Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5855|Canberra, AUS

11 Bravo wrote:

which mod/former mod is shifty?
trig
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4654|Ventura, California
Well, that would all depends on what your definition of a chest-beating exercise is wouldn't it?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4654|Ventura, California
Sarah Palin interview

Interesting

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-03-08 21:12:15)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4417|Cleveland, Ohio

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

which mod/former mod is shifty?
trig
i dunno but its def a troll account
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5855|Canberra, AUS

11 Bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

which mod/former mod is shifty?
trig
i dunno but its def a troll account
i swear it's the kind of nasty thing trig would do
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4417|Cleveland, Ohio

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:


trig
i dunno but its def a troll account
i swear it's the kind of nasty thing trig would do
i dont disagree but...they would not fly as far as i understand.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|5895|US
Palin overplays her experience in many areas, and tries to pull off the "everymom" look.  I don't want an average person as the POTUS!  I want a pragmatist genious with values--someone who can make hard decisions when neccessary and get both sides to agree to reasonable compromises.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4654|Ventura, California
When one side isn't reasonable it's a little hard to arrive at a reasonable compromise.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|4216|Massachusetts, USA

-Sh1fty- wrote:

When one side isn't reasonable it's a little hard to arrive at a reasonable compromise.
That holds true for all sides in a multiple party system. Don't turn this into your normal liberal bashing bible thumping bullshit.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4654|Ventura, California
That wasn't my goal.

I just think "Compromising" per se, is a terrible idea in many situations.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|4216|Massachusetts, USA

-Sh1fty- wrote:

That wasn't my goal.

I just think "Compromising" per se, is a terrible idea in many situations.
So you want things to be done your way and you don't like taking the opinions of others?
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4654|Ventura, California
There are certain economic and international issues that one simply cannot compromise with.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX

Pug wrote:

Sure, makes sense if you think GDP will be negative in the long run.  But if true, I'd like to know how you came up with that conclusion since obviously this would be a complete reversal from historical trends.

Since you are apparently educated and follow a different particular economic theory, feel free to share it with us to support your argument.
Simple really, an economy based on exponential 'growth' built on ever-expanding population and consumption, wasteful use of resources, printing money and foreign debt is unsustainable in the long run now matter how good some concocted index looks.

It may well give you a high standard of living in the short term but thats going to be a blip. It may last a generation or two - baby-boomers have had a better time than their parents did or their children will, but eventually debts and balance of trade swing back around and all the inefficiency will come back and hit you like a pendulum.

Lets rip up the tram tracks and make everyone buy cars! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets force them to have catalytic converters so they burn a ton of fuel unnecessarily! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets design cities inefficiently so road contractors make a ton of money and everyone has to drive everywhere chewing up fuel and tyres. It'll be great for GDP!

Lets start a war and spend a load of money on hardware, labour and fuel! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets outsource manufacturing to Mexico/China so people can spend more quickly and buy more junk! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets spend more than we receive in taxes. It'll be great for GDP!


I'm seeing some flaws here.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-08 23:37:48)

Birds Aren't Real
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5591|'Murka

Spark wrote:

Yeouch.

The government doesn't have any control over the super funds, they're all in the hands of private companies here. All the government does is mandate that at least 9% of your salary has to be invested by your employer into the super fund of your choice. There's something like 1.2 trillion invested IIRC.

EDIT: Hmm, it seems there is a (fairly small) amount of tax on super contributions.
That's referred to as a "political third rail" over here: privatizing Social Security. Even though it makes perfect sense, from the perspective of having it do what it's supposed to do, rather than provide an off-the-books slush fund for Congress.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4538|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:

What exactly don't you all like about Sarah Palin?
She's a blithering idiot.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Yeouch.

The government doesn't have any control over the super funds, they're all in the hands of private companies here. All the government does is mandate that at least 9% of your salary has to be invested by your employer into the super fund of your choice. There's something like 1.2 trillion invested IIRC.

EDIT: Hmm, it seems there is a (fairly small) amount of tax on super contributions.
That's referred to as a "political third rail" over here: privatizing Social Security. Even though it makes perfect sense, from the perspective of having it do what it's supposed to do, rather than provide an off-the-books slush fund for Congress.
Keeping it out of govt hands is good, putting practically all of it in shares, which it is in Aus, is not so good.
Birds Aren't Real
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4538|London, England

RAIMIUS wrote:

Palin overplays her experience in many areas, and tries to pull off the "everymom" look.  I don't want an average person as the POTUS!  I want a pragmatist genious with values--someone who can make hard decisions when neccessary and get both sides to agree to reasonable compromises.
Agree with this wholeheartedly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4538|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:

There are certain economic and international issues that one simply cannot compromise with.
Name them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4538|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

Sure, makes sense if you think GDP will be negative in the long run.  But if true, I'd like to know how you came up with that conclusion since obviously this would be a complete reversal from historical trends.

Since you are apparently educated and follow a different particular economic theory, feel free to share it with us to support your argument.
Simple really, an economy based on exponential 'growth' built on ever-expanding population and consumption, wasteful use of resources, printing money and foreign debt is unsustainable in the long run now matter how good some concocted index looks.

It may well give you a high standard of living in the short term but thats going to be a blip. It may last a generation or two - baby-boomers have had a better time than their parents did or their children will, but eventually debts and balance of trade swing back around and all the inefficiency will come back and hit you like a pendulum.

Lets rip up the tram tracks and make everyone buy cars! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets force them to have catalytic converters so they burn a ton of fuel unnecessarily! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets design cities inefficiently so road contractors make a ton of money and everyone has to drive everywhere chewing up fuel and tyres. It'll be great for GDP!

Lets start a war and spend a load of money on hardware, labour and fuel! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets outsource manufacturing to Mexico/China so people can spend more quickly and buy more junk! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets spend more than we receive in taxes. It'll be great for GDP!


I'm seeing some flaws here.
And I'm seeing that you haven't got a damn clue wtf you are talking about.

Trolley tracks were removed during WWII when we had a shortage of steel. No conspiracy.

Catalytic converters were added to cars to reduce emissions. Burns more fuel? Pick your poison. No conspiracy.

Cities for the most part weren't designed. They've grown organically. Exception to this rule is Manhattan which has a grid system. Organic vs centrally planned city design is another debate entirely.

What war was started to boost GDP? There's an old Keynesian fallacy along the lines of the 'broken window' comment that says that a good war every now and then is healthy for the economy. Too bad the only people who follow Keynes in my country are Dems and they haven't started many wars. Like zero.

Yep. Outsourcing was totally centrally planned. POTUS said "let there be factories in China" And there was.


Dilbert, I don't understand how you've been on this forum for so long and no one else has called you on your stupidity. You're a fucking broken record.

Last edited by [email protected] (2011-03-09 05:19:29)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX

[email protected] wrote:

And I'm seeing that you haven't got a damn clue wtf you are talking about.

Trolley tracks were removed during WWII when we had a shortage of steel. No conspiracy.

Catalytic converters were added to cars to reduce emissions. Burns more fuel? Pick your poison. No conspiracy.

Cities for the most part weren't designed. They've grown organically. Exception to this rule is Manhattan which has a grid system. Organic vs centrally planned city design is another debate entirely.

What war was started to boost GDP? There's an old Keynesian fallacy along the lines of the 'broken window' comment that says that a good war every now and then is healthy for the economy. Too bad the only people who follow Keynes in my country are Dems and they haven't started many wars. Like zero.

Yep. Outsourcing was totally centrally planned. POTUS said "let there be factories in China" And there was.

Dilbert, I don't understand how you've been on this forum for so long and no one else has called you on your stupidity. You're a fucking broken record.
Govt policy, including the laissez-faire you're so keen on, lead directly or indirectly to all of the above.

This is what I was thinking of, which predates WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Amer … ar_scandal
You can call it a conspiracy theory if you like.

Having a different opinion as opposed to repeating the popular line is not necessarily stupid.
Why so tetchy when discussing what are only theories anyway?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-09 05:31:02)

Birds Aren't Real
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5855|Canberra, AUS

[email protected] wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

Sure, makes sense if you think GDP will be negative in the long run.  But if true, I'd like to know how you came up with that conclusion since obviously this would be a complete reversal from historical trends.

Since you are apparently educated and follow a different particular economic theory, feel free to share it with us to support your argument.
Simple really, an economy based on exponential 'growth' built on ever-expanding population and consumption, wasteful use of resources, printing money and foreign debt is unsustainable in the long run now matter how good some concocted index looks.

It may well give you a high standard of living in the short term but thats going to be a blip. It may last a generation or two - baby-boomers have had a better time than their parents did or their children will, but eventually debts and balance of trade swing back around and all the inefficiency will come back and hit you like a pendulum.

Lets rip up the tram tracks and make everyone buy cars! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets force them to have catalytic converters so they burn a ton of fuel unnecessarily! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets design cities inefficiently so road contractors make a ton of money and everyone has to drive everywhere chewing up fuel and tyres. It'll be great for GDP!

Lets start a war and spend a load of money on hardware, labour and fuel! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets outsource manufacturing to Mexico/China so people can spend more quickly and buy more junk! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets spend more than we receive in taxes. It'll be great for GDP!


I'm seeing some flaws here.
And I'm seeing that you haven't got a damn clue wtf you are talking about.

Trolley tracks were removed during WWII when we had a shortage of steel. No conspiracy.

Catalytic converters were added to cars to reduce emissions. Burns more fuel? Pick your poison. No conspiracy.

Cities for the most part weren't designed. They've grown organically. Exception to this rule is Manhattan which has a grid system. Organic vs centrally planned city design is another debate entirely.

What war was started to boost GDP? There's an old Keynesian fallacy along the lines of the 'broken window' comment that says that a good war every now and then is healthy for the economy. Too bad the only people who follow Keynes in my country are Dems and they haven't started many wars. Like zero.

Yep. Outsourcing was totally centrally planned. POTUS said "let there be factories in China" And there was.


Dilbert, I don't understand how you've been on this forum for so long and no one else has called you on your stupidity. You're a fucking broken record.
I actually barely noticed Dilbert posting before... 2009? Before that there was the one and only great  Lizzard  named Bubbalo, and a series of weird, weird folk (Ikati, Xietsu, anyone?)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4538|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Govt policy, including the laissez-faire you're so keen on, lead directly or indirectly to all of the above.

This is what I was thinking of, which predates WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Amer … ar_scandal
You can call it a conspiracy theory if you like.

Having a different opinion as opposed to repeating the popular line is not necessarily stupid.
Why so tetchy when discussing what are only theories anyway?
So what? We have bus and subway lines. Trolleys are slower than buses and their routes cannot change.

So you link me to a wikipedia article about a conspiracy to make your point? I deal with facts Dilbert. I loathe conspiracy theories and the tinfoil hatters that try to pass them off as fact.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|5722|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

Simple really, an economy based on exponential 'growth' built on ever-expanding population and consumption, wasteful use of resources, printing money and foreign debt is unsustainable in the long run now matter how good some concocted index looks.

It may well give you a high standard of living in the short term but thats going to be a blip. It may last a generation or two - baby-boomers have had a better time than their parents did or their children will, but eventually debts and balance of trade swing back around and all the inefficiency will come back and hit you like a pendulum.

Lets rip up the tram tracks and make everyone buy cars! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets force them to have catalytic converters so they burn a ton of fuel unnecessarily! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets design cities inefficiently so road contractors make a ton of money and everyone has to drive everywhere chewing up fuel and tyres. It'll be great for GDP!

Lets start a war and spend a load of money on hardware, labour and fuel! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets outsource manufacturing to Mexico/China so people can spend more quickly and buy more junk! It'll be great for GDP!

Lets spend more than we receive in taxes. It'll be great for GDP!


I'm seeing some flaws here.
Well, for one, I asked for your economic theory, not a diatribe on the current US economy.

As far as the rest of the stuff you mentioned, you haven't really thought the entire thing thru.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5179|...

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Sarah Palin interview

Interesting
What the hell does it have to do with her ability to lead a country?

Listen, Palin is a fucking idiot. She believed Africa to be a country run by a single president, could not explain why there are two seperate koreas, has no clue of what an economy entails, she believes evolution is bullshit and wants creationism to be taught in every classroom (but I guess that suits your deliberately ignorant worldview), she didn't know what a vice president does from day to day although she was the running mate, nor what john mccain's stances were, she didn't "pay attention to Iraq" although her own son was being sent to serve there.

She has no executive experience, no idea of what to do with foreign policy - listing foreign policy experience as "russia is close to me" (and demonstrated perfectly by her severely lacking knowledge of anything outside of the US or history in general), she even denies global warming, although everyone on the fucking planet -both sceptics and man-made global warming advocates- agree that the earth is in a period of warming.

Her knowledge of world affairs, economy and governance in general is akin to that of a fucking third grader, and you want THAT to represent the US in world affairs?
inane little opines
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4766

Spark wrote:

f weird, weird folk (Ikati, Xietsu, anyone?)
He came back to bf2s as FallenMorgan. He's all over the fucking internet. The guys is a meme at explosm, and rationwiki. At RW he wrote a shitload of essays on a bunch of random shit.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:The_American_Taliban
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Who_ … ovement%3F
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:The_American_Taliban
If you put FallenMorgan in your google task bar it recommends you to his blog and explosm page.

Dude is a legend for being fucked up.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard