| Author |
|
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 1:48am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"I know Barrack got tested for AIDS"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzWYCxjdnY&feature=relat ed
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Emery Calame
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5773
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 3:01am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Uhhhh....not election related but has potentially serious foreign policy implications if true:
Japanese Expert on North Korea thinks Kim Jong-il has probably been dead since 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4692 472.ece
Man what a weird story. I'm guessing it's pretty unverifiable.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 5:09am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
USA Today/Gallup poll - McCain +10
RCP Average - McCain +1
The first time they've had McCain ahead since March.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/ge neral_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Markley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3969
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:09am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Does anyone know where I can find the picture of Obama stopping the waters of Hannah ala Moses?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:28am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| First of all, the government could be honest and state 'we don't count the people who have run out of benefits' couldn't they? They could estimate that figure couldn't they? Why not announce that as the unemployment figure? Why don't they? What sort of accounting is that? You're actually arguing the point the government doesn't know? |
|
|
Michael, you have never read an Employment Situation release.
You ask, "They could estimate that figure couldn't they?"
Yes, Michael. For the second time, yes.
Why do you think I mentioned labour underutilization in regard to your 'people who have run out of benefits' line, in my last response. As these figures include your discouraged workers, what did you think I was talking about? Breaking it down for you, the snapshot estimate gives us 6.1%, while the inclusion of discouraged workers (those once enrolled but dropped from official employment numbers) brings the figure to 6.3% of the estimated available labor force. 'Want to toss in discouraged workers AND all other marginally attached workers? 7.0%. The figures are even available for comparison with or without factored seasonable adjustment.
You see how easy it is, when you actually take the time to read the release that you intend to comment upon?
Far from arguing the point that the government doesn't know, I'm directly challenging your assertion that the government is somehow engaging in a knowing conspiracy to hoodwink anybody and that you have a clue as to what you were saying.
QUOTE:
| Please show me the number of people who have been dropped from the unemployment numbers in the latest report issued by the BLS. |
|
|
In the latest report? Sure.
An estimated 163,000 people; or, a .4% increase from July to August. If you meant to ask about an annual increase, the plain number is 589,000 people over the last twelve months. Estimate of total outstanding? 1.8 million people. Again, to echo Michael Casselman's point, exactly who's cooking the books here, Michael? And why are they doing such an unimaginative job of it?
There you go, Michael. Any other estimates which you claim are not provided--but which are, in fact, provided--to which you would like to be made aware? Well then, please feel free....to READ the fucking report.
Oh and, I do expect you to eat your words.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:32am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| I've been married 23 years and that sort of insult really isn't called for. Argue the point Michael and let's not get into the personal because it doesn't make your argument for you. It weakens any point you're trying to make. |
|
|
Michael, you infer that our country, as a whole, is too ignorant to know what's going on; when you, yourself, don't understand the very data you're deriding? And you're worried about my advising you to get laid? Sell it to somebody else.
And what about you, outsider? Too hip to have an actual, working, time-tested societal ideology; you'd rather content yourself with hopelessly impossible statements about the impending collapse of America. You'd rather just flit hither and yon over the issues and toss off pessimism like it actually amounted to anything. Even the points I might agree with--like the very concept of HMOs--are mantled under a philosophically empty shroud. Brother, you and I are never going to reach accord.
Argue the point? Michael, it is the sheer number of points which you've sought to offer and which I have shown to be either inaccurate or flatout mistaken which makes my case for me. I've honestly lost count. One by one, your arguments get shot down; but, rather than simply saying you had offered the extreme and were mistaken...you just tumble on to something else.
So, did you get laid or not?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 June 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:50am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I'm not sure how McCain is over Obama in the numbers? Was I the only one who watched McCain during his RNC speech? I literally felt bad for the guy because his speech was terrible. He's about as dynamic as wet cardboard and he's totally just saying the shit that people want to hear...and saying it in a very dull and stiff way.
I don't think we should vote for a president solely based on speeches and public speaking skills, but I think a persons ability to communicate does say a lot about that person (example: current president) and at least Obama backs up the changes he will be making.
I'm surprised that McCain didn't promise everyone two Christmas's each year if he's elected! I think (hope with all of my heart) that after the debates Obama will clearly show that he is the candidate to vote.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:54am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| In the 1950s & 1960s (despite recessions in 1953 & 1957) it generally took one wage earner to support a family (perhaps someone had a side job). I am talking about the average middle class family....SNIP...My father was in finance, in varying positions, and didn't make a large sum of money but we were middle class and not upper middle class either but supported a home, two cars, three children and my mother never had to work. |
|
|
I'll tell you what I know about the fifties and sixties, Michael. I know that half as many people bought and paid off their own homes. I know that the proportion people spent on their monthly food expenditures to feed their families was twice as much as it is now. I know that hourly employer compensation cost was, even adjusted for inflation, a fraction of what it is today. How does that factor into your nostalgic musings?
I also know that I when grew up in a lower-class, single-parent household in the 1970s, the average rate of inflation was more than double what it is now. I know that there were not simply high commodity prices, but outright induced supply shortage. I could go on; but then, I imagine you were saying the same thing about America then, as you are now. Isn't that right?
QUOTE:
| One could also compare how long it took a worker, on average, to pay off a new car or a home in 1955, or 1965, compared to today. |
|
|
Think about your statement. I'm not even going to indulge you this time, by responding to what you thought you were saying. Nope. So tell me, has there been some weird time dilation effect asserted against a thirty-year fixed rate mortgage? I mean, that is the most common mortgage length...just as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The average length of term on an automobile loan is actually less now than then, not that it matters given your phrasing. You wanna take a jab at reworking this one?
QUOTE:
| You talk about prosperity but isn't it true that our so-called prosperity is funded by nations poorer than our own? |
|
|
If by that, you mean trade, yes. Michael, the USA is responsible for a third of the entire world's wealth, how could we not be trading with countries "poorer" than ourselves?
QUOTE:
| These poorer nations we take welfare from have to keep on doing it too because the dollar is the reserve currency. If these nations were to start selling their Treasuries what would happen? |
|
|
We'd lose about 26% of our *current* real GDP and be left to deal with the larger, genuinely threatening ramifications of a world wide depression the like of nothing imagined before as it would affect us; while economies like that of China, the United Kingdom, and Japan would actually face a very real threat of collapse. And the twenty-five other countries ahead of us in the public debt department--like Canada, Norway, France , Germany, Italy, Japan, etc--would likewise deal with the ramifications.
See something so suicidal happening anytime soon, on the part of any of these nations? Oh, right, look who I'm talking too.
No, what concerns me far, far more than the approximate $505 billion a nation like China holds in Treasuries is an OUT OF CONTROL mandatory expenditures list that is, according to the government, ITSELF, "unsustainable". Trust me, $504 Billion owed to a country like China isn't going to bankrupt the USA. Sorry.
QUOTE:
| Yes, people knew Bear Stearns was in deep trouble way before there were any official announcements (perhaps decades before). |
|
|
Decades, no. Generally? Wasn't that my point to you when suggested that only "people at a certain level" knew anything?
QUOTE:
| The Fed has a secret list of "troubled" banks and that isn't news Michael....SNIP...That sort of thing tends to spread fast. |
|
|
If we're chatting about it, it doesn't really say much for your notions of a grand conspiracy, does it? As for not releasing the name of a financial institution whose reporting is under review (and that's what we're talking about), what are you suggesting as an alternative? First you complain about too little regulation; now, you complain about too much. And, you don't actually offer any alternatives...it's all just cataclysm.
QUOTE:
| I'd rather we had a president that leveled with us and took the bull by the horn but we don't. We don't have a Congress that does that either. |
|
|
On this, at least, I won't argue.
QUOTE:
| CDOs? Derivatives now stand at roughly $183 trillion dollars and like CDOs these derivatives are not regulated: J.P.Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America, hold more of them and I believe JP accounts for nearly half. |
|
|
Oh, some exchange derivatives are regulated. All Commodity derivatives are monitored by the CFTC. You know like...oh...gee...energy derivatives used by, among others...I dunno...say...utility companies? To your broader point? Yep! Tell me, how would you go about replacing the hedge market with something which fulfills its twin roles of price discovery and assuaging price risk? Or, are you just advocating nixing the OTCs, or what?
QUOTE:
| Take Lehman, their insolvency is not reported in the States is it? It is reported elsewhere (at least, it was in Korea). |
|
|
If you call a company laying off 7,500 in a year and taking a hit for 80% of its value in seven months insolvent; then yeah, I think you could say there had been a rumor or two. There are more such falls to come.
Your point, as it regards the world as we know it ending sometime in the next five years? The next twenty?
Edited by Michael Myers on 08 September 2008 at 7:03am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:55am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
QUOTE:
This "housing bubble" was just another scheme after the collapse
of the so-called tech bubble to keep the sinking ship floating a few
days more. The suckers have to be sold...SNIP...It isn't the "rogue
trader" but the very institutions
themselves. Top-down. |
|
|
You know, I can almost come close to your very first point; but then,
you veer off into the twilight zone with talk about a few more days and
the collapse of the economy. Well, those "few more days" now amount to
almost a decade. Down with the institutions, right?
QUOTE:
| You seem to assume Fed chiefs, like Greenspan (a Rand acolyte
among other things), are sane. Is that correct? To me, Greenspan is
crackers and he was instrumental in creating the financial collapse we
are in now. |
|
|
You offer this to a cat who has already stated his lack of regard for
Alan Greenspan's decisions as Chairman of the Fed, Michael? Review my
post to Rich, as I only ask him what his alternative would amount to in
real terms after stating my lack of appreciation for Greenspan's tenure
as Fed Chair. Michael, if Greenspan's decisions do not illustrate the
theory of rational expectations and increased moral hazards in
practice, I don't know what does...but still, more than a little part
of that was beyond him.
A RAND "acolyte", you say? Well, why don't you tell me all about the
RAND Corporation, Michael? I'm certain you DO have much to say on this
topic. You couldn't help yourself on this one, could you?
QUOTE:
| Alan lowered the Fed fund rates to 1%. Boy, they really had the
printing presses rolling then! How come? Because the banking system
needed an infusion of funds or it might have been lights out
Irene. |
|
|
No. You see, this is the problem with just about everything you have
to say: I can't take you seriously, even when there is a thread of
something I agree with in theory.
There was no threat of a "Lights out, Irene!" moment in the sense you
imply....that is, the utter collapse of anything...but rather, the
effort, on Greenspan's part to avoid actually acting as Chairman of the
Federal Reserve and making the strong call to let the market take its
course. You're even misrepresenting the extent of the actual problem
with Greenspan's decisions as Chairman, Michael. The problem isn't the
cheap rate, per se, as this is a viable and understood mechanism. The
problem was the clear moral hazard which his policies as Fed chief
engendered in the market at large and to which Greenspan could do
little to avoid by adopting once more his preferred remedy. Over, and
over, and over.
One quarter, or even a few successive quarters of cheap money isn't
going to do anything but achieve its purpose; however, when the Fed, as
under Greenspan, begins to abuse just one aspect of money supply theory
and supports backed bailouts at every whif of a crisis--in order, the
'87 stock crash, Gulf War, Mexican Peso devaluation, Pacific crisis,
the Y2K joke, the tech bubble, September 11th attacks--then you are
giving the unmistakable impression that everything is risk free because
the government will step in if it goes sideways. And, this is moral
hazard.
But, to be fair to Greenspan, which two countries best weathered the
recession of the early 2000s? America and the United Kingdom. What
made it possible? The strength of our housing markets. And, while
America has been hit hard in the current secondary mortgage market, it
is nothing like the overvaluations which have occured in the
Netherlands, Ireland, or the United Kingdom. Is Greenspan responsible
for monetary policy in those countries as well? They didn't adopt our
monetary policy as put forward by Greenspan.
The Bank of England adhered to their traditional, tighter monetary
policy with respect to the money supply. They now face a potentially
more troubling outlook than the US, many times their financial size and
secondary market exposure. How about Ireland? We experienced less
than a twenty percent overvaluation in the larger aggregate; while, for
example, Ireland experienced more than a 30% overvaluation through
2007. They don't share our monetary policy or Fed Chairman. What
about France? More than twenty percent overvaluation through 2007.
QUOTE:
| He 'got it' alright. He was for creating speculative bubble.
He had no other ideas. He's bankrupt of ideas. Funny and tragic at
the same time. 8000 people per day are losing their homes thanks to
Greenspan's insanity (not that he was alone). |
|
|
No, mortgage *properties* don't automatically equate to 8000 individual
families losing their homes to foreclosure, Michael. You know as well
as I do that a huge chunk of subprime lending was to speculators on
property to be either flipped or to serve as a rental payoffs on the
mortgages. This IS what created the speculative bubble you mention,
not 8000 families buying houses. You know as well as I do that if you
remove overvaluation engendered by the speculator market on existing
property AND starts, then you don't have a housing bubble...but no, you
vamp the foreclosure line for effect.
QUOTE:
| I am of the opinion many of these bankers, hedge fund boys, etc.
need to be locked away in prison. They all knew exactly what they were
doing. I don't find it amusing that innocent people are now being
foreclosed on and we're at the edge of a precipice you call
"prosperity" do you? |
|
|
Once again, you can't help but take it to the most absurd of extremes. All we're at the edge of, Michael, is my patience.
QUOTE:
| You never responded to the banking system's off-balance sheet
liabilities. Why is that allowed, in your opinion? I have my own
reasons but I want to hear your yours. |
|
|
Gee, Michael, it couldn't be so that financial institutions can skirt
regulation with the implied encouragement of the World's Ruling Council
and all in the name of Mammon, could it? Meanwhile, what do we do if
we discover bad actors engaged in shenanigans, Michael? That's right.
Now, what is your alternative? In terms of the banking sector, we have
tried every sort of heavy regulation scheme, and none has proven any
better than our current regulatory structure. Neither at preventing
crisis nor at recovering from crisis. Does the Great Depression ring a
bell, Michael? Could central planning and regulation have gotten any
tighter? No. Did it help anything? No.
QUOTE:
| History does change you know....SNIP...You want to see a chart
of what the banks list as assets compared to their derivative
portfolios? I have one someplace. |
|
|
If you think there's a tip I should know about, fax it on over. I'll
sell you a personally backed OTC hedge against the price of flour in
exchange...you know, for when society crumbles all around us.
QUOTE:
| Anyway, I enjoy these conversations and would love to see some
solutions out of the candidates. I will keep personal insults out of
this Michael. I think we can have a civil discussion. |
|
|
I really, really wouldn't bet on it...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 6:59am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
LMAO, Mike. Scott goes afoul of you and you practically spew out a rebuke. Another guy tells you that your candidate is an empty suit and that he doesn't get sucked in by any of that candidates "Elmer Gantry" speeches, and you...nod your head to nip it in the bud?
I may have been hasty, Michael Retour. Welcome!
"If ANY politician tries to change it, the scenario Bill Hicks described will come to pass:
The President is lead into a small oak-paneled room where 7 men, tycoons, captians of industry, etc, sit around a table, smoking cigars. The President is put in a chair and given a cigar. The lights dim. A screen is brought down. A projector plays footage of the Kennedy assassanation shot from an angle that no one has seen before. The film stops, the lights go up and one of the money-men looks at the President and says; "Any questions?"
So, yes, I'm with you on that. But we'll see..."
Oh, brother...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 7:01am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Tony Johnson wrote:
I'm not sure how McCain is over Obama in the numbers? Was I the
only one who watched McCain during his RNC speech? I literally felt
bad for the guy because his speech was terrible. He's about as dynamic
as wet cardboard and he's totally just saying the shit that people want
to hear...and saying it in a very dull and stiff way.
I don't think we should vote for a president solely based on
speeches and public speaking skills, but I think a persons ability to
communicate does say a lot about that person (example: current
president) and at least Obama backs up the changes he will be making.
I'm surprised that McCain didn't promise everyone two Christmas's
each year if he's elected! I think (hope with all of my heart) that
after the debates Obama will clearly show that he is the candidate to
vote.
*I try to post early and keep 'em together, but you got lost in the noise, Tony. My apologies.
Edited by Michael Myers on 08 September 2008 at 7:01am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 08 September 2008 at 7:12am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
You just know that "my Muslim faith" sound bite will make it into a campaign ad.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
