I would tend to agree with most of your statement, but I would say that the problem with the economy (not just the markets) is our hideously bloated credit-card culture, which was promoted so much by Bush and Co (remember him telling us to go out and spend so the "terrorists don't win"?).
Both the government and individuals are up to their ears in debt, and the only way we can even continue to pay the interest is to borrow more. The government has really good credit, but that doesn't mean spit when there isn't enough money to pay the bills, and the only way out is to print more money (or default). One way leads to hyperinflation, Weimar style, and the other leads to nasty, mutually destructive trade wars, and a flight from dollars (which also causes hyperinflation as all the trillions of dollars sitting in government reserves flood the market, bidding up prices on EVERYTHING priced in dollars).
I think you would be surprised at how many fewer wars there would be without CIA operations constantly pushing for them.
Pulling the troops home doesn't imply withdrawing from the international stage, it just means we are holstering our guns. We should continue to interact and trade. We already know the pen is mightier than the sword, we need to recognize this and stop spending untold billions (trillions?) of dollars just to threaten people we don't like.
I seem to remember something about the antichrist being a "false prophet", where people seem to think of Obama as a "messiah".
Now, I don't put much stock in religion, but Obama certainly fits the criteria for an antichrist much moreso than McCain (not to say that McRage isn't a crazy asshole, made bitter by his 2000 loss, who would lead us into Tehran guns ablazing).
In four years, everyone here is going to wish they had voted for Ron Paul. Obama can't fix the economy while maintaining the status quo, which is the corporate backed mandate he and any other mainstream candidate has. It'll just get worse and worse and worse, just like it did under FDR. They'll still call him a "great" president, I'm sure.
If Ron Paul had made it, he would have struck at the root of the issue, which is the stranglehold that the central bank has on this nation, and the problems that arise from their arrogant central planning.
Oh well. Maybe there will be a chance in 2012 for some REAL change.
Or was there a "Rest of the World" military force stopping the carnage in Darfur that I never heard about?
That said, I think America needs to get it's fat ass out of the rest of the world's affairs. Stop playing policeman, and bring our troops home (from everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan). We've got enough problems at home. We don't need to be preaching democracy while slaughtering soldiers and innocents alike, especially with the state Bush II has left our own democracy in.
Yup, and Obama's will likely be just about the same ratio of depression:war.
I only hope that it isn't as long (as that would mean that he has about as much respect for the constitution as his predecessor).
This election was a choice between socialism and national socialism. I'm glad it was Obama over McCain, but it's still bodes poorly for our future. I can only hope that he is the messiah all the liberals seem to think he is, but I doubt it.
It is NOT a free market when there are government imposed barriers to market entry. You can't just let companies do whatever they want and shrug your shoulders and say "Well, it's a free market". If these companies get government protection from competition, they damn well better be regulated to provide high quality service at low price.
In a true free market, most markets would have ten or more high speed service alternatives of various types, but the truth is that in all but the most urban markets, you have one MAYBE two options for high speed.
I'm not sure why people think that America has any type of free market anywhere within it's borders, considering how massive and intrusive the government is. We really have a quasi-fascist system, which regulates small businesses that compete with large corporations out of existence.
No, but media bringing up the application of a double standard is a pretty good way to stop politicians from doing stupid stuff, and to get foolish laws taken off the books.
If only Ted Kennedy's problems at the airport had been enough to get rid of the Patriot Act.
Well, I only paid $40 for them at Sams. They were competitively priced, and I have certainly enjoyed them.
It seems to me that the only way to really avoid having interference is to put a bloody faraday cage around the guts of the speaker, which seems overly extravagant. It's not that big of a hassle.
I don't think it has anything to do with the quality. My last cellphone, an LG running on att produced interference on my very nice Bose computer speakers from as far away as 1.5 meters. It does the same for the old TV I have in my bedroom, and both clock radios.
I also noticed that it can interfere with video camera recording on the sound track. It seems to me that it's more to do with the amount of EM fluctuations than the quality of the sound equipment.
So, you think that the US army would be willing to destroy it's own country to root out insurgents? Are you high? Talk about your pyrrhic victories. You need to remember that flattening US cities would A: bring militamen out of the woodwork, B: create a popular uprising outside of that movement, and worst of all C: cause the governor of the state that just had one of its cities wiped off the map to call up the national guard and BAM you have a civil war, with one modern army against another (the same one). Wiping out American cities to get rid of insurgents is like shooting yourself to get rid of cancer.
For someone who has spent 21 years in the army, you sure don't know much about tactics or the concept of blowback.
It's even easier than all that. All the rebels would need to do would be to seize a few ICBM installations. A nuclear armed breakaway republic is immune to invasion. It only takes a few hundred to seize a few nukes. Once they have them, they can dictate terms pretty effectively to their former government.
Imagine an entire planet's worth of rare and valuable metals that hasn't been touched in all of history.
A sustainable biosphere could easily form given enough space. All they need to do is build a giant compound and populate it with the various microorganisms, plants, and animals that it needs. Take in CO2 from outside, and release excess O2 as well as any greenhouse gases you make, and before too long you have a pretty nice atmosphere. It could all be built on the mineral wealth that the land would produce.
Hmm, 57 deaths (arguably 4000+) from having a nearby nuclear reactor over all of history (1 incident), vs 0 deaths over the whole of history from relying on nuclear weapons for defense. No country with nukes has ever been invaded (with the possible exception of Israel, but I don't know if they had nukes back then). Whereas every country that doesn't have nukes has been invaded (or at least bombarded from sea or sky) at some point.
I think his math is a bit off... It's more like a negative inverse of his number, due to the lives that have probably been saved.
The reserve amount is much less than the amount lent out, thus the money for the loan is created out of thin air.
If the borrower defaults, then the amount of the default is taken directly from the banks reserves. While any single loan may be less than the total reserves, the combined amount of loans outstanding is something like 100x more than their reserves. If it were 100% backed, then a bank could easily weather having 95% of its loans default while still remaining solvent. If this were the case, we would never have failed banks.
I don't think you are in a position to call it 'bullshit' if you don't even know how our banking system works. It's not hard or complex. It's just fraudulent. An arguably legal fraud.
Actually, I think we need a wide variety of professions in government. As it stands, we have mostly lawyers and businessmen. If we were to throw in some doctors, teachers, and scientists, we would have people in congress with deep personal understanding of some of the most historically significant issues facing America.
Of course, engineers should be welcomed, as should economists, hell, maybe even a few IT people. It would be nice if someone from congress could walk across the hall and talk with someone who is knowledgeable on a subject of interest to a particular piece of legislation. Think of it, a Congress that couldn't be bullied by "the smartest guys in the room". Hell, much of the problems that come from lobbying are merely a result of misinformation (rather than outright corruption). If members of congress could consult their colleagues on matters of importance rather than biased lobbyists, things might get a lot better.
If money is power, and power corrupts, then, yes, the wealthy will in fact tend to be villains. It's not the wealth itself that makes them evil, but their natural desire for more. The rich put themselves into a position where they could manipulate the government into squashing competition, giving them tax breaks, and making them all the more powerful, while leaving regular taxpayers with an unendurable debt burden.
All this with empty promises of more jobs. It looked like it worked for a while, but I think we are seeing the collapse of that false premise. Yes, low taxes will boost the economy, but you have to pay for those low taxes with decreases in spending, not with debt. Governments are NOT any different than people. They are just bigger. If they spend without income or savings, they will get burned eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you can show graphic sex (excluding the naughty bits) on TV, but you can't say the word describing that act.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
I would tend to agree with most of your statement, but I would say that the problem with the economy (not just the markets) is our hideously bloated credit-card culture, which was promoted so much by Bush and Co (remember him telling us to go out and spend so the "terrorists don't win"?).
Both the government and individuals are up to their ears in debt, and the only way we can even continue to pay the interest is to borrow more. The government has really good credit, but that doesn't mean spit when there isn't enough money to pay the bills, and the only way out is to print more money (or default). One way leads to hyperinflation, Weimar style, and the other leads to nasty, mutually destructive trade wars, and a flight from dollars (which also causes hyperinflation as all the trillions of dollars sitting in government reserves flood the market, bidding up prices on EVERYTHING priced in dollars).
I think you would be surprised at how many fewer wars there would be without CIA operations constantly pushing for them.
Pulling the troops home doesn't imply withdrawing from the international stage, it just means we are holstering our guns. We should continue to interact and trade. We already know the pen is mightier than the sword, we need to recognize this and stop spending untold billions (trillions?) of dollars just to threaten people we don't like.
I seem to remember something about the antichrist being a "false prophet", where people seem to think of Obama as a "messiah".
Now, I don't put much stock in religion, but Obama certainly fits the criteria for an antichrist much moreso than McCain (not to say that McRage isn't a crazy asshole, made bitter by his 2000 loss, who would lead us into Tehran guns ablazing).
In four years, everyone here is going to wish they had voted for Ron Paul. Obama can't fix the economy while maintaining the status quo, which is the corporate backed mandate he and any other mainstream candidate has. It'll just get worse and worse and worse, just like it did under FDR. They'll still call him a "great" president, I'm sure.
If Ron Paul had made it, he would have struck at the root of the issue, which is the stranglehold that the central bank has on this nation, and the problems that arise from their arrogant central planning.
Oh well. Maybe there will be a chance in 2012 for some REAL change.
Why should we? You guys never do.
Or was there a "Rest of the World" military force stopping the carnage in Darfur that I never heard about?
That said, I think America needs to get it's fat ass out of the rest of the world's affairs. Stop playing policeman, and bring our troops home (from everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan). We've got enough problems at home. We don't need to be preaching democracy while slaughtering soldiers and innocents alike, especially with the state Bush II has left our own democracy in.
Yup, and Obama's will likely be just about the same ratio of depression:war.
I only hope that it isn't as long (as that would mean that he has about as much respect for the constitution as his predecessor).
This election was a choice between socialism and national socialism. I'm glad it was Obama over McCain, but it's still bodes poorly for our future. I can only hope that he is the messiah all the liberals seem to think he is, but I doubt it.
It is NOT a free market when there are government imposed barriers to market entry. You can't just let companies do whatever they want and shrug your shoulders and say "Well, it's a free market". If these companies get government protection from competition, they damn well better be regulated to provide high quality service at low price.
In a true free market, most markets would have ten or more high speed service alternatives of various types, but the truth is that in all but the most urban markets, you have one MAYBE two options for high speed.
I'm not sure why people think that America has any type of free market anywhere within it's borders, considering how massive and intrusive the government is. We really have a quasi-fascist system, which regulates small businesses that compete with large corporations out of existence.
No, but media bringing up the application of a double standard is a pretty good way to stop politicians from doing stupid stuff, and to get foolish laws taken off the books.
If only Ted Kennedy's problems at the airport had been enough to get rid of the Patriot Act.
Who needs the profile of an individual key when you can open any lock of the same type with a simple filed down key?
No, his name WAS Robert Paulson. He changed it when RIAA bounty hunters kept trying to shoot him in the head.
Don't forget that they can prosecute those who never even owned a car, much less sped on a freeway.
Well, I only paid $40 for them at Sams. They were competitively priced, and I have certainly enjoyed them.
It seems to me that the only way to really avoid having interference is to put a bloody faraday cage around the guts of the speaker, which seems overly extravagant. It's not that big of a hassle.
Well, fuck you too, buddy.
I don't think it has anything to do with the quality. My last cellphone, an LG running on att produced interference on my very nice Bose computer speakers from as far away as 1.5 meters. It does the same for the old TV I have in my bedroom, and both clock radios.
I also noticed that it can interfere with video camera recording on the sound track. It seems to me that it's more to do with the amount of EM fluctuations than the quality of the sound equipment.
It will. After a violent revolution. They always happen eventually.
So, you think that the US army would be willing to destroy it's own country to root out insurgents? Are you high? Talk about your pyrrhic victories. You need to remember that flattening US cities would A: bring militamen out of the woodwork, B: create a popular uprising outside of that movement, and worst of all C: cause the governor of the state that just had one of its cities wiped off the map to call up the national guard and BAM you have a civil war, with one modern army against another (the same one). Wiping out American cities to get rid of insurgents is like shooting yourself to get rid of cancer.
For someone who has spent 21 years in the army, you sure don't know much about tactics or the concept of blowback.
It's even easier than all that. All the rebels would need to do would be to seize a few ICBM installations. A nuclear armed breakaway republic is immune to invasion. It only takes a few hundred to seize a few nukes. Once they have them, they can dictate terms pretty effectively to their former government.
Sure, believe the guys who want the tax money.
That's like asking a con man whether or not you should give him your money.
Two words: mineral rights.
Imagine an entire planet's worth of rare and valuable metals that hasn't been touched in all of history.
A sustainable biosphere could easily form given enough space. All they need to do is build a giant compound and populate it with the various microorganisms, plants, and animals that it needs. Take in CO2 from outside, and release excess O2 as well as any greenhouse gases you make, and before too long you have a pretty nice atmosphere. It could all be built on the mineral wealth that the land would produce.
Of course, that probably uses the inflated version of GDP that our government puts out.
You really can't trust the government for statistics any more (or really anything, for that matter).
Hmm, 57 deaths (arguably 4000+) from having a nearby nuclear reactor over all of history (1 incident), vs 0 deaths over the whole of history from relying on nuclear weapons for defense. No country with nukes has ever been invaded (with the possible exception of Israel, but I don't know if they had nukes back then). Whereas every country that doesn't have nukes has been invaded (or at least bombarded from sea or sky) at some point.
I think his math is a bit off... It's more like a negative inverse of his number, due to the lives that have probably been saved.
DON'T DATE ROBOTS!
Brought to you by the Don't Date Robots Council.
The reserve amount is much less than the amount lent out, thus the money for the loan is created out of thin air.
If the borrower defaults, then the amount of the default is taken directly from the banks reserves. While any single loan may be less than the total reserves, the combined amount of loans outstanding is something like 100x more than their reserves. If it were 100% backed, then a bank could easily weather having 95% of its loans default while still remaining solvent. If this were the case, we would never have failed banks.
I don't think you are in a position to call it 'bullshit' if you don't even know how our banking system works. It's not hard or complex. It's just fraudulent. An arguably legal fraud.
Actually, I think we need a wide variety of professions in government. As it stands, we have mostly lawyers and businessmen. If we were to throw in some doctors, teachers, and scientists, we would have people in congress with deep personal understanding of some of the most historically significant issues facing America.
Of course, engineers should be welcomed, as should economists, hell, maybe even a few IT people. It would be nice if someone from congress could walk across the hall and talk with someone who is knowledgeable on a subject of interest to a particular piece of legislation. Think of it, a Congress that couldn't be bullied by "the smartest guys in the room". Hell, much of the problems that come from lobbying are merely a result of misinformation (rather than outright corruption). If members of congress could consult their colleagues on matters of importance rather than biased lobbyists, things might get a lot better.
If money is power, and power corrupts, then, yes, the wealthy will in fact tend to be villains. It's not the wealth itself that makes them evil, but their natural desire for more. The rich put themselves into a position where they could manipulate the government into squashing competition, giving them tax breaks, and making them all the more powerful, while leaving regular taxpayers with an unendurable debt burden.
All this with empty promises of more jobs. It looked like it worked for a while, but I think we are seeing the collapse of that false premise. Yes, low taxes will boost the economy, but you have to pay for those low taxes with decreases in spending, not with debt. Governments are NOT any different than people. They are just bigger. If they spend without income or savings, they will get burned eventually.