|
Post by agito on Aug 27, 2008 19:09:52 GMT -6
on a slightly related note- i heard on NPR that the "refined" estimates for Q2 GDP are coming out tomorrow- i can't wait to see UnLC rip that one apart.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 27, 2008 10:56:00 GMT -6
absolute crap4 words: MEDIAN income and: manipulated stats Economy: Average U.S. income fell when George Bush took office in 2001. Naturally, Democrats and the media unfairly blamed him for it. But now Americans are better off than when Bill Clinton was president.
According to the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service, average adjusted gross income in 2006 hit $58,029 in 2006 dollars. It was the first time that average income had exceeded the peak year of 2000, the year before incomes began to decline. The average income in 2006 was 1.2%, or $739, higher than in 2000, when incomes were swollen by capital gains from a roaring market, and $1,369 over the 2005 average.
We've heard a lot about how Bush has mismanaged the economy, but there's no evidence of this. In fact, incomes began growing in 2003 after falling in 2001 and 2002 and have trended upward every year since. The small bump in 2003 was followed by gains of $2,291 in 2004 and $2,210 in 2005.
Meanwhile, there's been only one quarter of negative GDP growth, the fourth quarter of last year, which was preceded by two quarters of 4.8% gains.
It can hardly be argued that Bush is responsible for falling incomes in 2001 and 2002, or that he's been a poor steward of the economy.
He inherited a decline that began on Clinton's watch with negative growth in the third quarter of 2000 and again in the first quarter of 2001. A stock market crash and the 9/11 attacks hit incomes hard, as did a series of Fed rate hikes. The effects of the resulting slowdown continued until Bush's economic policies, especially his tax cuts, kicked in.
Thanks to a growing economy, Americans' real disposable income has increased every quarter but two from the beginning of 2003, when Bush's policies started going into full effect, to the first quarter of 2007. Some of the growth was remarkable, including a 7.5% jump in the fourth quarter of 2004 and a 6.3% increase in the third quarter of 2003.
In November, voters will pick a candidate to replace a president who did an exceptional job of steering the economy through tough circumstances, but hasn't gotten a shred of credit for it. The best choice is the man who's more interested in increasing income than redistributing — and ultimately shrinking — it.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 25, 2008 23:45:01 GMT -6
Damnit, here i was feeling safe because my insurance is through USAA. Never thought about the possibility of another company buying them! I'd be so pissed if that were to happen.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 25, 2008 20:50:05 GMT -6
seems like your mind is made up- why pursue a dialogue with you?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 25, 2008 9:00:30 GMT -6
that first paragraph that shiff wrote is absolute shit. The market isn't a self-determined entitie. Give me an allegory that features lemmings- now that would have me paying attention!
Lacking any real change in fundamentals, such abrupt changes in sentiment following extreme price swings are as bullish a sign as I have ever seen. There is absolutely no basis for a significant dollar rally, or further weakness in gold, oil, or other commodities.
2 possibilities: Europe's slide in productivity and a presumption that China will slide as well once the olympics are over has everyone guessing that the world market hasn't decoupled. Remember the price of oil in 82' ? bye-bye commodities.
OR- the recent change in margin requirements in commodities markets, which, ironically, proves schiffs point. Since it's an artificial market influence, the previous trend will reassert itself as the commodities market players build up their positions to where they were before.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 24, 2008 10:58:43 GMT -6
article in time about rigging oil priceshighlight: Such a contract allows companies to hedge positions by locking in prices early. Airlines might buy futures contracts to reduce their exposure to rising fuel prices. Conversely, oil companies might sell futures contracts to assure a profit against future price drops. It's all about reducing risk and uncertainty. But what if oil suppliers were instead buying oil futures, compounding their own risk and reaping enormous profits from the explosion in the price of physical oil?another: All told, about one billion barrels of oil are traded daily through futures contracts at the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). This volume significantly overshadows the 80 million barrels of oil consumed each day worldwidehere's the deal, imagine the speculators as middle men between the oil pump and your gas tank (d'uh!). they contribute to high price(d'uh). now imagine another middle man getting in the action. not good. 1 billion barrels of oil traded despite 80 million being demanded? that means there is a lot of oil going through a lot of middle men. how many? 1 billion divided by 80million? 12.5 on average. which inplies that for every 2 players simply trying to trade oil for a practical use, there are 10 that are acting as middle men. that is not an accurate portrayal of what is going on, but you can compare that average with market history to see how many "players" are in the market, and how many are profiting and iinlfating the price. what i don't like about this article is it takes 4 pages to say something very simple. with the futures market, it's not about stockpiling oil, it's about stockpiling contracts. the game ends when a major airline or another major buyer goes out of business and the end demand stops. then the middle men get holding the bag and the market will deleverage. the authors make the case that oil companies could be investing in their own hedge funds that would contribute to this. I think that is a bit conspiracy minded and unnecessary to a basic point: eliminating the hope of wild profits by temporarily inflating supply will defeat this in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 24, 2008 10:28:32 GMT -6
my problem was clicking on any of the links took me to the prodboards homepage. Like if i went from one section to another section- hell it even happened when i tried to exalt someone. it seemed like they were moving files around on a server- so it could have been a one time maintenance thing. (only lasted the last 48 hours). I'll let you know if i see it again.
-- Oh sone of a bitch, it happened when i tried to reply to this thread.....
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 24, 2008 10:27:32 GMT -6
my problem was clicking on any of the links took me to the prodboards homepage. Like if i went from one section to another section- hell it even happened when i tried to exalt someone. it seemed like they were moving files around on a server- so it could have been a one time maintenance thing. (only lasted the last 48 hours). I'll let you know if i see it again.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 23, 2008 15:54:40 GMT -6
freudian typo in the subject line....
forum doesn't seem stable right now- i'd hate to lose all these posts.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 23, 2008 15:32:38 GMT -6
hey UNLC- i think i found your problem: look at my answers at questions 14 and 15. Mine are way different than yours.
For instance, tax credits for machinery is a form of capital investment that eliminates a worker. Rubinomics at work.
also- I'd love to see your reasonings as you answered your questions in much the same way i presented mine.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 23, 2008 15:24:22 GMT -6
I had some problems with this test even before i saw my results, and felt like commenting on some of my answers:
1) What is more important: ensuring that markets efficiently allocate goods and services, or boosting productivity, even if it's done by distorting allocation efficiency? Strong Efficient Allocation Leaning Efficient Allocation Neutral Leaning Expanding Productivity Strong Expanding Productivity
you could increase "productivity" by paying people to bury money(infamous example from the time of keynes)... but eventually you'd run out of farmland as the population grows and people would starve. allocating your resources is what smart economical management is all about, for both macro and micro economic situations.
2) Economic policy can either focus on the supply side (by encouraging individuals to work and companies to be efficient) or on the demand side (by ensuring that individuals, governments, and/or companies spend or invest money to keep the economy at full employment). All things equal, where is it more important for economic policy to focus on: the demand side or the supply side? Strong Supply Side Leaning Supply Side Neutral Leaning Demand Side Strong Demand Side
I had problems with the way this question was phrased. For myself, "strong demand side" means having the amount of money paid to the lowest quartile of the economic sector constantly increasing. It's more important that the employed paid enough to have a surplus than it is to have full employment. (fortunately these go hand in hand)
3) Which is the most important factor in driving economic growth? Policies to spur more: Savings and investment, spurred by fiscal discipline and a sound macro-economic environment. Savings and investment, spurred by lower taxes and sound macro-economic environment. Innovation in new products and new ways of doing business. Demand by consumers and business to buy more goods and services.
if everyone saved their money, there would be transactions, and hence, no economy. same for the next question
4) A key role for economic policy is to drive increases in savings (either private savings by individuals and companies or public savings through budget surpluses). Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
5) While the federal government can influence the short-term business cycle, it can't do much to get the private sector to become more productive. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
Transcontinental railroad, hoover dam, interstate highway system.. the freakin louisiana purchase, and hell- H3 mining operations on the moon if it comes to that
6) Government spending distorts the economy and, after appropriate spending on areas like national defense, should be as low as possible. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
this is not to say that spending should be as HIGH as possible however. It should be as low as possible, but spending needs to be high enough for "social" national defense, and to counteract shrinking private spending when those occasions arise.
7) Economic policies can focus on growing the economy or ensuring that the benefits of growth are distributed more fairly, especially to individuals and families that earn less. What do you think the right ratio should be between growth and distribution in national economic policy? 100 percent / 0 percent 75 percent / 25 percent 50 percent / 50 percent 25 percent / 75 percent 0 percent / 100 percent
I HATED this question. For myself, distributing wealth more widely does "grow" the economy. More people with more luxury spending means more transactions. woot
8) If the federal government had an extra $10 billion dollars, what share should go to (shares should add up to 100 percent): 0 % Cutting taxes 10 % Reducing the national debt 80 %Support for programs like health care and low income housing 10 % Funding for infrastructure, research and development, and tax incentives for innovation and productivity
my answer to this question might have been different in a different time period though
9) Markets get it right almost all the time. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
The real issue here is: what is "RIGHT"? the market parrallels an ecosystem where roughly 10% of the participants DIE. the economy, if left to it's own devices, would ensure a large number of participants died as a form of improving "efficiency."
10) People and firms make rational economic decisions almost all the time. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
A rational decision is based on informed opinion. this might of worked when everyone knew everything there was to know about a home and the goods in it, but in the modern era, knowledge has become specialized, it's impossible for all people to know everything about all things. Most, if not all of our purchases are made because we copy someone else: our parents, then friends and even that nice little lady on the TV.
11) More generous programs to help workers adjust to change (like unemployment insurance) blunt incentives to work hard and take risks. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
One less worry off my back lets me focus more on the task at hand. Knowing that i have some wiggle room if things go bad enables me to take the risk of working at ABCstartup.inc as opposed to XYZBIGCORP.corp.
12) If government lowers taxes on work (e.g., cuts the personal income tax rate on wages and salaries), people will work at least somewhat more. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
I work long enough to meet my needs and desires. If the taxes taken out of my paycheck were lower, and i was paid more, i'd work fewer hours. Others might build up their money and retire sooner... yada yada
13) Taxes, particularly high personal income tax rates, distort the economy and hinder growth. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
Taxes do distort the economy (which can be advantageous when used correctly), but they do not automatically hinder growth.
14) The ideal corporate tax code is a simple one with low rates and few deductions, rather than a more complex and higher one with many deductions that targets particular activities (e.g., like tax credits for activites such as research and development and clean energy). Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
Complicated tax codes present a burden that require resources to resolve, using up resources on an artificial and arbitrary need instead of using resources to do things like feed and clothe the fellow man
15) The tax code should be targeted to favor business investments in new machinery and equipment. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
This is one of our biggest problems in america, "things" aren't important- "people" are important! The tax code should be targeted to making it easier for companies to may more to their workers.
16) The federal government should help fund business to develop technologies. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
go H3 moon operation!
17) Programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which offers assistance to small firms to help them become more productive and competitive, are unnecessary because companies that are insufficiently profitable should go out of business or be taken over by others that can do better. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
Some risks are in the common interest, but since they are "common" with profit advantage, no private initiative will take the risk.
18) The federal government should not actively work to get sectors like health care and transportation to use information technology to improve quality and cut costs, and should instead reduce barriers and rely on the market to drive change. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
Seen our new FAA system for tracking planes yet? that's because it's not there! current system dated to the 60's i believe
19) The best trade policy for America is: More free trade and global economic engagement More free trade and global economic engagement, coupled with more robust policies to help those hurt by trade (such as universal health care benefits) More free trade and global economic engagement, coupled with more robust policies to help those hurt by trade, and with much more aggressive trade enforcement action against other nations engaged in unfair trade practices Less focus on trade and global integration, and revising existing trade agreements to incorporate stronger labor and environmental standards
Sorry UnLC, we have our disagreements here. A world on the common path of allocating resources successfully will resolve more conflicts before they start.
20) Which statement best describes your view towards international trade? Free trade boosts allocation efficiency and consumer welfare Free trade boosts allocation efficiency and consumer welfare, but government should take more active steps to compensate those hurt by trade Free trade, especially with low wage nations, can hurt workers and lower consumer demand Free trade can bring gains, principally through increased competition, but only if foreign unfair trade practices are minimized
Especially if the profits of the trade were directed to those that were hurt
Your dominant economic type: Innovation Economics (Strong)
interesting, i'll have to read up more on this guy, even though when i initially heard his quote "creative destruction"- i could see his priorities were in the wrong place.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 21, 2008 20:49:09 GMT -6
agreed. wouldn't the "contraction" actually be the banks writing off the subprime debts?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 21, 2008 20:33:34 GMT -6
thanks for the compliment judes. what UnLC is referring to is the process where insurance companies will pay what they think a service should cost instead of what the doctors bill. If the doctors don't like it they can sue, or go through some bureacratic mess that takes time and money to get the rest of the bill paid. More often than not, the doctor will simply refuse to take any more patients from that particular insurance company. This kind of restriction of supply of doctors only ups the costs.
I hadn't heard of the law that UnLC refers to- links would be great to any kind of documentation of that kind.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 21, 2008 12:06:21 GMT -6
Paul Howard on using the free market to fix health care in america. original article hereIf you’re not depressed about America’s “private” health-care system, you’re probably living in a cave somewhere in the Rockies. The bad news seems neverending: health-care costs keep going up, insurance coverage keeps going down, and routine errors — from deadly hospital infections to drug mix-ups — plague the system. I’m sure he’s going to spin this to his advantage… wait for it….For all of America’s vaunted innovation — we lead the world in creating new drugs and devices that fight disease and save lives — health care is extraordinarily expensive, and quality can be maddeningly uneven. Americans, normally cheerful capitalists, can be forgiven for thinking that government should step in and fix the mess.
That would be a mistake.As if the past 30 years of healthcare wasn’t- but hey- I was ripped off by 3 different Cheerful Capitalists today alone, please… DO go on.After all, government helped create much of the mess to begin with. Who created the other part? Can we focus on them? I mean,… I suppose we could get rid of government…The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, which dates back to World War II, leads employees to choose plans with high premiums (paid with pre-tax dollars), but low deductibles for routine care, driving up health-care costs. Got it – tax incentives are bad- maybe we shouldn’t use them as a catalyst to improve the economy? Aka- tax cuts...Medicare pays for quantity of care, not quality — leading to massive spending disparities in care for chronically ill patients across the country; data from Dartmouth researchers shows that more money doesn’t translate into better care. Indeed- after all, Americans pay more for healthcare than people in countries with socialized healthcare, but live a shorter lifespan then they do. Meanwhile, other state and federal regulations strangle innovation and discourage competition.Screenshots or it didn’t happen- link please to these “regulations”.The solution is to make health care much more like other sectors of the economy, where competition drives entrepreneurs to offer a wide range of affordable products and services to consumersYeay! Panacea time— like $300 laptops,that are outdated in 2 years- would you like your hemorrhage cured by a leach sir? cut-rate vacation packages sold online,careful- first anti-septic is on the house, from there it’s paygo. services good for only 2 weeks out of the year and discount brokerage firms. Sure- half the cost, but 1/10th the service. We can give you the needle and thread, but you are on your own for the stitches To unleash a new wave of entrepreneurial energy in health care, policymakers should focus on a four-point plan of action: Deceive, discount, deflect, deny? Play fair in health care .. deceive?Imagine charging low-income Americans more for health insurance. Outraged yet? We already do that. The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance favors higher-income workers, who get a bigger deduction and are more likely to work at firms that offer insurance. Low-income Americans working at jobs that don’t offer insurance end up paying much more for their insurance out of pocket — if they can even afford it. The tax penalty against individually purchased health insurance (30 percent or more, depending on income) is regressive and unfair. Agreed! This is badA tax deduction or tax credit for everyone who purchases their own health plans would be much more equitable, giving millions of uninsured access to insurance. “millions” as in 3 million or “millions” as in 47 million? Some perspective: people are pitching a fit about gasoline prices- at an increase of .. what was it- 25% (nice ballpark figure). Assume a 20000 mile average yearly driving distance, and that the jump in prices was from 3.25 to 4.06 (81c) assuming 20mpg national average- that’s $810. The average health insurance package is $4000. We can’t get a subsidy to lower gas prices, but we can do the same for something that is 4-5 times as expensive?A risk-adjusted voucher for our poorest, sickest patients (think cancer) would allow them to buy into insurance markets and encourage insurers to seek them out. “I’m a enterprising health insurance agency, I want to collect this $4000 voucher from this cancer patient so that I can prived $30,000 in services! Next week I’ll run for congress!”Employers, unions, and other civic groups could act as buying clubs for their members(they already do… at least for the people employed by companies that offer insurance, or for those few that still work in a union… or “other civic groups”…. Heh, nation of islam is a “civic group” is it not?)— helping them navigate the system and find the best values.’For free? Or are we now just passing the buck?One nation, one market … discount?A 2007 study from eHealthInsurance found that monthly individual insurance premiums ranged from a low of $98 in Iowa to $338 in New York; the national average was $148. The disparity is partly explained by state regulations (like mandated coverage for chiropractors) that drive up costs. - emphasis mine Private Universal health insurance- we can fix everything except your back.It’s time America became one market when it comes to health insuranceSo the big boys can dominate the market and reduce our number of choices— allowing consumers to buy insurance from across state lines. Blue cross of Nebraska, meet blue cross of Arkansas, (the state in between wasn’t significant)— Freed from expensive state mandates, insurance would become more affordableBecause that “mandated” service is no longer available! Sorry about your chiropractor going to the unemployment line, and lets not talk about your birth control pills because you don’t have any!— consumers would have more choices, and companies could target marketing efforts at the uninsured, newly empowered with tax-advantaged dollars.Tax money going to insurance companies instead of to doctors for genuine services…Stop being part of the problem .. deflectBecause it’s someone else’s fault anywayWhen it looked like retail health-care clinics might open in Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino went ballistic: “Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong.”And doctors violating the Hippocratic oath is…… still, nice selective use of a quote to infuriate the reader without presenting anything of substance to the incident at hand... Menino’s kneejerk response is typical of policymakers who think markets and health care can’t mix. They mix, much to the profits of the health insurance arbiters….They couldn’t be more wrong. In a recent report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, researchers found that retail clinics in the U.S. have grown from about 200 in 2006 to over 1,000 this year, AGAIN- They mix, much to the profits of the health insurance arbiters…. where's the report that said delivery of service actually improved? where's the report that says the percentage of those without health coverage went down?getting high marks from consumers for convenience and quality of care. The consumers that could afford it... and what, no numbers for this part of the argument?Compared with a doctor’s office or ER visit for minor ailments,“er visits for minor ailments”- READ- patients with no health insurance waiting till the last moment for service retail clinics offer consumers accessible, high-quality treatments at an affordable price. Deloitte praises the clinics as an innovation whose “potential is profound.”It’s a cheaper cost to the health insurance industry- but do the savings pass onto the insurance purchaser? Focus on the issue at handRetail clinics prove that high-quality care can be delivered by skilled nurse practitioners in non-traditional environments — Oh fuck- guess I didn’t need my heart by-pass to be performed by that guy with 4 years undergraduate, 3 years medschool, 1 year residency, 1 year specialty. We can get Ms. Jane with her 8month credential in “high quality care” and we’ll all be fine.but some states, like New York, prohibit the “corporate practice of medicine” (which limits the ability of for-profit companies to employ health care professionals) or try to slap retail clinics with restrictive regulations that drive up costs. And/or encourage safety. Lead scalpels from china anyone?State “certificate of need” laws also prohibit competitors from challenging local hospital monopolies with higher quality or more affordable services. Rather than stifling innovation and competition to protect existing providers (like nonprofit hospitals), policymakers should throw out their old assumptions and find new ways to encourage choice and competition in health-care markets. Blah- a hard one. Here’s the deal, for every patient not served by the “non-profit,” the expenses at the hospital go up in relation to those that are treated. Which in turn means fewer people treated there. So as more and more people can’t be treated by the non- profit, the costs of the non-profit spiral up. Then- those few patients that can afford it, put more demand on the "for-profit" sector, and costs go up there as well. The feds need to lead by example ...deny? Would you rent a television for $7,000 over three years if you could buy it for a tenth that price? No? Well, Medicare would. Medicare pays fixed prices for Durable Medical Equipment, set by 1980s-era regulations. According to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, Medicare rents an oxygen concentrator at the price quoted above — with Medicare patients shelling out a 20-percent co-payment for the rental ($1,418) — that it could buy outright for only $600. When Medicare was set to implement a competitive bidding program for DME last month, Congress killed it. Yeah- was going to say, congress kept medicare from executing negotiating power. Why? Lobbyists. While we are on that track- is there any way from having private companies inflate the costs on us? Oh wait- that would require the collective action of the people -> socialism!Government spending on health care, particularly for Medicare, is out of control and unsustainable. One of the few bright spots is Medicare Part D, where competition and consumer choice for prescription drugs have made the program a success with seniors and saved taxpayers billions of dollars.It’s also been called socialized pharmacy by those on the right. If Congress is serious about lowering health-care costs and sustaining Medicare for the long haul, it will have to embrace competition and choice throughout the program.Like gladiators “embracing competition” in the coliseum- choose your opponent, your odds of surviving are 50/50.The best thing that government can do to “fix” health care is to make it more like other, more competitive sectors of the economy by setting the basic rulesregulations? for competition and transparency,How is this different from what we do have now? policing fraud and corruption, OMGZ you got sick! You are committing fraud against your policy, /kick… (I think there is a little too much “fraud” policing)and then getting out of the way and letting markets and consumers decide what works. I know the market doesn’t like it, but the consumers are saying universal health care works.This is the formula that explains America’s leadership of the global economy — and it’s a long overdue prescription for health-care reform.We’ve steamrolled 2 countries on the opposite side of the planet- why the hell can’t we kill roughly %20 of the citizens on the biggest country on earth?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 19, 2008 21:25:37 GMT -6
or worse... they will lay off a couple hundred workers to to cut capacity
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 15, 2008 18:38:35 GMT -6
.... ok- as much as this statistic reinforces a cause i rally for. lets get it correct:
Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes FOR ONE YEAR between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
the opposition is ignorant- not us...
i hope
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 15, 2008 18:36:16 GMT -6
hawt fantasy - but is it believable
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 15, 2008 18:35:23 GMT -6
ultimately- its unspinnable.
either it's a old fashioned drop dead drag down fight for self determined sovereignty, (in which case you have to support the autonomy of both south ossetia and azkerb... whatever, give me a break i'm drunk at work)
or it's the manipulations of larger powers in a proxy war with "invisible" casualties (russia or usa).
unfortunately there is spin as to whether you can support the independence of geoorgia but not of south ossetia, ... or vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 15, 2008 18:30:31 GMT -6
call me an optimist- but tariffs might not even be necessary- a change is imminent
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 15, 2008 18:29:26 GMT -6
no it isn't
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 13, 2008 14:48:36 GMT -6
i'm at a loss from the reading, is the problem belief in god or is it belief in obama?
... or could it be that the real problem is not paying attention to how the upper class fucks over the lower class?
if that's the case, how does focus on an article that focuses on either god, belief in god, obama solve the problem?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 13, 2008 2:31:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 13, 2008 0:56:20 GMT -6
there already is a lot of info propagating through the tard-tubes about this conflict, i've even seen one post on Dkos that makes the case that neither putin or medved gave the go ahead on the russian accelaration. Medved was on vacation and Putin was in transit to the games. I don't put much stock in that allegation though.
In the middle of everything you've posted here UnLC, this Joe Mestas guy smells fishy. The fact that it's an interview on russia today should disqualify him as a source right off the bat.
what little i can find on this guy:
and he reads a prepared text SO well...
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 13, 2008 0:31:38 GMT -6
well- i've been going on an assumption that credit unions aren't motivated by earnings reports and stock value, so they can sit back on investments that were safe and slow, dividending out the cash out to the members. Unfortunately, it pays to research i guess first there was this- you can thank UnLC for this link: bankimplode.com/notice the number of credit unions on the bottom and then there is this that sheds some light on the issue: online.wsj.com/article/SB121842336441828975.html?mod=hpp_us_pageonebasically, remember how i said that credit unions took the "safest investments." Remember how many of those sub-prime derivatives were rated AAA at one time? ... ya one good thing is that the article focuses on financial credit unions, not consumer credit unions. Meaning that it is only difficult for consumer credit unions to make loans and transfer money at the moment. They still have their assets as a number on a piece of paper somewhere. (read: FDIC bailout? if there is money left?).. I don't know what vehicles consumer credit unions use for "savings' though....
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 13, 2008 0:20:59 GMT -6
agreed that it was good- didn't like that he got a few details wrong,
zimbabwe's inflation isn't because people are spending more money, it's because the government is spending more money in the form of payrolls to government employees. in essence, it's just a monetary example of inflation. not inflation based on expectations. (which i don't even believe in anyway)
can't think of what else bugged me- it was good.
think i'm going to start posting a sig to my posts:
"if we get to use substitution, can i swap out boskin for another economist?"
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 12, 2008 23:58:37 GMT -6
found an interesting article, it sites minxin pei. He was just on zakaria's GPS this past weekend, and is a guy that i would say i don't really like, but i would probably lose to if i got into an argument with about anything chinese related. www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19628&prog=zch one thing i could disagree with is the following: The U.S. government should devote resources to tracking reported cases of corruption in China, increase legal cooperation with China (to prevent illegal immigration by corrupt officials and money laundering), and insist on reforms to China’s law-enforcement practices and legal procedures before tracking Chinese fugitives in the United States and recovering assets they have looted.or we could let them figure it out for themselves when 800k laborers riot as the growth stops.(and, coincidentally, american capitalists lose their investments for not investing at home)
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jul 30, 2008 15:15:14 GMT -6
credit unions graybeard- credit unions.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jul 30, 2008 13:52:42 GMT -6
oh yeah. you're powerful. keep stroking it.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jul 27, 2008 17:00:37 GMT -6
that's a bummer UnLC. The sadder part is that if you have to deal with the ads in the first place, you could be making the money for yourself rather than contributing to proboards profits.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jul 19, 2008 17:52:11 GMT -6
i think a good question for both the candidates would be to ask:
Is capturing osama bin laden worth starting WWIII?
my opinion is that it's not.
|
|