Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Political discussion thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPolitical discussion thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 261262263264265 303>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2008 at 09:17
Originally posted by Gamemako Gamemako wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

The seeds of this mess were sown long before. The greatest of all regulators Bill Clinton made his valuable contribution here too.


I wonder if you actually payed any attention to the whole sub-prime mess as it unfolded. By all measures, it's excessive deregulation that allowed the problem to form in the first place. The obvious solution is what you see even the FED admitting to now (and when that happens, you know it's time to give up the ghost): the banks do indeed need to be regulated. Banks repackaged and resold risk (moral hazard, anyone?) in something that resembled a Ponzi scheme (yes, I went there). Unscrupulous borrowers didn't help the situation either, but their incidence is a tiny percentage of the total affected. Since invesment and commercial banks are one in the same, they can play the securities game all day long and send the ticking time bombs all over the place (the green-eyed monster gets the best of us all in the end). There are so many things that went horribly wrong because of deregulation.

I feel like you have forgotten the main principles of your economic model: all people are perfectly aware, unbiased, and knowledgeable, and no firm exerts market power. Because deception and market control are the hallmarks of modern business (see the moral hazard problem of the credit market), the model naturally falls apart quite quickly. It's like using the van't Hoff shortcut equation (beloved reaction coordinate predictor) at a 1500K differential (limit is 100K): you're not even in the ballpark, let alone on base.
You have no idea what you're talking about
Back to Top
Gamemako View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 23:36
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

The seeds of this mess were sown long before. The greatest of all regulators Bill Clinton made his valuable contribution here too.


I wonder if you actually payed any attention to the whole sub-prime mess as it unfolded. By all measures, it's excessive deregulation that allowed the problem to form in the first place. The obvious solution is what you see even the FED admitting to now (and when that happens, you know it's time to give up the ghost): the banks do indeed need to be regulated. Banks repackaged and resold risk (moral hazard, anyone?) in something that resembled a Ponzi scheme (yes, I went there). Unscrupulous borrowers didn't help the situation either, but their incidence is a tiny percentage of the total affected. Since invesment and commercial banks are one in the same, they can play the securities game all day long and send the ticking time bombs all over the place (the green-eyed monster gets the best of us all in the end). There are so many things that went horribly wrong because of deregulation.

I feel like you have forgotten the main principles of your economic model: all people are perfectly aware, unbiased, and knowledgeable, and no firm exerts market power. Because deception and market control are the hallmarks of modern business (see the moral hazard problem of the credit market), the model naturally falls apart quite quickly. It's like using the van't Hoff shortcut equation (beloved reaction coordinate predictor) at a 1500K differential (limit is 100K): you're not even in the ballpark, let alone on base.
Hail Eris!
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 22:23
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

LOL I have no idea, but if they're planning on posting this one on their next issue, they'll get some respect points back from me.
Haha. With the links and pictures I have seen you post, are you seriously complaining about them being tastless?
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 21:08
LOL I have no idea, but if they're planning on posting this one on their next issue, they'll get some respect points back from me.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 20:03
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

And of course if someone wants the job, do we really want him as president?


Big%20smileBig%20smile It's a good one. Is it a real cover or an immitation of the Obama cover??
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 19:48
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

DO you find it funny that Bush's solution to weaning the U.S. off oil is to drill in ever more remote & costly location for amounts that don't even cover a day's worth of oil usage ?  Has it ever come to mind that the best way to stick it to OPEC is to find ways to use less, therefore buy less oil ?
What location are you referring to? A "costly" location is normally determined by the cost of labor. And drilling for oil in places with little or no oil is rarely practiced by sane people. For those two reasons no one will stick it to OPEC. There's another reason, much more important: why use your own resources while someone else's are readily avalable and inexpensive.


I'm with Slartibartfast on this one. Even as A am from an oil exporting country (Canada) , I think it would have and still makes more sense to subsidize alternative energy options than oil companies and OPEC. Short term pain , long term gain, especially given the west's, especially the U.S.' skill and talent technology wise.
  The oil companies won't allow that. Until there's a drop if oil to make a buck. That's why the electric car is still a thing of the future
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 19:24
And of course if someone wants the job, do we really want him as president?




Edited by Slartibartfast - July 16 2008 at 21:09
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 19:21
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Jimmi Carter is a nice guy who should have never been president. Imports quotas! windfall profits tax! a regulation on top of a regul;ation! What came out of it?  


Well, of course nothing came out of it because it was never tried.

Look at the mess the "all regulations are bad" crowd got us into. 
The seeds of this mess were sown long before. The greatest of all regulators Bill Clinton made his valuable contribution here too.
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


Consider this, if Jimmy had lost the election Ford would have president.  A Ford presidency would have been victim to all the historical circumstances, which might have deflated the conservative movement as they did very successfully exploit Carter's bad luck.  This might well have led to a two term Democratic presidency instead, possibly even Carter.  And with a Democratic congress behind him, would of course have transformed the world into a Communist utopia.Shocked LOL
It's always hard to specul;ate what the other guy would have done. What if it was neither Ford nor Carter? I mean a nice guy cannot be president. And the voters realized it by not re-electing him.
Back to Top
Gamemako View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 11:29
A crucial point needs to be made in all of this:

The economy has been marginally more successful under the big-spending democratic presidents than the economically conservative republican presidents. Truth is, policy impact is a rather dubious subject.

Read http://www.slate.com/id/2194426/ just for fun.
Hail Eris!
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 11:11
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

DO you find it funny that Bush's solution to weaning the U.S. off oil is to drill in ever more remote & costly location for amounts that don't even cover a day's worth of oil usage ?  Has it ever come to mind that the best way to stick it to OPEC is to find ways to use less, therefore buy less oil ?
What location are you referring to? A "costly" location is normally determined by the cost of labor. And drilling for oil in places with little or no oil is rarely practiced by sane people. For those two reasons no one will stick it to OPEC. There's another reason, much more important: why use your own resources while someone else's are readily avalable and inexpensive.


Offshore & in such easily accessible places as National Parks in Alaska.
I'm with Slartibartfast on this one. Even as A am from an oil exporting country (Canada) , I think it would have and still makes more sense to subsidize alternative energy options than oil companies and OPEC. Short term pain , long term gain, especially given the west's, especially the U.S.' skill and talent technology wise. Unless. of course, your family's made its' fortune in Oil. Funny how a Dem was the one who wanted to lead by making the hard choice.

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2008 at 08:22
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Jimmi Carter is a nice guy who should have never been president. Imports quotas! windfall profits tax! a regulation on top of a regul;ation! What came out of it?  


Well, of course nothing came out of it because it was never tried.

Look at the mess the "all regulations are bad" crowd got us into.

Consider this, if Jimmy had lost the election Ford would have president.  A Ford presidency would have been victim to all the historical circumstances, which might have deflated the conservative movement as they did very successfully exploit Carter's bad luck.  This might well have led to a two term Democratic presidency instead, possibly even Carter.  And with a Democratic congress behind him, would of course have transformed the world into a Communist utopia.Shocked LOL

On to the present and local politics.  Not much interesting going on around here.  My district is a Democratic stronghold island in sea of Republican districts.  Too, many races without competitors, which is a mixed blessing as less TV ads and junk political mail.  After yesterday we have to go back for a runoff thanks not having instant runoff voting.  Challengers for Suxby Chambles and whoever will win the county CEO position are in for another round.




Edited by Slartibartfast - July 16 2008 at 19:25
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2008 at 20:26
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


Jonathan Schwarz:

Jimmy Carter delivered his so-called “malaise” speech 29 years ago today. What we wouldn’t give today to have done what he advocated (except perhaps the expanded use of coal):

CARTER: Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never…

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas…

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel…

I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay…

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source…

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board…

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems…

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives…

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Thanks, America’s crazy right wing. We couldn’t have ignored our most important problems for three decades and thereby made them much worse without you.

(The speech can be watched here.)


Jimmi Carter is a nice guy who should have never been president. Imports quotas! windfall profits tax! a regulation on top of a regul;ation! What came out of it?  
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2008 at 20:19
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

DO you find it funny that Bush's solution to weaning the U.S. off oil is to drill in ever more remote & costly location for amounts that don't even cover a day's worth of oil usage ?  Has it ever come to mind that the best way to stick it to OPEC is to find ways to use less, therefore buy less oil ?
What location are you referring to? A "costly" location is normally determined by the cost of labor. And drilling for oil in places with little or no oil is rarely practiced by sane people. For those two reasons no one will stick it to OPEC. There's another reason, much more important: why use your own resources while someone else's are readily avalable and inexpensive.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2008 at 19:06
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

DO you find it funny that Bush's solution to weaning the U.S. off oil is to drill in ever more remote & costly location for amounts that don't even cover a day's worth of oil usage ? Has it ever come to mind that the best way to stick it to OPEC is to find ways to use less, therefore buy less oil ? Now that might cause some friction between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family, but hey,strong  friendships can stand some strain , eh.Wink


What would you expect from oil men, it's the Oily Way. LOL
They're just using the current situation as an excuse to poke their fingers in eyes of liberals.
Hey, I actually discussed something rather than just posting a comic.  OH, MY, GOD!!!

Jonathan Schwarz:

Jimmy Carter delivered his so-called “malaise” speech 29 years ago today. What we wouldn’t give today to have done what he advocated (except perhaps the expanded use of coal):

CARTER: Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never…

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas…

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel…

I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay…

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source…

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board…

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems…

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives…

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Thanks, America’s crazy right wing. We couldn’t have ignored our most important problems for three decades and thereby made them much worse without you.

(The speech can be watched here.)




Edited by Slartibartfast - July 16 2008 at 08:27
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2008 at 18:22
DO you find it funny that Bush's solution to weaning the U.S. off oil is to drill in ever more remote & costly location for amounts that don't even cover a day's worth of oil usage ? Has it ever come to mind that the best way to stick it to OPEC is to find ways to use less, therefore buy less oil ? Now that might cause some friction between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family, but hey,strong  friendships can stand some strain , eh.Wink
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2008 at 20:22








Edited by Slartibartfast - July 15 2008 at 19:06
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 23:03









Edited by Slartibartfast - July 14 2008 at 20:22
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 21:47
Let's play political oddball:











Edited by Slartibartfast - July 09 2008 at 23:03
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 11:19
This is interesting.  Sorry no source credit.




Edited by Slartibartfast - July 09 2008 at 21:47
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2008 at 00:39
Nah, why look for balance when you already knows who's lies to swallow whole heartedly Wink
Not that you think or know (consciously) that they are lies. You may just not have the capacity to think critically. or maybe the time.
I'm sure there is some honest explanation as to why many hold to ill defined superficial pseudo "positions".
But, really, it is so much easier to say that you can fool some of the people some of the time. Especially the people who've been fooled by you beforeShocked
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 261262263264265 303>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.434 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.