Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Gas Hits $ 5.98 in Democrap Cities! LOL !

Guest

[quote]==================================================================
[/quote]

[quote]President Reagan created the conditions which made possible the crimes
committed by others by his secret deviations from announced national
policy as to Iran and hostages and by his open determination to keep
the contras together ``body and soul'' despite a statutory ban on
contra aid.1

1 McFarlane, North Trial Testimony, 3/10/89, p. 3946[/quote]

Guest

SNICKER

(CLICK) !!

Guest

[quote]=============================================================================================
[/quote]
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Rightwinghank <rightwinghank@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:08:15 -0700 (PDT), pyjamarama

Its still a free country...and if someone doesnt want to hire a nigger
like yourself forinstance...because they dont want a smelly lazy stealing stupid semi
human working for them....more power to em.

Now..if you have a federal contract...then you MUST have 10 percent
minorites working for you...

THAT is why there are so many niggas employed in Washington DC in the
Goverment.

Otherwise...we could use trained monkeys to do the same and save some
bucks.

love ya
hank[/quote]

Guest

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:09:07 -0400, * US * wrote:

[quote]
The strike idea worked pretty well in Poland, back in the day.
[/quote]

What would "we" be striking for?

You need demands.

Guest

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:55:14 -0700 (PDT), V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]
To have a meaningful effect on the DC knuckleheads the citizens would
have form a national union.

You don>t need to revolt...you need to strike!
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike_of_1919

Guest

On Sep 30, 1:12 pm, bclar...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Sep 25, 3:47 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:34 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 7:37 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It should be reasonably clear by this time, that the U.S. government
has been playing a very elaborate shell game with the American
we can lose our wealth through a collapse of the U.S. dollar, and
hyperinflation. Does it really make much difference?

What is really interesting is if the USA goes the way of Japan in the
1990s--massive government bailouts that STILL fail to 'unclog' the
markets. Then what?

Get ready for an American "lost decade" as happened in Japan IMO.

Got gold?

RL

Outside of the loony right-wing neocon community, I think your
predictions are about correct in most people>s view. There is
absolutely no basis for growth in the U.S. economy. Not real growth.
Perhaps, shell-game growth, in which we trade a collapsing dollar for
increasing GDP in terms of the dollar. Which is all we>ve had lately,
in any case. As everyone in the U.S. knows.

What do you think about the dollar>s prospects with regards to this?

http://agonist.org/story/2004/9/4/53632/28434

It seems the Japanese have been experiencing deflation in prices, but
wages falling faster as their export driven economy has had to compete
for investment dollars with economies with more potential for growth.
( Japan is pretty high wage/high capital already )

The US has a trade deficit, driven by the desire of other countries to
invest in the US.

Should that desire go away because of some inflation, we might see a
positive feedback cycle leading to the inability of the treasury to
roll over it>s debt cheaply magnifying the impact of the national debt
to the point where allowing (hyper?)inflation would seem attractive to
help alleviate things.

This would make interest payed by the government even higher.

As the treasury pays low interest for it>s debt backed ultimately by
the value of the economy it can tax to pay it off, doubts about the
value of that economy will surface ( We are basically already
developed like Japan, though we have a trade deficit once this
corrects we are basically like Japan - already developed and high-wage
with little room for growth, and far to fall (slowly) till we reach
parity and competitiveness in terms of growth potential with
developing countries )

How can a stagnant economy be taxed to pay off a debt? The taxation
itself will decrease the ability to raise taxes even more.

I am not predicting this, I am just floating it as a possible
outcome. What do people think?
[/quote]
Dude! ===> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aqK..vQTZwUA&refer=asia

alexy · Guest

Video61@tcq.net wrote:

[quote]On Oct 10, 11:41 am, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0400, "ObKY20"
ObKonOBee...@yahoomail.com> wrote:

"Stray Dog" <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0810101344110.12319@sdf.lonestar.org...

Just looked a minute ago.

Hold onto your 401ks? Man, they>re already gone!

Yes, hold on to them. People who hold on to their investments will benefit
in the long term.

It took the DOW from 1929 to 1955 to recover it>s precrash value.
Longer if you discount inflation over that time.

According to the article Vid has posted about a dozen times,
"An investor in the S & P 500 from 1929 through 1949 received an
inflation adjusted return of 4.54%."
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

get ready retro, p&c has aimed his sights onto you.
[/quote]
I>m sorry. Did I misquote? Isn>t that what the article you keep
posting said?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Les Cargill · Guest

Jerry Kraus wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 8:35 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:

The reason oil is getting cheaper is because the economy is in the tank
and because the summer driving season is over...
...and because we had a hurricane which knocked out a lot of oil
production?

Oh wait, that should have driven the price of oil up.

Or maybe because we are at "peak oil" and discovering new oil is
becoming inherently more difficult?

Oh wait, that should have driven the price of oil up. There were in
fact reputable predictions of $200/barrel.

As for "summer driving", crude oil peaked in July, well before the
driving season was over.

And the price of crude dropped in the summer of '07 and started it>s
unrelenting climb from $70/barrel to almost $150barrel in late Aug/
Sept of '07. The price was not lower last fall. Got any more
"explanations"?

I don>t suppose you>d consider the obvious, that people adjusted their
driving habits to the higher prices by *cutting back*. If you
understood markets you would know that even relatively small changes
in demand can often have disproportionately large effects on prices.

But it>s clear you have no understanding of markets - as also witness
your comments about the Law of Comparative Advantage.

Fred Weiss

Economists attribute the fall in the price of oil to the collapsing
world economy, Fred.
[/quote]
Perhaps now they do. At the outset of the collapse, it was a combination
of the collapse of the short-lived oil bubble, caused mainly by
weakening in the increase in demand.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SO4YQuAJxLI/AAAAAAAAF1o/JaolV0p7uhI/s1600-h/miles1.bmp

[quote]Where did you get this obsession with the
perfection of the "Market", Fred? It>s nutty as all Hell.

[/quote]
It>s not an "obsession", it>s an observation.... although "perfect"
isn>t a very descriptive term....

--
Les Cargill

Guest

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:05:19 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

[quote]Economists attribute the fall in the price of oil to the collapsing
world economy, Fred.

Perhaps now they do. At the outset of the collapse, it was a combination
of the collapse of the short-lived oil bubble, caused mainly by
weakening in the increase in demand.
[/quote]

You say that like it>s unrelated.

Guest

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:05:19 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

[quote]
Where did you get this obsession with the
perfection of the "Market", Fred? It>s nutty as all Hell.

It>s not an "obsession", it>s an observation.... although "perfect"
isn>t a very descriptive term....
[/quote]

Or wrong even.

Michael Coburn · Guest

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:09:07 -0400, * US * wrote:

[quote]On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:55:14 -0700 (PDT), V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 7:57?am, * US * wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:46:12 -0700, "Phlip" <phlip2...@gmail.com
wrote:
Responding to the subject line:

What if - for whatever reason - you were _already_ going to vote them
out??

The blackbox will vote them back in for you.

To have a meaningful effect on the DC knuckleheads the citizens would
have form a national union.
[/quote]
You already have that. It is called "The House of Representatives". The
Constitutional limit on the number of representatives is currently ten
thousand members and each member is accountable to a small constituency
of thirty thousand informed and concerned citizens. That>s right. You
need to go out into the neighbor hood and make sure that Fox News or
MSNBC are not getting away with lying about the economy and the rest.

That _IS_ the citizen>s union. And you can have it if you are willing to
insist on it.

Les Cargill · Guest

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:05:19 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Economists attribute the fall in the price of oil to the collapsing
world economy, Fred.
Perhaps now they do. At the outset of the collapse, it was a combination
of the collapse of the short-lived oil bubble, caused mainly by
weakening in the increase in demand.

You say that like it>s unrelated.
[/quote]
Excellent point!

I really do not know for sure. But point most certainly taken - either
the bubble collapsed as bubbles do, or the stats on consumption
(including miles driven) pinpricked it. Or ... both?

I think you may be right - the drop in demand *sounds* like a better
story, but I>m not 100% sure how to know for sure.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill · Guest

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:05:19 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Where did you get this obsession with the
perfection of the "Market", Fred? It>s nutty as all Hell.

It>s not an "obsession", it>s an observation.... although "perfect"
isn>t a very descriptive term....

Or wrong even.
[/quote]
I>m a relatively strange person in that I come at econ from a
signals/communications perspective, and the sheer amount of information
communicated by markets still impresses me. Of course they>re
imperfect, but they are *generally* more perfect "by accident"
(really as emergent phenomena) than explicitly designed systems
intended to replace them.

This "perfection" isn>t absolute, it>s ordinal. It is based on
the differences between what people say and what they do.

But not always - the joys of high fructose corn syrup to the
side, we>ve subsidy-and-taxed our way into a very useful surplus
of corn related food materials.

It>s almost a paradox. Our true understanding of it isn>t
very deep, and it is something both sides need to be humble
about, IMO.

--
Les Cargill

Rod Speed · Guest

Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:56 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:51 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:44 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price
nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 2:05 am, Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price

nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:37 am, Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:35:53 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"

anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:44 pm, Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
...
We post from the anarchist newsgroups. Anarcissie is a
very wise anarchist thinker, and he is trying to
understand the current crisis by himself.
...

I have to confess that I sometimes read sci.econ.

Shame on you ...

Economics is an odd field, since there is a lot of math
and yet it rests on value -- how people feel about things,
basically. And because many people have interests
in it, especially power interests, we get the Hobbes
effect -- Hobbes said that if powerful men had an
interest in the sum of the internal angles of a triangle
being other than 180 degrees, they would burn the
geometry books. (Or something like that.)

Last evening I was thinking that an interesting research
project would be something like: "The size distribution of
firms in anarchistic model societies". That would be like
the null situation, a natural economic situation, absent
Utopian government systems.
I guess many anarchists agree that without State protection
the size distribution of firms would be skewed towards
smaller firms than under the current Utopian arrangements,
but still a conjecture, as far as I know.

It is, but there is good reason to believe that much
regulation favours
larger firms, e.g. anything that requires more skilled
administrative staff
is harder for smaller firms.

If the conjecture is right, under anarchism there wouldn>t
be large financial crises since there would be no players
so big that their fall would entail the melting down of the
whole system.

Well no, that>s not true, or rather it is but not for the
reason you provide. Crises like this are not caused by firms
being "too big to fail" but by government interference in the
economy, although
the "too big to fail" argument is part of the justification
for that.

Let me put it this way. Government interference is the
ultimate cause of finantial crises like thism one because it
is instrumental in creating big firms, whose connectivity
with many other firms and individuals make it extremely
dangerous to the whole system in the event of a collapse.

But without big firms credit expansion of the type States
indulge in would still cause the same boom effect. The firms
that take most advantage of this would still get into trouble.
Their eventual collapse would still cause disruption in the
form of knock-on effects and uncertainty.

So you say the presence of big firms is not a necessary
condition for financial crises created by credit expansion
because many small firms would take the credit and eventually
collapse, sending waves across the system. I tend to think that
if many small firms do indulge in taking these sort of credit
expansion created by a central control agency their
connectivity would not be sufficient to send waves across the
system in the event of a collapse. BUT the plausibility of our
views are not a matter that can be settled by intelligent
discussion; they are different hypotheses in need of empirical
tests.
We can however see that the great depression happened without big
firms.

Yeah cause Ford Motor Company was a backyard operation.

It wasnt what produced the great depression, stupid.
I never said it was moron. What you said was that "the great
depression happened without big firms".

And anyone with even half a clue considers the context,
the claim about the significance of 'big firms' above.

Well that must mean you don>t have half a clue (not that I suspected
you did), there were firms just as big compared to the economy as
those there are now.

Last I checked the the Morgan banking group was pretty big.

Nothing like as big as they have become now.

Compared to the size of the economy?

So were the various steel companies and railway lines.

Those didnt produce the great depression, stupid.

Hey moron I didn>t say they did. I merely pointed out that there
were big firms which you are too stupid to admit is true.

So stop calling people stupid for pointing out when you>re wrong,

I wasnt wrong, you stupid fuckwit.

Yes you were. Ford Motor Company was big.
[/quote]
But wasnt so big that it couldnt be allowed to fail, which just happened to be what was actually being discussed.

[quote]So were various banking groups.
[/quote]
But not so big that it couldnt be allowed to fail, which just happened to be what was actually being discussed.

Guest

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:26:12 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

[quote]It>s almost a paradox. Our true understanding of it isn>t
very deep, and it is something both sides need to be humble
about, IMO.
[/quote]

And the experts too. Our assumptions as people far out run our
knowledge. And to think anyone understands the economy i sa recipe for
disaster.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Economy Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175 ... 479, 480, 481 Next
Page 174 of 481