will be because of hateful ignorance, but the ignorance won't belong to us, but the racist's^W silent majority instead.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, I frequently argue that the problem with people today is that they vote against their self interest, a la What's the Matter with Kansas, having fallen for a bait-and-switch that promises some pie in the sky morality based culture but delivers tax policies that favor the corporate executive over the line worker.
Personally, I have more respect for people who can put together coherent arguments about supply-side economics than I do for people who prattle on about how letting gay people share benefits undermines the sanctity of marriage. (I won't, however, hesitate to point out how the current financial situation is the direct result of the laissez faire, deregulation-is-always-a-good-thing mindset of people like Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan.)
From where I sit if your neighbors are gaming the economic system for their personal gain at others expense, voting to take some of their money for your gain is an appropriate response. And lets not kid ourselves, since any tax policy is, by definition, redistributive people who rail on redistribution really just want a tax policy that favors them or that they perceive will favor them in the future (e.g. "Joe the Plumber".)
It's a lot more nuanced than that.
The idea of a single chief executive is really useful when decisions have to be made fast, especially in wartime. The founding fathers thought a lot about how to properly balance government, and basically decided that congress was to be a slow and deliberate body, and the executive was to be able to make quick decisions. (it's also more nuanced than that, but I think my version is closer to the mark.)
That it worked well in 18th century diplomatic circles was a happy side effect.
You're absolutely right. The problem is being right, like being ethical, doesn't put food on the table.
The reason crises happen is three fold, first people with power see a competitive advantage in acting unethically, second people in charge or monitoring unethical/illegal behavior aren't up to the task, and third people tasked to do the work don't raise bloody hell when asked to do anything unethical.
In order to solve the problem you only need to fix one of those. The problem is, the first two options involve convincing people to act against their personal interests. People contain a remarkable survival mechanism, the ability to justify and rationalize difficult actions. Going after people who stand to gain by acting unethically is the business equivalent of abstinence only education.
This project is much more like advanced-F1 than NASCAR. NASCAR sucks from a technology standpoint because it basically hasn't progressed past the '60s. 16 valve cam-in-block 358 carbureted V8 engines... are you kidding me?
This project is less practical than F1, but at least it is forward looking, which makes it more practical than NASCAR.
Newly registered voters have to show id - meaning they can't vote absentee.
Voter registration fraud != voter fraud.
I'm more concerned with long lines (hours long) in urban centers of red states than I am with princess voting.
The google is your friend.
Here's one from 1978. It's critical of Carter. It says he want's to do crazy things like shift away from oil to coal and nuclear.
Here's another. He foresaw the problem oil would become. He supported conservation and alternative energy. A frequent criticism of Carter is that he asked Americans to conserve - I'm still not sure I get that. He wanted to develop syngas. If anything he was ahead of his time, when oil prices went down again after the '79 energy crisis Carter's successor figured we wouldn't have to do anything, and that the status quo was just dandy.
Even with the dot-com bust (which incidentally pales in comparison to the housing bust) Clinton grew the economy more than anyone since JFK.
I like how you complain that Bush couldn't push an agenda because the GOP only had control of congress for 2 years (it's 4 and a half - i even gave you dates 1/20/01-6/6/01 and 2003-2007 - and it wasn't around 9/11) you blame Clinton's agenda for Bush's collapse, when the dems only actually controlled congress for two years ('93-'94). Blame Phil Gramm for Enron.
The CRA wasn't the problem. As I said 80% of subprime loans were issued by companies not bound by CRA regulations.
The real cost of the Iraq war is well into the trillions, and I'd rather spend that money on health care than nation building.
Somebody's been listening to too much Hanity.
Bill Clinton ran the economy into the ground. It started 300 days before he left office. His policies are to blame:
annualized GDP per capita change by president:
Eisenhower (R) +1.11%
JFK (D) +3.48%
Nixon (R) +1.70%
Carter (D) +2.14%
Regan (R) +2.45%
G. H. W. Bush (R) +0.93%
Clinton (D) +2.49% (+2.4% from 1999-2000)
G. W. Bush (R) +1.39 as of 2006 (and dropping)
Nafta and Gatt sent jobs out of the country.
George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W Bush all support NAFTA, you're going to have a hard time pinning that on liberals. Globilization and free trade are typical of modern conservative economists (which isn't to say that they're always bad ideas)
CRA required banks to make bad loans
The CRA only applies to banks and thrifts whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. Mortgage companies like Countrywide Financial and fly-by-night cheapmortgage.com-type operations aren't CRA banks. Half of the subprime mortgages were made by companies that weren't covered by the CRA, and another 30 percent were written by organizations only loosely affiliated with CRA banks.
Enviromental policies against Drilling for Oil and Bulding Refineries
There's been a conservative in the whitehouse (an oil man no less) for 8 years, and a republican congress for most of that time. So don't blame lack of an energy policy on liberals. No matter who you listen to the price of oil is going to continue going up as china and india come on line. The real solution is alternative energy and conservation. Carter had an energy policy, Reagan ripped the solar panels off the white house roof.
Now the Republicans are trying to be liberals and don't have the Guts to tell the American People that it is not Governments responsibility to provide Health Care, Welfare, etc.
Obviously this rescue package is hardly conservative economics, and from a strictly economic standpoint, you're right, it's not the governments job to provide healthcare and welfare. However, here in reality, if the government doesn't administer it, no one will. Human dignity demands that we don't let our poor die in the streets from treatable ailments.
The Economy had recovered under Bush, but how long can an economy stand without manufacturing jobs, and with laws requiring banks to make bad loans? Bush has only had clear control of the Senate for 2 years of his administration (during and right after 911). Bush tried to fix the CRA but was shot down by Democrats.
Bwahaha. The GOP controlled the both houses for half of 2001 and from 2003-2007. The GOP controlled the house for all of W's term until 2007.
Bush also has not been much of a conservative when it comes to Federal Education spending, Medicare, etc.
Not gonna argue there, but I'd also add he's wasted a ton of money in Iraq.
Paul Krugman was an econimic consultant for Enron.(Nice job there) He also helped talk the Clinton Administration into "Free Trade." Maybe Krugman doesn't like the Bush Administration because they didn't listen to him like the Clinton administration did.
McCain via Phil Gramm and Bush both also have ties to enron. Maybe if the Bush administration had listened to Krugman warn of the housing bust we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
Let me offer a correction to your analogy. CDSs aren't like buying an insurance policy, they're like selling one. So rather than buying a life insurance policy that pays on the failure of someone old and feeble, you sell one, in exchange for some cash upfront you offer to pay if someone young and virile (still AIG, Lehman, oops) kicks the bucket.
Then you can buy a CDS from someone else to cover your obligation if you have to pay on your CDS. And so on and so on, it's CDSs all the way down.
Of course when someone (horror of horrors) actually does default on a loan and the holder of the CDS comes to collect, and you can't pay not only is the bank going down, but they're taking you with them.
spreading a rumor is probably not a crime
spreading a rumor with intent to damage apple is probably a civil matter
spreading a rumor coupled with short selling to make yourself a profit is almost certainly a criminal matter.
Money is not a form of speech any more than a car is. Money is a possession not an action.
Donations to candidates are limited because people seeking to serve the public trust shouldn't be unduly influenced by one person with deep pockets.
If you want to say something say it. Form a PAC, spend as much money as you like. There are some restrictions, e.g. you can't coordinate with a campaign, but I think you'll find PACs have remarkable leeway, (see swiftboat veterans for truth and moveon.) I'm pretty sure the restrictions surrounding issue ads before an election have been struck down.
The volume (or pressure) most certainly would change.
Volume for solutions isn't strictly additive, especially when you're talking about liquids and gas. The packing of water and CO2 is tighter than the packing of CO2 and CO2.
Actually Jamie nailed it.
Adam did ok, and Carrie stunk it up.
The stock market is only a game of hot potato if there is an end condition AND investors know about it sufficiently in advance to prepare an end game.
Since the stock market is open-ended every stock purchase is an investment and every stock sale is a withdrawal. The act of buying or selling does not increase the value of the share, the time spent holding it does. Presumably during that time the company has increased it's worth and that value is reflected in the stock price. (again, if we buy index funds substitute economy for company and blunt your risk.)
Eventually, the universe will undergo a thermal death. On that timescale all value will eventually decrease to zero, but even on that timescale we have know way to identify the maximum until well after it's past. Up until that point there is no fundamental reason that the economy has to stop working. It is possible that it does stop working and there's a massive human die-off, but it is not necessary. (and if there's a catastrophe talk of investing is a moot point anyway.)
what of it?
Are you predicting the end of economic growth? If so we've got more serious problems to worry about than the Dow.
If if and when we run against a boundary condition it's not going to matter whether you've invested in gold, stocks, or stuffed your mattress with cash.
Don't buy individual stocks
The economy is not a zero sum game
Yes it is, but as long as in the long term production is higher in the future than it is now, your (sufficiently diversified) investment will grant returns.
There's a guy running back and forth down the tunnel with a bucket of warm water...
Quit complaining about Fahrenheit, we could have said 2.7 Rankine.
It looks like you're trying to repair a superconductor coolant loop. Would you like to:
(a) vent all helium
(b) order another 30 ton transformer
(c) damn the torpedoes, lets make some black holes.
This didn't pop up on their personal computers, they were in a computer lab, and they thought they were supposed to be looking at medical information. I doubt you change the skin on every computer you sit down at.
Nationalize them?
Even in a country that holds capitalism as dear as the US (is that still true this week? - John McCain has changed "my friends" to "comrades") if a power plant sticks out their tongue and says they're not going to deliver power, the government will swoop in. And then the government can make the changes needed.
Yea for submarine patents.
If you really did dig up the papers, and could date them, and this kid actually is using the same design as you, and it actually works in the real world, you can patent the idea and make a ton of money.
It'd be like taking candy from a baby...
...or Tom Cruise
Agree with you there, I just wouldn't be touting the soundness of investments in real estate (skyscrapers or mortgage backed securities) this year.
The data centers retain their value mostly because they're infrastructure.
That's true... Unless there's a real estate crisis coincident with the financial panic.
Sure, a sky scraper isn't going to lose all it's value, but it could be worth less than you paid for it - especially if companies are failing by the dozen and your prospects for new tenants aren't good.
Also from the irony department: Lehman didn't own it's London offices, and the rent Lehman paid for the space was 15% of the landlords total income. The landlord, thinking ahead carried insurance to protect against the eventuality that one of their major tenants would vacate. Their insurance company: AIG.
The thing the right is seemingly incapable of understanding is that the left, in general, allows for nuance. No one credible advocates abandoning Israel, and while anything other than a unconditional embrace will be tagged as ignoring our important ally, in reality (with it's well known liberal bias) there is not only room for, but any solution requires compromise - like a two state solution. There are, no doubt difficult details to work out, such as the how to handle Jerusalem, but just tow the idea that we shouldn't change our policy that we've been employing for the last eight^W sixty years because change is scary and we're doing oh-so-well is idiotic. Perhaps we should be trying to make and strengthen more alliances in the region than just clinging to one and alienating the rest?
If the left loses this election it will be because of hateful ignorance, but the ignorance won't belong to us, but the racist's^W silent majority instead.