trig11 Bravo wrote:
which mod/former mod is shifty?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
trig11 Bravo wrote:
which mod/former mod is shifty?
i dunno but its def a troll accountSpark wrote:
trig11 Bravo wrote:
which mod/former mod is shifty?
i swear it's the kind of nasty thing trig would do11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno but its def a troll accountSpark wrote:
trig11 Bravo wrote:
which mod/former mod is shifty?
i dont disagree but...they would not fly as far as i understand.Spark wrote:
i swear it's the kind of nasty thing trig would do11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno but its def a troll accountSpark wrote:
trig
That holds true for all sides in a multiple party system. Don't turn this into your normal liberal bashing bible thumping bullshit.-Sh1fty- wrote:
When one side isn't reasonable it's a little hard to arrive at a reasonable compromise.
So you want things to be done your way and you don't like taking the opinions of others?-Sh1fty- wrote:
That wasn't my goal.
I just think "Compromising" per se, is a terrible idea in many situations.
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.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.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-08 23:37:48)
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.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.
She's a blithering idiot.-Sh1fty- wrote:
What exactly don't you all like about Sarah Palin?
Keeping it out of govt hands is good, putting practically all of it in shares, which it is in Aus, is not so good.FEOS wrote:
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.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.
Agree with this wholeheartedly.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.
Name them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
There are certain economic and international issues that one simply cannot compromise with.
And I'm seeing that you haven't got a damn clue wtf you are talking about.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.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.
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 JohnG@lt (2011-03-09 05:19:29)
Govt policy, including the laissez-faire you're so keen on, lead directly or indirectly to all of the above.JohnG@lt 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.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-09 05:31:02)
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?)JohnG@lt wrote:
And I'm seeing that you haven't got a damn clue wtf you are talking about.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.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.
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.
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.
So what? We have bus and subway lines. Trolleys are slower than buses and their routes cannot change.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?
Well, for one, I asked for your economic theory, not a diatribe on the current US economy.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.
What the hell does it have to do with her ability to lead a country?
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.Spark wrote:
f weird, weird folk (Ikati, Xietsu, anyone?)