The law of supply and demand is a mathematical theorem.
That is absolute horseshit. The "law" of supply and demand is an untestable hypothesis, like most of neoclassical economics. It is a circular argument based more on metaphysics than mathematics.
Supply and demand is the same thing. If I'm willing to buy two ice cream cones at $2/piece, one at $4/piece, and none at $6/piece; that forms a demand curve.
But the demand curve is dependent on so many other variables that the "law" is completely useless. Your demand curve has less to do with price than it does with whether or not you've seen a billboard for ice cream or it happens to be a hot day and your kids are in the back seat screaming for ice cream. Why do you think they're able to sell so much premium ice cream at $6/cone? People go to Starbucks when they can get a coffee at McDonalds. Is it because there is a smaller supply of Starbucks coffee? The argument is based on a notion of cardinal and/or ordinal utility of commodities, but neither the cardinal nor ordinal utility can be measured (or even observed). The circularity of the argument can be described as "Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility".
Neoclassical economic theory is little more than an apologia for the metastasized capitalism of the 20th century. The models require a state of grace (perfect markets) that have never existed in nature and the math is sub-par.
No, there's this thing called the law of supply and demand.
The "law" of supply and demand is not a law, but an artifact of a system that is designed to create inequity. It is not a scientific law, and Economics is the softest of all sciences.
Parapsychology is more rigorous than Economics.
Whenever someone uses an economic "law" in an argument, you should immediately tune them out. If they use the term "free market", you should tune them out and then run like hell.
I'd much rather have healthy people than a healthy market.
You and me both.
In fact, have you noticed that "healthy markets" always mean prices rising, wages falling and people working longer hours? It's the greatest scam of the 20th century, living on as zombie economics in the 21st.
Handing everyone a blank check to buy whatever they like (regardless of whether they can afford it) is the same thing we've done in the education market.
Nothing like that happened. If anything, government has been doing the exact opposite, subsidizing construction so that developers build grand McMansions when most of the people locally need more modest apartments.
Then you get economic displacement.
You know, I've just re-read your entire ode to supply-side economics and not only has it never worked, but it's also immoral, according to this guy:
Then come the homeowners defaulting on their loans, then come the government bailing out the banks with taxpayer money, and so on.
It makes you wonder why they didn't just bailout the homeowners. They banks would have gotten their money and every underwater homeowner in the US could have been helped with a fraction of what the bailout cost.
The answer of course is that the banks who were bailed out were not bailed out because people weren't paying their mortgages. They were bailed out because they had made enormous bets on credit default swaps, trying to "insure" a secondary market in those loans and then, to make matters worse, those bets were leveraged at 40 to 1.
Then, the central bank will step in, through its many channels, to put a floor under rental prices ("So I think if we spent enough money, got enough of a hit right now, it would look like a floor on house prices, and we might have something every bit as good as a floor on house prices." [wsj.com]). The multiple government housing agencies (Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA [va.gov], USDA [usda.gov], etc) can also step in to influence the rental market, as they did the housing market.
The saddest part of the story is how many of those rental units owned by companies like Blackstone were once owned by private homeowners who were foreclosed on. In many (most) of those cases, a simple reduction in interest rate would have allowed those people to stay in their homes, and since the interest rates were at historical lows, it could have been done easily.
If a fraction of the money that was used to bailout the banks had been used to just pay down the mortgages of those homeowners, the worst of the economic collapse would have been averted and the banks would have still gotten their money. Then, the bailouts wouldn't have been necessary at all.
Don't pre-order, wait for reviews and buy it when the game is playable.
No, a promise is a promise. If the head of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Inc. comes and nuzzles her nose in the crack of my ass, I will pre-order the next Batman title.
But short of that, I won't be pre-ordering anything from Warner any time soon.
I've got $50 that says even one of these Radeon R9 Fury X beasts won't be able to make Batman Arkham Knight run without wildly fluctuating framerates, texture pops, tearing and The Bat Man doing The Jerk while gliding.
Fucking Warner Brothers. I'll pre-order another Warner Brothers game when the head of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Inc. comes and nuzzles her nose in the crack of my ass. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I mean I can only assume that they must also cease operation if there are any large birds in the area (a duck, goose, hawk, eagle, etc would do at least as much damage to them if hit).
I would think most birds flee the area around a large wildfire pretty quickly, showing more common sense than drone operators.
The thing is, as a drone pilot, if I see a fire, the last thing I want to do is get in the way of firefighters and/or emergency services.
That's because you were probably raised right and still have the sense you were born with.
We can't assume the same about everybody else. In fact, it's safest to assume everyone else has no idea how to behave and will fuck stuff up more often than not.
many of your points are true. but at the same time, there are many possible programs that the govt could fund across all human endeavors, and it has to choose a suite of projects that will move forward.
Yeah, and I'm not sure a Mars program that might give people the idea that we'll be able to pick up and move to some other planet once we trash this one is a good use of resources. It sends a bad message.
Corporations were, including many non-profit corporations, or charity groups that were incorporated.
Corporations are not a "who". Corporations are not people, my friend. And the people who work in any corporation already have their civil rights.
If you want to create a fiction that a group of people is actually a "person" with a set of rights above and beyond that of their constituent members, that's one thing. But that doesn't appear in the Constitution and it wasn't the law of the land until 2010.
Are you claiming that Americans are stupid because we're tricked into working long hours? or are you claiming that it's a myth that Americans work so much because Mexico & Greece work longer hours?
Neither. I'm claiming that it has nothing to do with some special "ethic" Americans have and everything to do with the decline of organized labor and the exploitation that's a inherent part of late-stage capitalism.
Yes, I said it. It is a non-existing problem. And until you can find and post here a set of materialized predictions of the Global Warming "scientists", it shall remain non-existing.
It remains a huge problem. Done manually, a cop can only call in so many plates in a day. Done automatically, every car that he is behind for any length of time gets called in.
If GPS data is added to the plate scans, a single car moving around will provide more useful data than a fixed reader and will be harder to evade.
Your license plate number is public. It's a visible identifier. I don't have a problem with every plate getting "called in" as long as the data is not stored or misused.
Spending money to put a message out is speech, just like it is for any group you care to name - ASPCA, environmental groups, solar power advocates, whoever. Spending money to pay people to kill other people for you is not speech, nor is vote-buying. You're being deliberately obtuse.
Killing people is not speech. Voting is speech.
That was a very bad analogy. Why not simply answer the question: In what way is voting NOT speech? And if it IS speech, then why can't I pay for it? Where in the Constitution does it say that I don't have the right to buy votes, as long as I'm not buying them for myself?
People defending Snowden as a pro-american whistleblower that should be pardonned by US authorities.
How about an example?
"Rights"? Power is power. The US, and every single other countries, are going to do things that favor their foreign policy, especially if they think they can get away with it. There's no "rights" here.
There's no "rights" until it's your rights getting fucked with. Then, you'll be surprised at how fast there are "rights".
Slashdot Mirror
That is absolute horseshit. The "law" of supply and demand is an untestable hypothesis, like most of neoclassical economics. It is a circular argument based more on metaphysics than mathematics.
https://fixingtheeconomists.wo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But the demand curve is dependent on so many other variables that the "law" is completely useless. Your demand curve has less to do with price than it does with whether or not you've seen a billboard for ice cream or it happens to be a hot day and your kids are in the back seat screaming for ice cream. Why do you think they're able to sell so much premium ice cream at $6/cone? People go to Starbucks when they can get a coffee at McDonalds. Is it because there is a smaller supply of Starbucks coffee? The argument is based on a notion of cardinal and/or ordinal utility of commodities, but neither the cardinal nor ordinal utility can be measured (or even observed). The circularity of the argument can be described as "Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility".
Neoclassical economic theory is little more than an apologia for the metastasized capitalism of the 20th century. The models require a state of grace (perfect markets) that have never existed in nature and the math is sub-par.
The "law" of supply and demand is not a law, but an artifact of a system that is designed to create inequity. It is not a scientific law, and Economics is the softest of all sciences.
Parapsychology is more rigorous than Economics.
Whenever someone uses an economic "law" in an argument, you should immediately tune them out. If they use the term "free market", you should tune them out and then run like hell.
You and me both.
In fact, have you noticed that "healthy markets" always mean prices rising, wages falling and people working longer hours? It's the greatest scam of the 20th century, living on as zombie economics in the 21st.
Nothing like that happened. If anything, government has been doing the exact opposite, subsidizing construction so that developers build grand McMansions when most of the people locally need more modest apartments.
Then you get economic displacement.
You know, I've just re-read your entire ode to supply-side economics and not only has it never worked, but it's also immoral, according to this guy:
http://www.usnews.com/news/art...
It makes you wonder why they didn't just bailout the homeowners. They banks would have gotten their money and every underwater homeowner in the US could have been helped with a fraction of what the bailout cost.
The answer of course is that the banks who were bailed out were not bailed out because people weren't paying their mortgages. They were bailed out because they had made enormous bets on credit default swaps, trying to "insure" a secondary market in those loans and then, to make matters worse, those bets were leveraged at 40 to 1.
The saddest part of the story is how many of those rental units owned by companies like Blackstone were once owned by private homeowners who were foreclosed on. In many (most) of those cases, a simple reduction in interest rate would have allowed those people to stay in their homes, and since the interest rates were at historical lows, it could have been done easily.
If a fraction of the money that was used to bailout the banks had been used to just pay down the mortgages of those homeowners, the worst of the economic collapse would have been averted and the banks would have still gotten their money. Then, the bailouts wouldn't have been necessary at all.
Well, now we've identified the problem.
This 1979 conversion van IS my home, you insensitive bastard!
No, a promise is a promise. If the head of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Inc. comes and nuzzles her nose in the crack of my ass, I will pre-order the next Batman title.
But short of that, I won't be pre-ordering anything from Warner any time soon.
I've got $50 that says even one of these Radeon R9 Fury X beasts won't be able to make Batman Arkham Knight run without wildly fluctuating framerates, texture pops, tearing and The Bat Man doing The Jerk while gliding.
Fucking Warner Brothers. I'll pre-order another Warner Brothers game when the head of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Inc. comes and nuzzles her nose in the crack of my ass. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I would think most birds flee the area around a large wildfire pretty quickly, showing more common sense than drone operators.
That's because you were probably raised right and still have the sense you were born with.
We can't assume the same about everybody else. In fact, it's safest to assume everyone else has no idea how to behave and will fuck stuff up more often than not.
Yeah, and I'm not sure a Mars program that might give people the idea that we'll be able to pick up and move to some other planet once we trash this one is a good use of resources. It sends a bad message.
Corporations are not a "who". Corporations are not people, my friend. And the people who work in any corporation already have their civil rights.
If you want to create a fiction that a group of people is actually a "person" with a set of rights above and beyond that of their constituent members, that's one thing. But that doesn't appear in the Constitution and it wasn't the law of the land until 2010.
Neither. I'm claiming that it has nothing to do with some special "ethic" Americans have and everything to do with the decline of organized labor and the exploitation that's a inherent part of late-stage capitalism.
That's a fairy tale they tell people to get them to work harder for less. It has nothing to do with an "ethic" and everything to do with exploitation.
Even Greeks work longer hours than Americans. Mexicans work the longest hours of any developed country.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ni...
He said he's not American, so he probably doesn't live in an insane country that ties health care to employment and insurance companies.
Before Citizens United, who was being deprived of their right to speak out about things?
We could argue this all day, but I guarantee we'll see Citizens United overturned, and I bet it won't be done by a liberal court either.
Welcome to the Mark Levin Show.
http://www.universetoday.com/9...
https://theconversation.com/20...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Who indeed.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...
http://www.petrostrategies.org...
https://www.opensecrets.org/po...
Your license plate number is public. It's a visible identifier. I don't have a problem with every plate getting "called in" as long as the data is not stored or misused.
Killing people is not speech. Voting is speech.
That was a very bad analogy. Why not simply answer the question: In what way is voting NOT speech? And if it IS speech, then why can't I pay for it? Where in the Constitution does it say that I don't have the right to buy votes, as long as I'm not buying them for myself?
How about an example?
There's no "rights" until it's your rights getting fucked with. Then, you'll be surprised at how fast there are "rights".
My profile picture in Facebook is a picture of you.
When I go into the public square, my face is my face.
And using money to buy elections? It's legal since Citizens United.