WC emphasizes it well enough in his own posts IMO, but I substantially agree .I don't fault WC for holding a differing opinion. I fault him for shitty logic, proven intellectual dishonsty, and a lack of any critical thinking skills.
For me all this is in the category of gnomic poetry. Sumer is Icumen In.
The sky is blue;
the grass is green.
A big buck stands
in the clearing
and farts.
Well, if you understood the sciences I have explained, and followed my logic, you would see I am being honest. Not intellectually dishonest.
You know the basics of how a greenhouse works? Light enters the inside. Heat is produced and infrared is now scattered. Glass is reflective to infrared radiation, so it traps it inside. Although not exactly the same, that is why CO2, Methane, Water Vapor, etc. is called a greenhouse gas. They trap heat.
Now if you take the greenhouse, and use thicker glass, it doesn't help any. The thinner glass is just as effective of a mirror to IR as the thicker glass. Compare that to having a mirror that is made of 1/8" glass. You decide to replace it with a mirror made of 3/16" glass. Do you notice any difference in the quality of the reflection? Is your reflection 50% better? It is similar to greenhouse gasses. Once you have so much, adding more, even substantially more, makes no remarkable increase in the ability to trap heat. The first 100 ppm or so effectively trapped most the heat that can be trapped. Now it does make some difference, but very minimal.
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
I'll cede to your own limited mastery of science for the purpose of *demonstrations* in the thread. It surely exceeds my own, maestro.
I do reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions, according to the ineluctable elaborations of my own ignorant mind.
Please forgive me in advance should I do so too frequently at times.
In this case I am too ignorant to be persuadable by *either side*. I'm a popcorn eater on AGW.
Pretty much where I stand. I don't know enough to know, so I just side with the majority.I'll cede to your own limited mastery of science for the purpose of *demonstrations* in the thread. It surely exceeds my own, maestro.
I do reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions, according to the ineluctable elaborations of my own ignorant mind.
Please forgive me in advance should I do so too frequently at times.
In this case I am too ignorant to be persuadable by *either side*. I'm a popcorn eater on AGW.
You cede to the *reputable* consensus of science, as it were?
Yup.
I figure, if every scientist is reputable, then we should trust the majority's word.
If every scientist is irreputable, then they're all just as likely to be believed or disbelieved, so might as well side with the majority.
And if it's a mixed bag, how am I to tell the difference without formal education in those fields anyways?
Hence my decision.
I would be glib
and say that tomorrow
will either be better
or worse
or the same
but I cannot
because whether it is better
or worse
or the same
depends on what you define as good
or bad
and I don't think we can even agree anymore that there is a definition.
Only pomo airheads come to a full stop here. There is still puny internetz contention....phony forensics...talking to people while you're drunk...or wasting time at work...but I cannot
because whether it is better
or worse
or the same
depends on what you define as good
or bad
and I don't think we can even agree anymore that there is a definition.
Or Both!
Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. - Plato
I'll drink to that...Or Both!
A year later we are still stagnated. Mostly due to the lack of consumer spending and lack of corporate investment.
I still see the economy stagnated a year from now. I think people will continue to reduce spending relative to income and start saving more, partly out of necessity. A lot of people have taken some major hits to their credit scores, and will not be given credit, even if they wanted it. That will force savings for needed purchases.
A real societal shift.
Note:
This is pretty much independent of what the government does or doesn't do.
Don't expect changing the party in control of congress to make a difference in that.
I think the big bad bailouts, and the stimulus, both acted to prevent the larger contraction that I predicted. Good to be wrong on that.
Do not expect the US economy to start growing any time soon. I would say that stagnation for a decade or more is the most likely scenario. Elect Republicans, elect Democrats, elect who ever, it won't make much of a difference, although I view the Dems as being more responsible fiscal conservatives, i.e. tax and spend, as opposed to borrow and spend.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
post6568713
Got at least the first part right.
The current foreclosure snafu (bad paperwork forcing banks to halt foreclosures) will keep the losses at the big banks going for a while. That and it will likely drive up their costs, as they have to actually work with people.
Seems like the strategic foreclosures on expensive homes is continuing. Contrary to popular belief, strategic foreclosures are being driven by relatively wealthy people walking away. Gee thanks, assholes.
Oh shit. I can't believe I missed WC's gas=glass screed.
"The financial sector will be more regulated"
Really?
As with health care, the legislation is passed for financial sectors, but the rule-writing is being lobbied violently, and the Repugs promise to undo/defund all of it.
Could Republicans gut parts of Wall St reform law?
Republicans are targeting specific provisions of the reforms, such as funding for the new consumer watchdog.
Three senior Republican senators -- Richard Shelby, Lamar Alexander and Judd Gregg (who is retiring) -- told Reuters last month that making changes to the law will be a top priority after the congressional election on November 2.
John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, has sharply criticized Dodd-Frank and said he wants to repeal it.
"Banks are trying to move ahead of the regulations so they can shape the regulations themselves,"
Early next year, the Fed must write rules for implementing three key parts of Dodd-Frank:
-- the Volcker rule limiting proprietary trading by banks
-- a rule limiting banks' ability to count trust-preferred securities as Tier One capital
-- new limits on debit card transaction fees.
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?...6953NN20101006
=======
Blankfein/Goldman is quoted as saying money can flow anywhere and regulations won't stop him. He'll just move his money to wherever self-dealing, insider dealing, gambling, wild speculation, pump-and-dump trading, etc, are not forbidden.
I thought the regulation would be a bit more strict than the weak sauce that was served up.
Guess we haven't really learned our lesson about letting the financial sector "innovate".
Fuck.
We did not electe enough Democrats to really enact enough reform to be meaningful. We got instead, a lot of Republicans falling all over themselves to be seen as "business friendly".
your naivete in blaming everything on Republicans is amusing. Goldman Sachs OWNS the Obama administration.I thought the regulation would be a bit more strict than the weak sauce that was served up.
Guess we haven't really learned our lesson about letting the financial sector "innovate".
Fuck.
We did not electe enough Democrats to really enact enough reform to be meaningful. We got instead, a lot of Republicans falling all over themselves to be seen as "business friendly".
In case you didn't notice, the executive branch doesn't write the laws.
The OP prediction essentially says things stay the same. Hate to break it to you, but as boomers exit the system things are NOT going to stay the same.
"IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
-Hermann Goering, President Nazi Party, Luftwaffe Commander
"I guarantee the first time I go through one, I will have hands on my genitals. I might just pull out my nuts for good measure. Me and the TSA officer are going to get intimate. Might as well make us both uncomfortable." - Parker2112
I wouldn't make any predictions about the future of the economy until after the mid-terms....the last thing the economy needs is more tax cuts, but if the GOP wins control of the House that's exactly what they will propose to make Dems and Obama look bad........the Dem Senate won't go for that...they are already biting at the bit to let the Bush tax cuts, which has created net deficit job growth and record deficits, expire...
Hmm.
I predicted that our economy will stagnate, as opposed to historical growth patterns.
I said our debt will catch up to us, and that we will have to change to pay it off.
I also predicted a long-term waning of the GOP. I think that will make the right wing in this country more militant, as they feel more disenfranchised, probably leading to more anti-government terrorism, ala Oklahoma city bombings.
I also predicted that manufacturing will slowly start coming back.
I think the way we get energy will markedly change in 20-40 years.
Not sure if that is "essentially the same" or not. I don't see any drastic changes, no. There is some leeway for some revolutionary technology to be something of a game changer, but that doesn't take any real insight to say.
Much of what takes place in the economy won't be much affected by those cuts, and wasn't in the first place.
I really do hope the GOP gets control of everything. Because I think things will be shitty for a good while. I would prefer the GOP gets the blame for that, so we can finally discard their shitty policies as proven failures.
WC has been saying something very like this lately, only it goes the other way around.
Why doesn't trickle-down work?
Consider this. If I have a taxable income of $60k after my deductions, then a marginal rate change from 25% to 28% has more than a $1,800 change in my net take home pay, for what I then put into the economy. This money produces real jobs rather than government jobs. Now the 3% isn't directly applicable. The first part of the tax will increase from 10% to 15%, some stay at 15%, some go from 15% to 25%, and the remainder goes from 25% to 28%. In the end, I will definitely pay more than $1,800 more in 2011 when the tax cuts expire.
Tell me that this, multiplied by others in America doesn't make a difference. Tell me that the larger changes in a richer person's spending ability doesn't play a difference in what they buy in this economy.
Why do liberals thing that a person's money belongs to the government, and the government allows us to keep some of it?
Why the attitude "they don't need that much?" Who's the selfish one here?
It may not be measurable in real economic differences because of the complexities, but if you taxes everyone all but what they needed to live by, there would be no economy. The slope that progresses in economic power as more people have more money doesn't magically flatten out.
Except I want the RINO's weeded out too.
The larger changes in richer people's spending abilities don't play a difference in what they buy in this economy.
When you choose to participate, then you gain all the benefits and pay all the costs.
If I were to benefit most from a system, would I have an ethical or moral responsibility to support that system?
I get it.
You audited everyone's spending.
OK...
I get it now...
I don't disagree with paying taxes. I disagree with the idea that other people have the right to my money through the tax system rather than doing for themselves, and want to keep a system that lets them not fight hard for work.
You get more of what ever you reward and less of what you penalize.
The war ion poverty just creates more people on poverty, because poverty actually pays decent.
The war on the rich simply makes them shelter their money, move their residency, etc. We end up with less rich tax payers. Not more.
Then how do you explain the fact that countries with more generous social safety nets tend to have less "sticky" poverty? (more upward social mobility)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
