Reply With Quote
We live in interesting times, for better and for worse.
We're so ing rich, DR, I thought it would never happen.
But I can see it now. I definitely wouldn't rule it out. The Jeffersonian purge might come back in, to freshen the tree of liberty...
or...
something possibly even worse.
I don't rule that out either...
We live in interesting times, for better and for worse.
I don't think the US govt will be overthrown by violence. Nor will the paranoia of the camo-bubba fringe be proven to be anything but paranoia. There may be a couple of Waco/Ruby Ridge made-for-TV incidents, but they will be perpetrated by the camo-bubbas, not by the govt. Violating posse comitatus won't even be necessary. The NRA is a corporate business shill, not an army.
The capitalists and corps above all want to maintain ("conserve"-ative) and improve the status quo, which is fantastically in their favor. ie, they don't want to kill the Golden Goose, aka America The Suckered Fat-asses, that lays them endless multi-$T golden eggs.
iow, the Wall St banksters ain't gonna start wearing camo and shooting up the place. They leave that distraction to the camo-bubbas. The banksters are way too sophisticated for camo-thoughts.
Intelligent and highly motivated, they want at all costs to avoid direct confrontation and to avoid exposing who they really are. They know a large Silent Majority of Americans are fat/obese, dumb, and comfortable enough to do nothing and be demagogued by the VRWC into amusing themselves by feebly venting at the wrong, fabricated targets (immigrants, s, FDR, Dems, libruls, socialists, communists, lost freedoms, etc).
Very few Americans really care about politics. American know almost nothing about how the financial sector has ed them over, and how it will now live, unregulated behind the lie of "free markets" and hidden, to them over again.
Since the corps and capitalists control with their money who the serious candidates are, how their corporations depict the candidates, who wins, and how legislation/regulation is/isn't made, their is no way to save America through the political system from their predations and control. In fact, America is irretrievably lost, GAMEOVER. The VRWC shock troops have won.
The rich will continue getting richer, while the poor will keep getting poorer (and sicker from corporate food-like substances) by voting against their own interests.
eg, red-state bubbas and Bible-thumpers voting for VRWC ticket of Repugs who cut taxes for the rich and maintain/raise taxes for everybody else.
eg, Dems who vote for change but get the same ol' same ol' with some pro forma window dressing.
I think you're looking at too much of a "big picture" WH23. Will the country erupt into unrest overnight? Highly doubtful. But I could certainly see pockets of frustrated citizen causing riots, unrest and the like.
How many death threats did those bankers receive, after all?
Extra Stout seems to be convinced of it.
Well a day has passed and neither WC, nor Darrin has answered.
WC may or may not have actually read the question, so I will leave it out there a bit longer.
The lack of response simply adds to my overall assertion that almost all on the right who represent themselves to be "free market" advocates know next to nothing about economics.
Actually, I answered you yesterday. I said that I don't know and neither do you.
If ES still posts here, he's not using that handle. I miss him. I hope he's doing alright.
I do know the answer for certain.
The fact that you insist that the answer cannot be known from the information given simply adds to the level of self-pwnage, when I finally explain it.
The pwnage will be exacerbated by the fact that it would have taken so little effort on your part to actually find the answer, even when given a fairly solid hint.
Why do you do this kind of thing to yourself?
laziness.
Oh, there was ownage...on RG for bothering with DarrinS
DarrinS keeps putting himself out there for it. Casual bystanders are sometimes tempted to take a swing.
@Nbadan:
The case being that DarrinS kicks his own ass in this forum practically on a daily basis, I guess you do have a point about the gratuitousness of taking him to account at all, but everyone gets to dispose of his/her own free time, verdad?
Why so harsh on RG?
You claim to know the answer, but you don't post it. Then you claim I've somehow "pwned" myself. You and WH should get together for some whine and cheeze.
If I didn't know the answer, it's because I'm being honest. I guess I could Google an equation, plug in all the parameters, and pat myself on the back for a job well done.
But, you can use an equation or mathematical model for anything. But all models are simply that -- models.
All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box
Really?But, you can use an equation or mathematical model for anything. But all models are simply that -- models.
I reallllllly hope you aren't any sort of engineer.
Granted. I labor under the delusion, that every once in a while, somehow, somewhere, I might make a dent in someones false underlying assumptions.
A sysphian task to be sure.
Sigh.
Ok, since neither your nor WC have taken even the mildest stabs at it:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or
GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X - M).
Y = C + I + G + (X − M)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_productI (investment) includes business investment in equipments for example and does not include exchanges of existing assets.
I asked you something about the most basic of definitions involved in macro-economics. There was no need to plug anything into an equation.
It would have taken you less than a few minutes to look up the equation on wiki, read the definition of GDP, and notice the above quoted bit.
The answer to my question is ZERO, since the exchange was of an existing asset, i.e. existing stock.
If the stock had been issued directly from the company, and the funds raised were used to purchase new means of production, say a new factory, or office building, etc. it would have counted towards GDP for the year. But since the purchase was from Mutual Fund A, that was obviously not the case.
That is the answer, readily determinable, and easily found with a minimal effort. Effort that you did not make, even when I told you how easy it would be to find the answer and where to look.
You were at least honest that you didn't know the answer.
That you assumed I was erring in saying that I knew the answer, simply further demonstrates your inability to admit that someone who you perceive as disagreeing with you might actually know more about something than you do.
This is part and parcel of why I tend to assign your arguments little weight when it comes to a lot of subjects. If you assume that you know everything you need to know when it comes to any given topic, and don't express the intellectual oopmph to stretch your mind/understanding... (shrugs)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-15-2010 at 11:16 AM.
there is relativism and then there is "cop out" relativism...
That is what worries me about the fact that we are failing to limit our CO2 emissions at this time.
Limiting our CO2 emissions generally means limiting our usage of oil/coal/gas that is being rapidly exhausted, meaning that we are barrelling towards a rather precipitous run-up in energy prices that will have ripple effects in terms of food production, as modern farming relies heavily on oil usage, both for planting/harvesting/shipping as well as for pesticidies/fertilizers.
In examining options,economists, accountants, and financiers use a financial concept called "net present value". Basically it is a way of accounting for the fact that the value of money changes over time (i.e. inflation, or Time Value of Money). It rolls back all future costs and benefits to the present of different options, so that they may be evaluated and compared in a meaningful way.
Energy is, at the moment, relatively cheap, especially compared with probable future prices. (i.e. Peak Oil concept of resource depletion)
This strongly implies to me that the costs of switching over our economy to one that emits less CO2 now are much lower than if we decide to wait.
What we are doing now, i.e. nothing, appears to me to be similar financially to those Adjustable Rate Mortgages that re-adjust in the future with nasty balloon payments.
Sigh.
Ok, since neither your nor WC have taken even the mildest stabs at it:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or
GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X - M).
Y = C + I + G + (X − M)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
I asked you something about the most basic of definitions involved in macro-economics. There was no need to plug anything into an equation.
It would have taken you less than a few minutes to look up the equation on wiki, read the definition of GDP, and notice the above quoted bit.
The answer to my question is ZERO, since the exchange was of an existing asset, i.e. existing stock.
If the stock had been issued directly from the company, and the funds raised were used to purchase new means of production, say a new factory, or office building, etc. it would have counted towards GDP for the year. But since the purchase was from Mutual Fund A, that was obviously not the case.
That is the answer, readily determinable, and easily found with a minimal effort. Effort that you did not make, even when I told you how easy it would be to find the answer and where to look.
You were at least honest that you didn't know the answer.
Ok, so what? What does it MEAN? How does it relate to wealth inequality?
That's why I posted the Drake equation in your other thread. Has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
Did I ever say I knew more than you about accounting? I know you are an accountant. You should go work for the CBO. They have an army of number-crunchers that are NEVER PROVEN WRONG BY REALITY.
But I do admire RG's ability to Google the wiki entry on GDP. You have mad internets skills.
Back in 1967, didn't the the House Ways and Means Committee estimate Medicare would cost $10 billion annually by 1990, when, IN REALITY, it wound up costing $110 billion?
Maybe they needed better equations?
Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.
the assaults on democracy and markets are related. their roots lie in the power of corporate en ies that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public. what we really have is an oligopolistic compe ion and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces,conditioning today's compe ive advantage.
i think there are conclusions often drawn that the framers of the cons ution sought to balance the rights of persons against the rights of property. but that formulation is misleading. property has no rights. in both principle and practice, the phrase "rights of property" means the right to property, typically material property, a personal right which must be privileged above all others, and is crucially different from the position that one person's (or corporate en y's) possession of such rights deprives another of them. when these facts are stated clearly, we can appreciate the force of the doctrine that "the people who own the country ought to govern it," "one of john jay's favorite maxims. but more and more so what was once belonging to the public gets handed over to the corporate infrastructure.
You obviously believe all the Karl Marx fiction stories. Go live in those
fine Socialist countries. Only the elite leaders, like our Dear Leader, reap
the benefits of their efforts, passing regulations.
Oh, I forgot, I think you said at one time you lived in Germany as a
teenager.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
