PDA

View Full Version : Are we going to witness Great Depression 2?


Pages : [1] 2

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:17 AM
Just curious as to how bad people think this will get?

SBK
03-14-2008, 12:20 AM
I hope not, but if you're young there would be a good chance at some point in our lives we will see it.....perhaps when the baby boomers are forced to withdraw from the stock market not by choice, but by law?

Logical
03-14-2008, 12:25 AM
Seriously bad, maybe not full fledged depression but damn close to it. If it is as bad as I expect the US will come out of it as a 2nd rate power and China will be the worlds economic and military superpower.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:28 AM
Seriously bad, maybe not full fledged depression but damn close to it. If it is as bad as I expect the US will come out of it as a 2nd rate power and China will be the worlds economic and military superpower.

I could see us drop our status as a superpower. I think we deserve it after trying to be world police.

Logical
03-14-2008, 12:32 AM
I could see us drop our status as a superpower. I think we deserve it after trying to be world police.
Yup

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-14-2008, 12:36 AM
China may eclipse us in manpower on the ground, but it doesn't really matter as long as we have nuclear weapons and 6,000 miles of ocean betwixt us.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:38 AM
China may eclipse us in manpower on the ground, but it doesn't really matter as long as we have nuclear weapons and 6,000 miles of ocean betwixt us.


We had 6000 miles of Ocean between us and Iraq........

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-14-2008, 12:44 AM
We had 6000 miles of Ocean between us and Iraq........

I'm saying don't worry about the Chinese invading.

Count Alex's Wins
03-14-2008, 12:45 AM
Won't be that bad. I'll finally get in shape.

mikey23545
03-14-2008, 12:46 AM
I really, seriously, want you clowns to bookmark this tripe so you can go back and read it a year or two from now.

Good Lord.

Silock
03-14-2008, 01:02 AM
Seriously bad, maybe not full fledged depression but damn close to it. If it is as bad as I expect the US will come out of it as a 2nd rate power and China will be the worlds economic and military superpower.

Maybe economic, but militarily? Just where the hell is China going to get all the navy and air force that would be required to overcome the strength of US forces?

Just remember -- right now, China needs the US, too. They export hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods to us, and if we stop buying, it won't be all roses over there, either.

Silock
03-14-2008, 01:10 AM
I could see us drop our status as a superpower.

Not going to happen.

SBK
03-14-2008, 01:25 AM
It's interesting that people associate a depression with the US losing power. We came out of our first depression and won WW2. That was far worse than anything we've seen, and may ever see again.....

ChiefaRoo
03-14-2008, 01:50 AM
Seriously bad, maybe not full fledged depression but damn close to it. If it is as bad as I expect the US will come out of it as a 2nd rate power and China will be the worlds economic and military superpower.

My God you are just plain dumb.

ChiefaRoo
03-14-2008, 01:54 AM
Maybe economic, but militarily? Just where the hell is China going to get all the navy and air force that would be required to overcome the strength of US forces?

Just remember -- right now, China needs the US, too. They export hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods to us, and if we stop buying, it won't be all roses over there, either.


The US and China need each other. Neither country has any real issues between them with the exception of Taiwan that the US agrees is part of China but we support Taiwan's democracy. It's a tricky road but in the end I believe a democratic Taiwan will join China as China develops.

China will be a rival in influence in the Pacific and around the world but between Australia, Japan and others in the region we'll be able to compete.

Have any of you guys been to China? It's developoing rapidly but it's going to take a long time before their people have it anywhere as good as we do as a whole.

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2008, 02:16 AM
irishjayhawk asks a question. That doesn't necessarily mean that the question should be taken seriously, unles he posts something to support the basis of his question. Nevertheless:

Based upon the signals that our economy is sending at present, it would be very unlikely for us to experience Depression 2.0 anytime soon.

Upon what information exactly are you basing your quesion?

BigMeatballDave
03-14-2008, 02:49 AM
I just don't see it. If this country tanks, so will China.

tiptap
03-14-2008, 08:15 AM
The 20 somethings have never had a strong recession. They have never gone through Stagflation which is more aligned with what we are seeing. So it will be experienced more intensely for them. And yes this economic turn will not be the big one. But should be looked at an opportunity to move toward an economy that is very less dependent on oil. If choice is the hallmark of a market economy, then it is time for that choice to reflect our strength and remove the dependence on the part of the world that has a large contingent that would destroy us.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2008, 08:18 AM
Extremely unlikely.

Seriously, for you to even post this question in a serious ways....I don't mean to bust your balls, but this thread displays a woefully inadequate understanding of the Great Depression and our history since.

ChiefaRoo
03-14-2008, 08:25 AM
Extremely unlikely.

Seriously, for you to even post this question in a serious ways....I don't mean to bust your balls, but this thread displays a woefully inadequate understanding of the Great Depression and our history since.

Just say it Kotter. This thread and logical's and IrishHawks postings is like listening to three monkeys **** a football.

We have the biggest and richest economy in the world. If you have $$ in the bank right now then you can look at bottom feeding some stocks and getting some great deals. Further, if you work or own a company that exports its a huge boon and finally it incentifies foreigners to buy into our economy in fixed development assets and the market.

It's all good unless you work for a shitty company that doesn't export and you want to go to Europe on holiday because then you get shit hammered.

The dollar will go back up as soon as the credit crunch clears and we wind down in Iraq. I also think the Dems are going to raise taxes and if they're smart they will use it to pay down the deficit. If they go overboard they'll stall the economy.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 08:29 AM
If choice is the hallmark of a market economy, then it is time for that choice to reflect our strength and remove the dependence on the part of the world that has a large contingent that would destroy us.
Except the choice is driven by the individuals not a collective decision via govt. It takes soaring prices for them to shift those choices and enough free capital circulating among the people for entrepreneurs to bring it to them. That means low taxes and less govt—not more. Your model is based on the govt channeling one decision for everyone which is hamfisted and leads to choices that political activists, special interests and politically connected businesses desire.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 08:32 AM
As to the question in the thread: The one question an economist once told me an economist can't do is accurately predict these things. It's like weather. However, there is the seen and the unseen. We never know what maverick individual will develop something that changes the world and how we live such as a new invention or breakthrough discovery. But these things require more freedom ( including economic) and we don't have much of that during a war when govt uses up so many resources.

Radar Chief
03-14-2008, 08:39 AM
I could see us drop our status as a superpower. I think we deserve it after trying to be world police.

:LOL: :shake:

banyon
03-14-2008, 08:48 AM
Except the choice is driven by the individuals not a collective decision via govt. It takes soaring prices for them to shift those choices and enough free capital circulating among the people for entrepreneurs to bring it to them. That means low taxes and less govt—not more. Your model is based on the govt channeling one decision for everyone which is hamfisted and leads to choices that political activists desire.

That didn't work in the First Depression either.

(wait for thirdhand account (unlinked or fringe-linked) of how all history books were re-written by socialists and FDR was really a transvestite serial killer)

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 09:06 AM
Seriously bad, maybe not full fledged depression but damn close to it. If it is as bad as I expect the US will come out of it as a 2nd rate power and China will be the worlds economic and military superpower.


You really are a pessimist. :D

I note, by the way, that we don't need to have a recession or depression to be behind China in terms of economic or military might. They have a bigger coutnry and more people, so it's a matter of their making wise policy and beyond that there isn't necessarily much we can do.

We will never be a "2nd rate power", I don't believe, however. China may be more powerful, we will still be pretty strong ourselves.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 09:11 AM
Maybe economic, but militarily? Just where the hell is China going to get all the navy and air force that would be required to overcome the strength of US forces?

Just remember -- right now, China needs the US, too. They export hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods to us, and if we stop buying, it won't be all roses over there, either.

If you project forward 100 years, China will probably have eclipsed us in military and economic might. They have a BILLION people, and are rapidly catching up technologically. The country is large and relatively rich in resources. It's not that hard to conceive. We're nto talking 2015. We're talking 2100.

200 years ago it was 1808 and Washington was still about 5 years from being torched by the British! 100 years ago it was 1907 and the economic center of the world was London, with NYC catching up.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 09:14 AM
IMHO there's no serious signs fo a prolonged depression. A recession is likely, of course, but once we absorb the housing market downturn and adjust to it, it should be more or less back to reasonably steady growth.

Regrettably, the dollar is getting killed by the Fed constantly injecting cash so the credit markets don't totally seize up. With the federal government refusing to erase the deficit, it's hard to imagine how we're going to strengthen the dollar in the near term.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 09:24 AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with the question I asked. Seems pretty simple.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 09:28 AM
The dollar will go back up as soon as the credit crunch clears and we wind down in Iraq.

I don't think you can count on anything as a certainty.
I do see more of a trend for the world wanting Euros. I heard that back in 2002 too. The trend seems to holding true so far.

I also think the Dems are going to raise taxes and if they're smart they will use it to pay down the deficit. If they go overboard they'll stall the economy.
Yeah like 12% on families making just over $90k. Wow! Everyone's rich I guess.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 09:35 AM
The dollar will go back up as soon as the credit crunch clears and we wind down in Iraq.

I'm not so sure. We continue to import FAR more than we export, even with the dollar down. The structural deficits we have do not encourage investment. The American dollar is losing some of its prestige value, and it's not necessarily 110% true that a flight to safety among international investors means investing in American dollars or American-dollar denominated US treasury bills.

Frankly, with the structural deficits and looming entitlement program issues (medium term, not next year), I'm not entirely sure how the dollar is going to quickly regain its previously strong footing.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 09:36 AM
Extremely unlikely.

Seriously, for you to even post this question in a serious ways....I don't mean to bust your balls, but this thread displays a woefully inadequate understanding of the Great Depression and our history since.

I don't really see why I need to fully understand the first to ask if people think it will get that bad now. You do realize that it can get just as bad for different reasons?

irishjayhawk asks a question. That doesn't necessarily mean that the question should be taken seriously, unles he posts something to support the basis of his question. Nevertheless:

Based upon the signals that our economy is sending at present, it would be very unlikely for us to experience Depression 2.0 anytime soon.

Upon what information exactly are you basing your quesion?

I'll just make sure you never ask questions to get people's opinions.

Not going to happen.

I never said anything as an answer to my question, only a response to what someone else said. Logical said that we might have close to the same as the GD and come out less than the superpower we are now. However, I did misworded it. I didn't mean drop our entire status as a superpower but we wouldn't be #1.

banyon
03-14-2008, 09:42 AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with the question I asked. Seems pretty simple.

There's not anything wrong with the question. Gold investors seem to agree heartily.

Brock
03-14-2008, 10:00 AM
Gold investors seem to agree heartily

The ones that know what's going on agree that it's good to make a lot of money off of pessimistic fools. I agree too, just like I agreed with all the people who sold their Boeing stock to me on 9/12/2001 for 15 dollars per share.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2008, 10:13 AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with the question I asked. Seems pretty simple.


It's simple okay. Too simple. It displays a woefully shallow understanding of both economics and history, if you are posing it as a serious question though(which seems to be the case, I think.)

It's akin to asking, are the Chiefs finally going to win another Superbowl? (after, say, two or three very impressive football games--which, FTR, I'd settle for at this point.)

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:19 AM
Seriously bad, maybe not full fledged depression but damn close to it. If it is as bad as I expect the US will come out of it as a 2nd rate power and China will be the worlds economic and military superpower.

IrishJayHawk is too young to be expected to know any better, but you're too old to be so detached from reality.

If this becomes an official recession, it will be mild compared to many of the recessions our country has experienced since the Great Depression. It may rival the recession of the early 90's but it's unlikely to be as deep as that of the early 80's. Both were far short of the Great Depression.

There may come a time when the US takes a backseat to China, but it's not going to happen during the current downturn/slowdown of the economy.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:20 AM
I really, seriously, want you clowns to bookmark this tripe so you can go back and read it a year or two from now.

Good Lord.

Amen.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:24 AM
Just say it Kotter. This thread and logical's and IrishHawks postings is like listening to three monkeys **** a football.

We have the biggest and richest economy in the world. If you have $$ in the bank right now then you can look at bottom feeding some stocks and getting some great deals. Further, if you work or own a company that exports its a huge boon and finally it incentifies foreigners to buy into our economy in fixed development assets and the market.

It's all good unless you work for a shitty company that doesn't export and you want to go to Europe on holiday because then you get shit hammered.

The dollar will go back up as soon as the credit crunch clears and we wind down in Iraq. I also think the Dems are going to raise taxes and if they're smart they will use it to pay down the deficit. If they go overboard they'll stall the economy.

And if you're looking at starting a business or expanding a business, now would be a great time to lock in a lease or purchase real estate for your office/manufacturing facility. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 10:27 AM
IrishJayHawk is too young to be expected to know any better, but you're too old to be so detached from reality.

If this becomes an official recession, it will be mild compared to many of the recessions our country has experienced since the Great Depression. It may rival the recession of the early 90's but it's unlikely to be as deep as that of the early 80's. Both were far short of the Great Depression.

There may come a time when the US takes a backseat to China, but it's not going to happen during the current downturn/slowdown of the economy.

Some economists claim that recession was a new word coined because it was softer than depression. I know some businessmen and economists called the early 90's recession a depression instead. Anyhow, the word depression just stopped being used at one point. I mean the 1930's was called the Great Depression.

Fat Elvis
03-14-2008, 10:28 AM
The ones that know what's going on agree that it's good to make a lot of money off of pessimistic fools. I agree too, just like I agreed with all the people who sold their Boeing stock to me on 9/12/2001 for 15 dollars per share.


I understand that there is a fire sale going on at Bear Stearns right now, lol....

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 10:28 AM
And if you're looking at starting a business or expanding a business, now would be a great time to lock in a lease or purchase real estate for your office/manufacturing facility. :thumb:

Provided you have the cash flow to pay for it too.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:33 AM
There's not anything wrong with the question. Gold investors seem to agree heartily.

That raises a question in my mind. There's no doubt that there's a place for gold in a rational person's investment plan/portfolio. But I wonder what percentage of gold investors are paranoid loons compared to the same measure among those who invest in a Vanguard S&P 500 index mutual fund.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:36 AM
Some economists claim that recession was a new word coined because it was softer than depression. I know some businessmen and economists called the early 90's recession a depression instead. Anyhow, the word depression just stopped being used at one point. I mean the 1930's was called the Great Depression.

Well I know how you feel about economic statistics, but if we were able to somehow measure what was going on in the Great Depression with what went on in the early 90's I think we'd find that those businessmen and economists were exaggerating the more recent situation.

Brock
03-14-2008, 10:37 AM
That raises a question in my mind. There's no doubt that there's a place for gold in a rational person's investment plan/portfolio. But I wonder what percentage of gold investors are paranoid loons compared to the same measure among those who invest in a Vanguard S&P 500 index mutual fund.

If things actually got to the point where paper money was worthless, it isn't gold that people are going to want, it's lead.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 10:42 AM
Well I know how you feel about economic statistics, but if we were able to somehow measure what was going on in the Great Depression with what went on in the early 90's I think we'd find that those businessmen and economists were exaggerating the more recent situation.

I never said I was against economic statistics. I only criticized certain ones—what I considered useless or phoney. ( Govt or macro ones)

Get it right. Don't change it around.

The recessions have been getting longer and deeper. The early 90's was long. I remember that one. But from what I've read NE was hit harder. The early 80's wasn't as long but my dad worked for the govt! :D

penchief
03-14-2008, 10:46 AM
I hope not, but if you're young there would be a good chance at some point in our lives we will see it.....perhaps when the baby boomers are forced to withdraw from the stock market not by choice, but by law?

Or when they feel compelled to jump out a window. Wall Street is a funny money system that encourages a free money ethic that when taken to the extreme is an avenue by which corruption and greed will undermine any virtue that the stock market may have. Which is what we have now, IMO.

Speculation and market manipulation has taken the place of substance (ingenuity, labor, investment, products and services, true supply and demand, etc.). At some point, the shit has got to hit the fan. And that is probably what is about to happen. Real money is getting ready to kick funny money's ass.

Just like anything else, balance is the key. And keeping the crooks in line will go a long way from preventing the type of things that we have been experiencing of late. Sometimes government regulation is the buffer needed to protect the "free market" from undermining itself.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 10:56 AM
That raises a question in my mind. There's no doubt that there's a place for gold in a rational person's investment plan/portfolio. But I wonder what percentage of gold investors are paranoid loons compared to the same measure among those who invest in a Vanguard S&P 500 index mutual fund.

Currently the gold market seems to be supported solely by the bigger fool theory.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 10:57 AM
I never said I was against economic statistics. I only criticized certain ones—what I considered useless or phoney. ( Govt or macro ones)

Get it right. Don't change it around.

The recessions have been getting longer and deeper. The early 90's was long. I remember that one. But from what I've read NE was hit harder. The early 80's wasn't as long but my dad worked for the govt! :D


I'm pretty sure that the late 70s early 80s recession was both longer and deeper than anything since.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 11:01 AM
Fruther to my last, apparently the 70s and 80s each had a 2 year recession, the 90s had a 1 year recession, and 2001 was a 2 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Brock
03-14-2008, 11:02 AM
Or when they feel compelled to jump out a window. Wall Street is a funny money system that encourages a free money ethic that when taken to the extreme is an avenue by which corruption and greed will undermine any virtue that the stock market may have. Which is what we have now, IMO.


Spoken like one with no understanding of the stock market. Tell you what, when you come up with a better system for building individual wealth, let me know.

banyon
03-14-2008, 11:03 AM
Spoken like one with no understanding of the stock market. Tell you what, when you come up with a better system for building individual wealth, let me know.

Why is that the end goal of society?

Bowser
03-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Why is that the end goal of society?

Good question, and I'll let you know why after I win that 280 million dollar powerball jackpot this weekend.

Bowser
03-14-2008, 11:11 AM
Why is that the end goal of society?

Plus, you can afford hot million dollar a year hookers, as well. Duh.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 11:12 AM
Or when they feel compelled to jump out a window. Wall Street is a funny money system that encourages a free money ethic that when taken to the extreme is an avenue by which corruption and greed will undermine any virtue that the stock market may have. Which is what we have now, IMO.

Speculation and market manipulation has taken the place of substance (ingenuity, labor, investment, products and services, true supply and demand, etc.). At some point, the shit has got to hit the fan. And that is probably what is about to happen. Real money is getting ready to kick funny money's ass.

Just like anything else, balance is the key. And keeping the crooks in line will go a long way from preventing the type of things that we have been experiencing of late. Sometimes government regulation is the buffer needed to protect the "free market" from undermining itself.

I hadn't focused on your post until Brock responded.

IMHO you're really very far off the mark in just about every respect, not least is that speculation and market manipulation has always had a role in the market. It's partially speculative by definition, but serious investors understand that psychology is part of the market. In fact, psychology is part of ANY market, not just the stock market.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:14 AM
What is the end goal of society? LMAO
That sounds like a religious question or something for a social club named "Control Freaks Anonymous" would ask.

The people in a society should be free to decide their own goals for themselves and their local communities—not some Philosopher King who thinks he knows best for the masses. There is NO social contract.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 11:14 AM
Why is that the end goal of society?

While it's not an end goal, I would certainly argue that increasing per capita income is a valid goal of any stable society.

Wealth may not make one happy, but it is a facilitator of happiness. And one may be happy while impoverished, but IMHO it's much more challenging.

And a happy, healthy and productive society, IMHO, IS the end goal of governance.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 11:15 AM
What is the end goal of society? LMAO
That sounds like a religious question or something for a social club named "Control Freaks anonymous" would ask.

The people in a society should be free to decide their own goals for themselves and their local communities. There is NO social contract.


Wow. Whenever I think I'm inured to your, erm, can't think of any way to say it but backwards, thinking, you come up with something new and even more impressive. Well done!

banyon
03-14-2008, 11:16 AM
The people in a society should be free to decide their own goals for themselves and their local communities—not some Philosopher King who thinks he knows best for the masses. There is NO social contract.


So, I'm assuming you won't mind If I knock on your door and bludgeon you with a sack full of doorknobs then?

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:17 AM
Oh Gawd! I must give props to this thread. I just got a brilliant idea for a new logo, symbol or icon.

CFA and it's famous members: Plato, Xerxes, Napoleon, Stalin, Mugabe, Ceauşescu etc.

banyon
03-14-2008, 11:18 AM
Oh Gawd! I must give props to this thread. I just got a brilliant idea for a new logo, symbol or icon.

I'm sure that will be in the eye of the beholder.

banyon
03-14-2008, 11:20 AM
Even Capitalism has end goals, and that's what you advocate. Surely you're not this dense?

patteeu
03-14-2008, 11:20 AM
I never said I was against economic statistics. I only criticized certain ones—what I considered useless or phoney. ( Govt or macro ones)

Get it right. Don't change it around.

The recessions have been getting longer and deeper. The early 90's was long. I remember that one. But from what I've read NE was hit harder. The early 80's wasn't as long but my dad worked for the govt! :D

I don't know what you mean by the word "recession" since it is normally defined by one of the statistics you've explicitly denounced, GDP.

If we are talking about standard GDP-based recessions, the one in '90-'91 was technically just as long as the one in '81-'82, but the one in the 80's had more recession-like quarters over a longer period of time than the one in the 90's. And the one in the '80s was deeper than the one in the 90s too.

Here is the lying statist-oriented, freedom-threatening data (Real GDP growth as a percentage of the previous quarter (http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid)) with the technical recessions in bold. Notice that the '81-'82 recession was both preceded and followed by a single discontinuous quarter of negative growth while the one in '90-'91 was a clean and relatively shallow dip into and then back out of recession:

1981 I +8.4
1981 II -3.1
1981 III +4.9
1981 IV -4.9
1982 I -6.4
1982 II +2.2
1982 III -1.5
1982 IV +0.4


1990 III 0.0
1990 IV -3.0
1991 I -2.0
1991 II +2.6

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:22 AM
I don't know what you mean by the word "recession" since it is normally defined by one of the statistics you've explicitly denounced, GDP.
You missed the point entirely if you say this. I said the word dropped from use at a certain point in time. I discussed in another thread during the Paul era here. The other is you're using those useless macro stats. NE was hit harder in the 90's than other parts of the country. That's what a macro stat never tells you.

penchief
03-14-2008, 11:28 AM
Spoken like one with no understanding of the stock market. Tell you what, when you come up with a better system for building individual wealth, let me know.

I've got nothing against investment. It has it's place in a well-balanced economy. The problems exist when speculation carries more weight than real goods and services. And when there is so much greed and dishonesty involved with the speculative process it just makes no sense that speculation would be the overriding factor in any economy.

I'd like to get back to the basics. I think a solid work ethic would be nice. I'd like to see us invest in reality instead of thin air. I think that promoting ingenuity and hard work would create markets that are sound and firmly grounded. I think rebuilding our infrastructure would be a good start to turning our economy around.

I'd like to see the fruits of our labor come from making an honest buck instead of the dirty money that is made when one gouges the consumer or manipulates the market.

JMO.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:33 AM
Pat, you don't read much libertarian economic literature do you?
This is something they go over.

This is short but highlights the point on using words like recession or depression; that depression was primarily used before WWII. It covers the arbitrary and distortionary manner in how some of these things are measured.

Recession is a Weasel-Word (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019458.html)

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 11:37 AM
It's simple okay. Too simple. It displays a woefully shallow understanding of both economics and history, if you are posing it as a serious question though(which seems to be the case, I think.)

It's akin to asking, are the Chiefs finally going to win another Superbowl? (after, say, two or three very impressive football games--which, FTR, I'd settle for at this point.)

I see what you're getting at and agree it is quite broad. But I don't think it's out of the realm of polling. Even if it's 90% don't think it's going to be as bad as the Great Depression, it doesn't mean the question can't be asked to get that statistic.

I just want to know that you know that having another Great Depression can occur for different reasons than the last one, which would make it irrelevant to fully understand the first. (Not saying, in any way, that you shouldn't strive to learn from history.)

IrishJayHawk is too young to be expected to know any better, but you're too old to be so detached from reality.

If this becomes an official recession, it will be mild compared to many of the recessions our country has experienced since the Great Depression. It may rival the recession of the early 90's but it's unlikely to be as deep as that of the early 80's. Both were far short of the Great Depression.

There may come a time when the US takes a backseat to China, but it's not going to happen during the current downturn/slowdown of the economy.

If I was to take an opinion as "pessimistic" as his, I would have to say I think we would lose our foothold on #1 superpower. It's not like being #2 superpower is much different. China just needs weaponry.

Personally, I don't think we'll see the GD2 but we may get close. Most of this is based on my opinion that we will continue to see the dollar shrink as we continue to throw money into nation building.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-14-2008, 11:40 AM
For the sake of argument:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080314/usa_economy_feldstein.html?.v=1

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 11:44 AM
For the sake of argument:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080314/usa_economy_feldstein.html?.v=1
Good find. Seems to support what I thought. Not quite Great Depression but pretty close.

penchief
03-14-2008, 11:46 AM
I hadn't focused on your post until Brock responded.

IMHO you're really very far off the mark in just about every respect, not least is that speculation and market manipulation has always had a role in the market. It's partially speculative by definition, but serious investors understand that psychology is part of the market. In fact, psychology is part of ANY market, not just the stock market.

I think speculation is driving our economy. The price of a barrel of oil should not depend on what Wall Street thinks is going to happen. It should depend on what actually happens. Also, when the money to be made on Wall Street becomes a factor in starting wars or undermining good government, then we have a problem, IMO.

I know I'm not an investment expert but sometimes the bigger picture is fairly obvious. Right now, this country is driven by Wall Street and it's gotten out of hand. We can't even take care of our country's needs if there's a perception that it's going to negatively affect the market. Yet, we're willing to trash the environment and let our infrastructure crumble if it means more for Wall Street companies. Laws are being written in ways that advocate maximum profit at the expense of other things ultimately more valuable than personal wealth. The corporate culture is destroying our country, IMO.

Speculaton and market manipulation have always had a role but it is happening on a grand scale now. It is happening on a scale that I believe will ultimately lead to disasterous results for our country. IMHO, catering everything to meet Wall Street's insatiable greed and succumbing to the culture of easy money is leading to the erosion of this country's integrity and its moral responsibility to its people and the world.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 11:59 AM
I think speculation is driving our economy. The price of a barrel of oil should not depend on what Wall Street thinks is going to happen. It should depend on what actually happens. Also, when the money to be made on Wall Street becomes a factor in starting wars or undermining good government, then we have a problem, IMO.

Several problems:

1. if Wall Street isn't qualified/able to determine the value of a barrel of oil, who will? Government fiat? How do you do it when the production of oil and the consumption of oil involves so many people? We're not talking about a Ford Taurus, where Ford itself determines the price, which is basically the highest it can be subject to market factors to help it achieve maximum profitability and market penetration, etc.

2. "depend on what actually happens" -- makes no sense. The price of anything is determined by both what has happened in the past, and what is likely to happen in the future.

3. You decry Wall Street driving up oil futures, but perhaps don't realize that all it is doing is slowly ramping up the price due to future uncertainties which, if they turn out to be TRUE, would otherwise result in a sudden and dramatic (and therefore destabilizing) increase in price in a very short period of time. Driving up the price of oil now, BEFORE there is a true emergency, encourages (1) people to conserve, (2) development of other oil resources that were otherwise uneconomical to harvest, and (3) research into alternative energy sources.

3A. In other words, if the only time prices went up dramatically is when somethign dramatic happened, you would have (a) price shocks in short timeframes that would have a destabilizing effect on business planning and budgeting, and (b) left people with no alternative, because researchign alternative methods would not yet have begun.



I know I'm not an investment expert but sometimes the bigger picture is fairly obvious. Right now, this country is driven by Wall Street and it's gotten out of hand. We can't even take care of our country's needs if there's a perception that it's going to negatively affect the market. Yet, we're willing to trash the environment and let our infrastructure crumble if it means more for Wall Street companies. Laws are being written in ways that advocate maximum profit at the expense of other things ultimately more valuable than personal wealth. The corporate culture is destroying our country, IMO.

I think Wall Street and Main Street have never co-existed as much as they do now. Wall Street responds to Main Street (consumer demands) very well, and more importantly, Main STreet OWNS part of Wall Street, through innumerable 401(k) plans, pension plans, mutual funds and direct investment by Americans of all stripes. The profitability of Wall Street is now the profitability of all Americans -- it's not 1907, when only the JP Morgans of the world made money on stocks, etc.

Speculaton and market manipulation have always had a role but it is happening on a grand scale now. It is happening on a scale that I believe will ultimately lead to disasterous results for our country. IMHO, catering everything to meet Wall Street's insatiable greed and succumbing to the culture of easy money is leading to the erosion of this country's integrity and its moral responsibility to its people and the world.

Only grander in the sense that the economy is larger. Speculative excesses were far worse in the pre-securities law era.

Vague terms such as "integrity and moral responsibility" aren't anything that I like to deal with, or can quantify. I hear it from the right when it ocmes to homesexuality, abortion and similar "morals" laws, and I hear it from the left when it comes to excessive greed.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 12:02 PM
Pat, you don't read much libertarian economic literature do you?
This is something they go over.

This is short but highlights the point on using words like recession or depression; that depression was primarily used before WWII. It covers the arbitrary and distortionary manner in how some of these things are measured.

Recession is a Weasel-Word (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019458.html)

That's all well and good, but I can't get on board with people who want base words on random observations and feelings instead of something a little bit more fixed and objective even if it is fixed to a statistic that isn't perfect.

You can say that the "tough times" of the early 90s than those of the early 80s and I won't argue with you. But there's no way to generalize from your experience to that of the rest of us. I recognize that national GDP doesn't capture regional differences, but at least when we use a term like "recession" we can all be confident we're talking about the same thing.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 12:11 PM
That's all well and good, but I can't get on board with people who want base words on random observations and feelings instead of something a little bit more fixed and objective even if it is fixed to a statistic that isn't perfect.
That's just it. It isn't completely objective nor is it the same across the board. Nor are the govt's mythical budgets and terms objective. If the people are feeling the pinch, with less people hiring or losing jobs, with hi prices for groceries and gas aka random observations, then that's all they need to feel the economy is tanking.

Those statistics are useful more by the govt so they can micro-manage or what we call "steering" the economy.

You can say that the "tough times" of the early 90s than those of the early 80s and I won't argue with you. But there's no way to generalize from your experience to that of the rest of us. I recognize that national GDP doesn't capture regional differences, but at least when we use a term like "recession" we can all be confident we're talking about the same thing.
That's just it you can't generalize each regional area or even industry to everybody else either. All those differences average out to one bland reading.

BTW macro economics is considered socialist economics to libertarians because it deals with aggregate demand. There's no such thing as aggregate demand though.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 12:16 PM
BTW Pat, it's the left, the Keynesians, that try to claim they are "scientific" and objective about economics. Lol. Mises shreds that claim to pieces.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 12:17 PM
That's just it. It isn't completely objective nor is it the same across the board. Nor are the govt's mythical budgets and terms objective. If the people are feeling the pinch, with less people hiring or losing jobs, with hi prices for groceries and gas aka random observations, then that's all they need to feel the economy is tanking.

Those statistics are useful more by the govt so they can micro-manage or what we call "steering" the economy.


That's just it you can't generalize each regional area or even industry to everybody else either. All those differences average out to one bland reading.

BTW macro economics is considered socialist economics to libertarians because it deals with aggregate demand. There's no such thing as aggregate demand though.

I understand that we can't have a conversation about "recession" because the only definition available is unacceptable to you. Having said that, I don't know why you even use the word.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 12:20 PM
BTW Pat, it's the left, the Keynesians, that try to claim they are "scientific" and objective about economics. Lol. Mises shreds that claim to pieces.

It's not just the Keynesians who recognize that it's very possible to be objective about economic observations. The valid criticism would be about any belief that we can be scientific about predictions and maybe about matters of cause and effect.

If I stake out your grocery store, I can easily count the number of gallons of milk you buy each month and the price you pay for that milk. That's objectivity that even the Miseans would object to (although I recognize that they might have questions/uncertainty about the value of each of those dollar bills you hand to the check-out lady).

Hydrae
03-14-2008, 12:37 PM
With the dollar hitting all time lows each and every day I think this is a reasonable question for discussion.

All I know is that the price of gas at the pump is 300% of the price I was paying in 1999. Personally I think the majority of this is due to the situation with the dollar, not the suppliers. I also think that as long as we continue to pour money into other economies we will continue to be in trouble in this country. Which, of course, leads to my support of Ron Paul who I still plan to write in on the ballot this fall.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 12:44 PM
It's not just the Keynesians who recognize that it's very possible to be objective about economic observations. The valid criticism would be about any belief that we can be scientific about predictions and maybe about matters of cause and effect.


Who else is there than? Most mainstream economists are some variation on Keynesian even the Monetarists are halfsies. You can't be completely objective on something that deals with human choices. In fact economists can't predict, unless they hold the controls to everybody and every area. I mean come on pat, this is one of the basic of conservativism: that the govt is unable to know everything for each of us.

If I stake out your grocery store, I can easily count the number of gallons of milk you buy each month and the price you pay for that milk. That's objectivity that even the Miseans would object to (although I recognize that they might have questions/uncertainty about the value of each of those dollar bills you hand to the check-out lady).
But that's not what I'm talking about. You're putting that into the same category of thing when it isn't. And no, the Miseans would not object to that example entirely. What they would object to is your not knowing in advance, my finding out I had a milk allergy and my demand dropping. Something you're not privy to know everything about me or the world to be able to predict. Because as the Miseans say, one never knows what one will always have. That goes for the rest of the market too.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 12:44 PM
BTW Pat, it's the left, the Keynesians, that try to claim they are "scientific" and objective about economics. Lol. Mises shreds that claim to pieces.

Economics is not, of course, a hard science. Econometrics, of course, is never going to be mathematics.

But most sciences have theories that can't be proven, and yet thoughts and ideas develop, theories are tested, retested, disproven, changed, perfected or improved, etc.

I'm with Pat -- I dont' understand why you can't utilize data even if it's agreed by everyone that it's not precisely perfect. Instead of taking government calculations that generalize or aggregate certain things, you mouth wishy-washy words that have no substance at all behind htem. How is that better?

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 12:46 PM
But that's not what I'm talking about. You're putting that into the same category of thing when it isn't. And no, the Miseans would not object to that example entirely. What they would object to is your not knowing in advance, my finding out I had a milk allergy and my demand dropping. Something you're not privy to know everything about me or the world to be able to predict. Because as the Miseans say, one never knows what one will always have. That goes for the rest of the market too.


Therefore never predict anything and do nothing but let the market regulate everything without any government boundaries whatsoever? I see, it all makes sense now.








NOT!

patteeu
03-14-2008, 12:49 PM
Who else is there than? Most mainstream economists are some variation on Keynesian even the Monetarists are halfsies. You can't be completely objective on something that deals with human choices. In fact economists can't predict, unless they hold the controls to everybody and every area. I mean come on pat, this is one of the basic of conservativism: that the govt is unable to know everything.


But that's not what I'm talking about. You're putting that into the same category of thing when it isn't. And no, the Miseans would not object to that example entirely. What they would object to is my finding out I had a milk allergy and my demand dropping. Something you're not privy to know everthing about me or the world to be able to predict. Because as the Miseans say, one never knows what one will always have.

Look, you objected to my point that we can either look back on historical economic data with some level of objectivity or we can reject data and describe how we feel about economic history on the basis of personal experience and feelings. Your criticism that Keyensians are the ones who claim to treat economics as a science is misplaced because the part of their "science" that you really object to (whether you know it or not) are the parts that have to do with prediction and with cause and effect, neither of which were involved in my statement about objectivity.

Duck Dog
03-14-2008, 01:10 PM
Just curious as to how bad people think this will get?

LOL. And you liberals charge Fox News for using scare tactics.

Iowanian
03-14-2008, 01:13 PM
You should hope not.

Too many liberals and welfare recipients will be too lazy to go wait in bread lines and will curl up and die.


Maybe a depression will save Social Security after all!

Brock
03-14-2008, 01:15 PM
You should hope not.

Too many liberals and welfare recipients will be too lazy to go wait in bread lines and will curl up and die.


Maybe a depression will save Social Security after all!

A dieback wouldn't hurt a bit.

Taco John
03-14-2008, 01:16 PM
Why is that the end goal of society?

It's not the "end goal of society." It's the end goal of a lot of individuals.

"Society" doesn't have an end goal, because "society" isn't a real entity. It's an abstraction.

HonestChieffan
03-14-2008, 01:18 PM
what we need is a good plague.

Cochise
03-14-2008, 01:18 PM
Look, you objected to my point that we can either look back on historical economic data with some level of objectivity or we can reject data and describe how we feel about economic history on the basis of personal experience and feelings.

which is why it's useless to debate... when someone melts down all weights and measures in a discussion and judges just on how they and their friends feel, what's the point?

It's a defense mechanism that allows your monolithic viewpoint to remain unchallenged, because there's no standard of comparison, economics is now all a matter of opinion.

plbrdude
03-14-2008, 01:20 PM
With the dollar hitting all time lows each and every day I think this is a reasonable question for discussion.

All I know is that the price of gas at the pump is 300% of the price I was paying in 1999. Personally I think the majority of this is due to the situation with the dollar, not the suppliers. I also think that as long as we continue to pour money into other economies we will continue to be in trouble in this country. Which, of course, leads to my support of Ron Paul who I still plan to write in on the ballot this fall.

i agree with your point. i live in a rural area and know of several people who drive a 70-90 mile round trip every day. on a 11-14 dollar an hr job how can one absorb the increase in fuel and grocery costs. i don't see the wages keeping up. my wife and i's fuel costs have went from around $5400 annually to around $11000. that's a tough hit to take.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 01:21 PM
Look, you objected to my point that we can either look back on historical economic data with some level of objectivity or we can reject data and describe how we feel about economic history on the basis of personal experience and feelings. Your criticism that Keyensians are the ones who claim to treat economics as a science is misplaced because the part of their "science" that you really object to (whether you know it or not) are the parts that have to do with prediction and with cause and effect, neither of which were involved in my statement about objectivity.

She seems to object to calculations regarding economics on any kind of aggregate level as well, which isn't just rejecting prospective predictions, but also a rejection of statistical analysis of prior periods. ROFL:doh!:

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 01:24 PM
Look, you objected to my point that we can either look back on historical economic data with some level of objectivity or we can reject data and describe how we feel about economic history on the basis of personal experience and feelings.
No I was objecting to what we now call a "recession" when it was once called "depression." Before that I objected to your saying I rejected economic stats (generally and plurally) and not which stats I objected to. Then you tried to use the same type of stats that I do reject to prove whether the 80's recession was worse than the 90's recession. To which I pointed out hit NE much harder than the rest of the country. Largely due to the types of industries it had and some other factors that other parts of the country didn't have. Therefore, your aggregate stat was misleading which was my claim about such stats originally.

Your criticism that Keyensians are the ones who claim to treat economics as a science is misplaced because the part of their "science" that you really object to (whether you know it or not) are the parts that have to do with prediction and with cause and effect, neither of which were involved in my statement about objectivity.
No that's not the part of their phony science I object to. Their "cause and effect" is measuring the distortions ( why I think their stats are misleading and useless) they created in the market to begin with their arbitraries.

My objection to your statement about objectivity is that you were using their stats.

HonestChieffan
03-14-2008, 01:26 PM
change is hard on people. Its clear the days of cheap fuel and running all over creation in gas guzzlers is over. Either adapt or pay.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 01:47 PM
which is why it's useless to debate... when someone melts down all weights and measures in a discussion and judges just on how they and their friends feel, what's the point?

It's a defense mechanism that allows your monolithic viewpoint to remain unchallenged, because there's no standard of comparison, economics is now all a matter of opinion.

A good example of someone making fun of something they don't understand.
The govt manipulates statistics to make its policies look better than they really are. Including policies you don't even agree with, that is if you're a conservative. Your just looking for partisan cover here where there is none.

For example removing things from inflation statistics once included like gas and food. For example removing actual housing prices and replacing them with "owners' equivalent rents" as was done in 1983. Using hedonic adjustments. It simply reflects a disconnect from reality and your beloved CPI. Even manufacturers send adjustments to the govt. They do this to overcome deficiencies and the volatility of real price increases to benefit politicians...that's what your beloved CPI is based on silly. You're one who I would think would be amenable or be more open minded to such an argument but instead fall into the same partisan hackery which you have no argument to defend. Hence this post. Typical.

oldandslow
03-14-2008, 01:47 PM
change is hard on people. Its clear the days of cheap fuel and running all over creation in gas guzzlers is over. Either adapt or pay.

Best post in the thread...

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 01:48 PM
LOL. And you liberals charge Fox News for using scare tactics.

:shake:

I don't see how this is a scare tactic. It's a simple question for polling purposes. Holy crap, the reaction is just scary.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 01:51 PM
I think something even better is gonna happen for energy. One never knows what one will get.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:08 PM
http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/2000/CPIrevised.gif

http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/2000/CPIrevised.gif

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:10 PM
Should say where Cochise goes to eat too.

http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/2000/CPIcafeMenu.gif

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:11 PM
http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/2000/hedonic.gif

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:12 PM
From Summertime 2000!

http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/2000/gaspricesCPIgreenspan.gif

Taco John
03-14-2008, 02:13 PM
If the dollar continues to sink, OPEC is going to have to break for the Euro. It's a simple matter of economics. If that were to happen, the dollar would instantly lose it's value and inflation would skyrocket to infinity. Yes, that would cause a great depression.

The question is, can the Fed orchestrate a turn around in the dollar that would satisfy the OPEC nations. And if you were watching Kudlow and Company two nights ago, the question was "does the US Government even want a strong dollar?" Kudlow's panel apparently believes that the US wants to dump the dollar for a new currency. This would not suprise me - I came to this conclusion a year and a half ago, and every move they've made since then has done nothing but further weaken the dollar.

It's fun to read a bunch of hyper-critical bleaters in this thread pooh-pooh anyone who doesn't share their Pollyanna outlook on our economy. It's even more fun to reflect at how many of them were telling us that the housing market had nowhere to go but up.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:13 PM
http://www.wallstreetfollies.com/2000/cookedCPIPPIMayStats.gif

Silock
03-14-2008, 02:13 PM
As to the question in the thread: The one question an economist once told me an economist can't do is accurately predict these things. It's like weather. However, there is the seen and the unseen. We never know what maverick individual will develop something that changes the world and how we live such as a new invention or breakthrough discovery. But these things require more freedom ( including economic) and we don't have much of that during a war when govt uses up so many resources.

Economists have successfully predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:15 PM
And if you were watching Kudlow and Company two nights ago, the question was "does the US Government even want a strong dollar?" Kudlow's panel apparently believes that the US wants to dump the dollar for a new currency. This would not suprise me - I came to this conclusion a year and a half ago, and every move they've made since then has done nothing but further weaken the dollar.
Especially when Cheney won't bet on it either!
I heard this back in 2003 but never thought about it much. I think you could be right at this point.

Silock
03-14-2008, 02:17 PM
If you project forward 100 years, China will probably have eclipsed us in military and economic might. They have a BILLION people, and are rapidly catching up technologically. The country is large and relatively rich in resources. It's not that hard to conceive. We're nto talking 2015. We're talking 2100.

200 years ago it was 1808 and Washington was still about 5 years from being torched by the British! 100 years ago it was 1907 and the economic center of the world was London, with NYC catching up.

Lots of things can change in 100 years. I wasn't projecting THAT far into the future. Just the near future.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:18 PM
Economists have successfully predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions.
Which ones? Were they united? We're they predicting response to govt stimulus or lack of. Or interventions. If so anyone can do some of that.

Question also was are they recessions, soft landings,or depressions? They can't predict everything all the time. Anyhow that's what one told me. He said as soon as people find out he's an economist that's the first question he's asked.

Calcountry
03-14-2008, 02:20 PM
If things actually got to the point where paper money was worthless, it isn't gold that people are going to want, it's lead.
Bullets will be a valuable commodity indeed.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:22 PM
Hmmm?

Wall Street Gurus Say No to Recession in 2008 (http://blog.aefeldman.com/2008/01/02/wall-street-gurus-say-no-recession-in-2008/)

Now search "recession in 2008"

Google Listing for "recession 2008" (http://www.google.com/search?q=Recession+in+2008&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Goldman Sachs says a recession and more.

I saw that Fox business show and they were all arguing and disagreeing as to a recession coming around the corner. That was last fall.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:25 PM
Hmmm?
New Economist says no Recession for 2008 (http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2008/01/2008-recession.html)

Silock
03-14-2008, 02:29 PM
Which ones? Were they united? We're they predicting response to govt stimulus or lack of. Or interventions. If so anyone can do some of that.

Question also was are they recessions, soft landings,or depressions? They can't predict everything all the time. Anyhow that's what one told me. He said as soon as people find out he's an economist that's the first question he's asked.

I think you missed the joke...

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 02:41 PM
Oh! Well use a winky.
I just went back and re-read. I whizzed by fast. I thought you said 9 out of last 15.
Happens when I multi-task. Sorry. Heh! Heh! I get it now. LOL!

penchief
03-14-2008, 02:47 PM
It's not the "end goal of society." It's the end goal of a lot of individuals.

"Society" doesn't have an end goal, because "society" isn't a real entity. It's an abstraction.

This is one time where I actually agree with you.

That said, society is made up of people. All of whom have aspirations. And not everybody's aspirations revolve around unlimited personal wealth. Some people want to live in a clean and safe community that allows for equal opportunity based on merit and not greed. Why should the maximum profit dream subjugate the white picket fence dream? The answer is, "it shouldn't."

Additionally, corporations are no more a real entity than society is. A corporation is not an individual and shouldn't have goals that supercede the individual's goals anymore than corporations should have sway over economic conditions that negatively affect social justice.

penchief
03-14-2008, 02:51 PM
change is hard on people. Its clear the days of cheap fuel and running all over creation in gas guzzlers is over. Either adapt or pay.

It cost me $38 to fill up my 4 cylinder Honda Civic today. I think that the problem is a little more widespread than just the gas guzzler mentality that corporate America has advocated over the past 25 years. Carter had it right. Reagan flipped it on it's head. Just imagine if we had pursued Carter's plan. Where would we be today? Probably not in Iraq.

penchief
03-14-2008, 02:55 PM
Best post in the thread...

Not really. While it confronts half of the problem, it doesn't confront the other half. Which is corporate greed and the Wall Street mentality that has contributed most to our predicament. The corporate culture's resistence to alternative energy sources and CAFE standards are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.

Consumers are at the mercy of some industries. And the energy and auto industries have done all they can do to keep us reliant on fossil fuels. Which, IMO, is a clear example supporting my fundamental premise that Wall Street and the corporate community should not have the final say, which it pretty much has had ever since the Reagan era.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-14-2008, 02:55 PM
No we would be in Iraq. Bush's hate Saddam because he made Bush's daddy angry.

xbarretx
03-14-2008, 03:02 PM
ok guys, can someone please explain this to me?

WTF is the deal with all of these so called psychological price barriers?

1.60 USD to EUR
3.40 USD avg price of gas
100 per barrel of oil
x amount per bushell of wheat
1000 an ounce for gold?
((to just mention a few the media likes to randomly toss out))

??? Seriously, are these just forms of media propaganda to make people feel worried? as if the AMERICAN PUBLIC isn’t....already?

banyon
03-14-2008, 03:55 PM
It's not the "end goal of society." It's the end goal of a lot of individuals.

"Society" doesn't have an end goal, because "society" isn't a real entity. It's an abstraction.

"Society" is a word, no more no less. I was using it as shorthand for (variously) a capitalist society or a mixed-economic one, or a socialist one.

Society (http://www.answers.com/topic/society) (sə-sī'ĭ-tē:

1.The totality of social relationships among humans.

2.A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
3. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
________________

Either you are denying that there are social relationships between human beings, or that the word "society" has been used to denote such for hundreds of years. Which is it? And why is it so offensive to your ideology? Seems kind of overly dogmatic to me, but I'll give you a chance to offer something meaningful on which of the above is true or why we should discontinue using the word or whether there is a better word to indicate the above qualities.

Taco John
03-14-2008, 04:17 PM
I think the word "society" is a red herring. That's all. It's just a way for those with a liberal mindset to create another entity that they can demonstrate is being victimized. The entity doesn't actually exist though, and it certainly has no rights.

The better word to replace "society" with is "individuals." In the American system, it is individuals who have rights, not "society." Individuals can be defined. Individuals can take action. Individuals actually exist.

Your question would have been better if you had asked "should that be the goal of an American?" Which the obvious answer would have been laughably, "whether it should be or not, it is." But when you take it to the point of "Should that be the goal of "society?" then you liberalize the question by taking away the individuality of the core unit of so-called "society."

Yes, I understand that it's a bit dogmatic, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. It's very meaningful because ultimately "society" doesn't matter. It has no rights. It has no legal recognition in the US system. There's no sense in confusing the matter by giving any importance to a concept that ultimately has no leg to stand on in our system of governance.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 08:44 PM
i agree with your point. i live in a rural area and know of several people who drive a 70-90 mile round trip every day. on a 11-14 dollar an hr job how can one absorb the increase in fuel and grocery costs. i don't see the wages keeping up. my wife and i's fuel costs have went from around $5400 annually to around $11000. that's a tough hit to take.


errrummm.....my math gets me to a total of over 60,000 miles per year for the two of you. Have you considered trying to move a bit closer to your job or something? :eek: :)

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 08:49 PM
It cost me $38 to fill up my 4 cylinder Honda Civic today. I think that the problem is a little more widespread than just the gas guzzler mentality that corporate America has advocated over the past 25 years. Carter had it right. Reagan flipped it on it's head. Just imagine if we had pursued Carter's plan. Where would we be today? Probably not in Iraq.


Supply doesn't create demand. Detroit (especially) and the foreigns introduced gas-guzzlers into the American car market, and kept htem there, because Americans LOVE BIG GAS SUCKING SUVs.

Amnorix
03-14-2008, 08:51 PM
I think the word "society" is a red herring. That's all. It's just a way for those with a liberal mindset to create another entity that they can demonstrate is being victimized. The entity doesn't actually exist though, and it certainly has no rights.


http://www.tfhp.org/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Brock
03-14-2008, 09:15 PM
I think the word "society" is a red herring. That's all. It's just a way for those with a liberal mindset to create another entity that they can demonstrate is being victimized. The entity doesn't actually exist though, and it certainly has no rights.

"We're all in this together, especially when you're doing better than the rest of us".

Taco John
03-15-2008, 12:16 AM
http://www.tfhp.org/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Not a conspiracy, unless you mean that I'm implying that people who throw around the word "society" are plotting to be this stupid. Then yes, I'll go along with that. It's a conspiracy. You guys are in it together.

penchief
03-15-2008, 07:28 AM
"We're all in this together, especially when you're doing better than the rest of us".

Why is it that you believe everybody is just like you? Not everybody's goal is to be super rich at the expense of everything else in life. Is it even concievable to some of you that many people might have different priorities?

Not everybody who advocates equal justice or social responsibility is doing so because they are envious of whay you THINK you have. Many people who advocate for those things may have far more than you have (materialistically speaking and spiritually speaking).

It's an insult to people who believe in the teachings of Christ for anyone to insinuate that they believe those things just because they are envious of you or anyone else.

JMHO.

Otter
03-15-2008, 08:29 AM
I really, seriously, want you clowns to bookmark this tripe so you can go back and read it a year or two from now.

Good Lord.

I'd like to also nominate the thread be bookmarked so when the definition of "narrow minded" and "fragile ego" needs to be referenced it can be quickly accessed.

Wow.

Brock
03-15-2008, 09:36 AM
Why is it that you believe everybody is just like you? Not everybody's goal is to be super rich at the expense of everything else in life. Is it even concievable to some of you that many people might have different priorities?

"Some of us are okaaaaay with having the fruits of our labors taken away without any discussion".

Taco John
03-15-2008, 10:52 AM
Why is it that you believe everybody is just like you? Not everybody's goal is to be super rich at the expense of everything else in life. Is it even concievable to some of you that many people might have different priorities?



Haha... Right. You're just an altruist who wants to see the little guy succeed... Not that you'd do anything to help him out yourself. But if only we could get him "social justice" at the expense of everyone else, they you can allay your guilty conscious and feel like you're doing something for him. You are, afterall, a part of "society."

penchief
03-15-2008, 01:45 PM
"Some of us are okaaaaay with having the fruits of our labors taken away without any discussion".

I don't care how much your income is. Trust me, I'm not envious. You sound a little bit bitter, though. Maybe even a little paranoid. Why do you think that advocating social responsibility equates to everybody wanting to take your stash away?

I don't want the fruit of people's "labor" to be taken from them. However, I don't think that free money should be made at the expense of what is right. Dirty money doesn't equate to the fruit of someone's labor. If it amounts to manipulating the eoncomy, gouging, destructive or exploitative practices, then it's dirty money, IMO.

penchief
03-15-2008, 01:56 PM
Haha... Right. You're just an altruist who wants to see the little guy succeed... Not that you'd do anything to help him out yourself. But if only we could get him "social justice" at the expense of everyone else, they you can allay your guilty conscious and feel like you're doing something for him. You are, afterall, a part of "society."

How do you know I don't do anything to help my brother out?

By the way, social justice is not socialism. It doesn't mean spreading the wealth. I wish you would quit equating the two. Social justice simply means that the powerful and influential cannot exploit their power in ways that suppress the ability of others to live out their own lives the way they see fit, whether they pursue unlimited wealth or just a clean honest life with modest dreams for their family and community.

I'm fine with anybody making all the money they can make as long as they don't interfere with somebody else's abilty to be happy and free. Nobody should be allowed to **** up the environment for a buck, and nobody should be able to restrict the upward mobility of those who are less influential by stacking the deck to increase their wealth through ill-gotten gains.

All I'm asking for is balance. With freedom comes responsibility. Anybody should be able to make as much money as they want as long as they do no harm. That's a very simple concept. Even one that you should be able to understand.

Brock
03-15-2008, 02:08 PM
I don't care how much your income is. Trust me, I'm not envious. You sound a little bit bitter, though. Maybe even a little paranoid. Why do you think that advocating social responsibility equates to everybody wanting to take your stash away?

That's rich - you, referring to anyone else as paranoid.

plbrdude
03-15-2008, 02:12 PM
errrummm.....my math gets me to a total of over 60,000 miles per year for the two of you. Have you considered trying to move a bit closer to your job or something? :eek: :)

well it's not that simple. 60,000 mile would be excessive mileage also. my wife makes a roughly 80 mile round trip to college 5 days a week. plus w/ the other running we fill the car 3x a week. if you figure $30 a pop that's $360 a month. i'm self employed and have a ton gmc w/ a service box. occasionally haul a trencher. usually have to fill it up 2x a week. being conservative figure $120 a week @ $60 a fill up. that's $480 a month. multiply it out it brings us to $4320 a yr for her, and $5760 a yr for me. that's $10,080. i thought a hyundai sonata would get a bit better mileage but it doesn't, we get close to 25 mpg. now the truck i knew would be a gas sucker.

:shrug:

Taco John
03-15-2008, 03:28 PM
By the way, social justice is not socialism.



ROFL Whatever you say, comrade...

Stewie
03-15-2008, 04:05 PM
I'll throw in my 2 cents. As Robert Rubin said yesterday, "We're in uncharted waters" and that includes the depression.

There is $500 trillion, yes TRILLION, of notional value in OTC derivatives (and similar instruments) held worldwide. $20 trillion of which is probably worthless. The Long Term Capital Management debacle was only a few billion and nearly brought down Wall Street in '98. The FED intervened and saved things because it was only a few billion. How are they going to straighten out $20 trillion?

The "President's Working Group" (PWG) is meeting to try to decide how to intervene.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080315/bs_nm/usa_economy_bush_dc_9

The PWG (also known as the Plunge Protection Team) was an idea born after the '87 crash so the President in office didn't look bad due to a market crash. You thought markets were "free markets?" Both the PWG and the U.S. Treasury can intervene in markets by buying futures (Dow futures, etc.) and other financial instruments to prop up the market. This is going on now. Hell, the FED just created $250 BILLION out of thin air Tuesday to save the banks. They took worthless subprime garbage as collateral for $250 billion. You tell me, who are they trying to kid? This was nothing but printing money.

I read a post that said gold is the greater fool theory. Dude, you're a fool. The dollar is depreciating rapidly and the gold play is a really easy answer to a dollar that's becoming worth less and less. In this environment assets that are valued in dollars worldwide are the place to be (oil, precious metals, agriculture). Gee, those haven't done very well, have they? Let's look at the charts of the "greater fool" investor compared to the geniuses at Bear Stearns who have the whole financial world figured out... oh, wait... They're busted without your tax dollars. Ya know, the big shots need to give themselves $millions in salary and bonuses. BTW, Bear Stearns is just the beginning...

mikey23545
03-15-2008, 04:14 PM
I'd like to also nominate the thread be bookmarked so when the definition of "narrow minded" and "fragile ego" needs to be referenced it can be quickly accessed.

Wow.

:spock:
I guess I understand the "narrow minded" part...I don't give flat-earthers or faked-lunar-landing conspirators the benefit of serious debate either, so I guess I really am a closed minded SOB.

But "fragile ego"?...Where in the world do you come up with that? (I guess you haven't read too many of my posts..) I have to say you seem like the one who had their glass vagina shatter just from reading my post...

a1na2
03-15-2008, 04:34 PM
http://www.tfhp.org/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg


Amnorix where did ya get the picture of Taco?

We all knew he wore the tin foil caps, but now we have proof.

Thanks !! Rep!

BucEyedPea
03-15-2008, 04:36 PM
Yeah very classy. For two 8 year olds.

irishjayhawk
03-15-2008, 04:37 PM
:spock:
I guess I understand the "narrow minded" part...I don't give flat-earthers or faked-lunar-landing conspirators the benefit of serious debate either, so I guess I really am a closed minded SOB.

But "fragile ego"?...Where in the world do you come up with that? (I guess you haven't read too many of my posts..) I have to say you seem like the one who had their glass vagina shatter just from reading my post...

Out of curiosity, are "creationists" lumped with "flat-earthers"?

penchief
03-15-2008, 05:04 PM
ROFL Whatever you say, comrade...

I guess you've got no response. If you think that civility and social justice equate to socialism then explain yourself. If not, just cry, "uncle."

penchief
03-15-2008, 05:07 PM
That's rich - you, referring to anyone else as paranoid.

How so? You're the one who's guarding your stash like it's the only thing in life that matters. I'm just pointing out that our government has been corrupted by business crooks. Crooks who have caused a lot of damage to a lot of people, not to mention the future security and prosperity of our nation.

irishjayhawk
03-15-2008, 05:41 PM
ROFL

Who put the tag "ku sucks at economics"? That's pretty good.

a1na2
03-15-2008, 05:41 PM
I guess you've got no response. If you think that civility and social justice equate to socialism then explain yourself. If not, just cry, "uncle."

You want the original conspiracy nut to cry uncle? Never happen, regardless of what the truth is.

mikey23545
03-15-2008, 06:30 PM
Out of curiosity, are "creationists" lumped with "flat-earthers"?

I'm an atheist, moron, so good luck with that tack....

irishjayhawk
03-15-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm an atheist, moron, so good luck with that tack....

:spock:

You've been railing against me every time I say something contradictory to religion. See your reaction to my Ben Stein disinformation post.

And you didn't even bother to answer the question.

a1na2
03-15-2008, 06:58 PM
Yeah very classy. For two 8 year olds.

My dear, you need to get a thicker skin and then go back and check out all of the times that the original Mr. Tinfoil Hat said that others were wearing their tinfoil hats, not to mention the ongoing attempts to belittle anyone that does not agree with his totally warped POV.

I thought better of you, looks like I'm going to have to change my opinion. It's bad enough to be a punk here but to send someone rep and say to stop picking on TJ? That's just wrong from the Chiefs board standpoint.

a1na2
03-15-2008, 06:59 PM
:spock:

You've been railing against me every time I say something contradictory to religion. See your reaction to my Ben Stein disinformation post.

And you didn't even bother to answer the question.

Did he answer the question but just not to your liking? I"ve seen this tactic before.

Taco John
03-15-2008, 07:09 PM
I guess you've got no response. If you think that civility and social justice equate to socialism then explain yourself. If not, just cry, "uncle."


Ah, now you're adding terms... Now it's "civility" and "social justice." Next it will be "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice." Then it will be "Jesus," "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice." Maybe you could also throw in "puppies" and "babies." How could anyone possibly argue against "puppies," "babies," "Jesus," "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice?" They'd surely be a monster to do so.

You invent terms to mean what you want them to mean. The concept of social justice is a laughable one to me, because it means absolutely nothing. What are you going to do to get social justice? ROFL What are you going to do? Wave a magic wand? Why don't you go out on your front porch and give it a shot. And jump! Wave and jump! Ahahahaha! ROFL

a1na2
03-15-2008, 07:23 PM
Ah, now you're adding terms... Now it's "civility" and "social justice." Next it will be "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice." Then it will be "Jesus," "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice." Maybe you could also throw in "puppies" and "babies." How could anyone possibly argue against "puppies," "babies," "Jesus," "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice?" They'd surely be a monster to do so.

You invent terms to mean what you want them to mean. The concept of social justice is a laughable one to me, because it means absolutely nothing. What are you going to do to get social justice? ROFL What are you going to do? Wave a magic wand? Why don't you go out on your front porch and give it a shot. And jump! Wave and jump! Ahahahaha! ROFL

Patriotic dissent is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

Seems that all are better than TJ.

Taco John
03-15-2008, 07:25 PM
Patriotic dissent is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

Seems that all are better than TJ.


Yeah, what are you protecting?

a1na2
03-15-2008, 08:23 PM
Yeah, what are you protecting?

That is something that you don't have the capacity to understand.

Taco John
03-15-2008, 10:36 PM
That is something that you don't have the capacity to understand.


Two hands on your own ass isn't a mystery to anyone. Even me.

Otter
03-15-2008, 10:51 PM
:spock:
I guess I understand the "narrow minded" part...I don't give flat-earthers or faked-lunar-landing conspirators the benefit of serious debate either, so I guess I really am a closed minded SOB.

But "fragile ego"?...Where in the world do you come up with that? (I guess you haven't read too many of my posts..) I have to say you seem like the one who had their glass vagina shatter just from reading my post...

I meant that in relation to the many posts that followed your input. The comment wasn't directed to your statement.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 12:45 AM
Two hands on your own ass isn't a mystery to anyone. Even me.


Proof that you don't have the capacity to understand, sometimes the sacrifices made are not worth the price. Just be happy that you can be the coward you are at the expense of others.

Logical
03-16-2008, 01:18 AM
Proof that you don't have the capacity to understand, sometimes the sacrifices made are not worth the price. Just be happy that you can be the coward you are at the expense of others.

Jesus, you write shit like this and wonder why you receive hate filled calls at home? You have not the least right to call any man or woman you do not know personally a coward.:shake:

Taco John
03-16-2008, 02:06 AM
Proof that you don't have the capacity to understand, sometimes the sacrifices made are not worth the price. Just be happy that you can be the coward you are at the expense of others.



I am quite content.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 07:42 AM
Jesus, you write shit like this and wonder why you receive hate filled calls at home? You have not the least right to call any man or woman you do not know personally a coward.:shake:

It has never stopped you , him or others on this board.

Besides, he all but admitted that very fact in posts on this board in the last month.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 07:48 AM
I am quite content.

I don't think that there is any doubt that you don't have a conscience in this respesct.

I have noticed that you are not posting such garbage about the country on your own board. Why is that? Afraid that your own people will reject your lack of support for the freeedoms that has been provided for all regardless of beliefs?

Stewie
03-16-2008, 08:38 AM
A great article by Monty Guild.


<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td><table valign="top" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" width="70%">Posted On: Saturday, March 15, 2008, 3:26:00 PM EST
http://www.jsmineset.com/spacer.gif
Market Panic Forces Governments Into Action
http://www.jsmineset.com/spacer.gif
Author: Monty Guild
http://www.jsmineset.com/spacer.gif
</td><td align="right" valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td height="4">
</td></tr></tbody></table><table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td height="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td height="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table>Dear CIGAS;
We are watching the biggest panic in global financial markets that has occurred in my 65 years of life and 50 years of stock, bond and commodities investing.
It’s the Saint Patrick’s Day weekend and old Saint Patrick would probably be fascinated to see all the rich and worldly people running around in a panic.

</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width="10">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Yesterday, JP Morgan and the U.S. Federal Reserve began a credit lifeline to Bear Stearns. This is a long and complicated story but I will attempt to summarize.
Bear Stearns had a run much like the bank runs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It had something to do with Bear Stearns itself but not as much as you would think if you were an average, fairly sophisticated citizen with some understanding of how the financial markets work.
I believe that most financial professionals may not completely understand what is happening. The lifeline and financing was done not to protect Bear Stearns alone but to protect the entire global banking system.
Bear Stearns is a PRIMARY DEALER IN U.S. GOVERNMENT BONDS. This is a very small and very important club. They have also been a leader in the business of prime brokerage and in the field of trade settlement and clearing - two very profitable mostly fee-based businesses that have been the envy of many other financial institutions. These have been their cash cows and very attractive businesses that have long been sought by other buyers.
Although Bear Stearns is quite large, it is the smallest of the top U.S. government bond dealers. So if someone wants to attack the system they will attack the smallest of the truly powerful bond houses. Bear Stearns, like all major mostly bond dealers and traders, also trades in mortgage bonds and derivatives and this is where its problems arose.
Bear Stearns' CEO said on Wednesday that the company was well capitalized and that its balance sheet is strong. I believe he was telling the truth. However, they are not immune to a run on the bank. IN FACT, NEITHER IS ANY OTHER MAJOR BANK OR INVESTMENT BANK IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
BEAR STEARNS AS A PRIMARY DEALER CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FAIL WITHOUT UNDERMIINING THE CONFIDENCE IN THE U.S. AND THE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
BEAR STEARNS WAS PROTECTED FROM FAILING TO MEET ITS COMMITMENTS TO COUNTERPARTIES BECAUSE TO LET A PRIMARY DEALER FAIL WOULD MEAN A RUN ON EVERY MAJOR BANKING AND INVESTMENT BANKING INSTITUTION IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. AND THAT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY LEAD TO A MASSIVE GLOBAL DEPRESSION. THIS IS MY CONSIDERED AND FIRM OPINION.
CONCLUSION
Events seem to be validating the opinion that Jim Sinclair and I have been propounding on these pages for a long time.
NO MAJOR U.S. BANKING INSTITUITON WILL BE ALLOWED TO FAIL TO MEET ITS COMMITMENTS TO DEPOSITORS AND COUNTERPARTIES. To do so would be an admission of defeat by the governmental agencies and institutions that exist to prevent events like these from happening including the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
CENTRAL BANKS EVERYWHERE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO REFLATE AND SUPPLY LIQUIDITY TO THE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM. FURTHERMORE, THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE THE CRISIS BECAME OBVIOUS ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO.
All of the themes that I said had to be fulfilled to solve the problem are not yet finalized. But congress is working to create an agency to buy bad loans and the U.S. Federal Reserve has been doing it for months now.
Some countries have been slower than others to recognize the problem. But now all do and they will make haste with liquidity, government bail out programs for banks, bank nationalizations if necessary, government aid to mortgage holders and many other programs designed to get the problem behind us as soon as possible and to buy votes in the process.
WHAT LIES AHEAD?
THE SHORT ANSWER TO WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS IS MORE INFLATION, HIGHER GOLD PRICES, HIGHER COMMODITY PRICES AND A LOT LOWER PRICES FOR BONDS.
If you review the statements by Jim and by myself in the past several years all of the events currently taking place have been predicted and explained.

patteeu
03-16-2008, 12:13 PM
I don't think that there is any doubt that you don't have a conscience in this respesct.

I have noticed that you are not posting such garbage about the country on your own board. Why is that? Afraid that your own people will reject your lack of support for the freeedoms that has been provided for all regardless of beliefs?

I think he's got a good rationale for not posting politics much on his own board. He doesn't want to be seen as biased in his moderator duties. After seeing the way rivalries, to put it politely, can develop around here, surely you can see why he'd want to avoid that at Orangemane.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 12:56 PM
I think he's got a good rationale for not posting politics much on his own board. He doesn't want to be seen as biased in his moderator duties. After seeing the way rivalries, to put it politely, can develop around here, surely you can see why he'd want to avoid that at Orangemane.

He has claimed in the past that he is totally himself on that board. He must be lying either to us or to himself.

penchief
03-16-2008, 01:06 PM
Ah, now you're adding terms... Now it's "civility" and "social justice." Next it will be "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice." Then it will be "Jesus," "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice." Maybe you could also throw in "puppies" and "babies." How could anyone possibly argue against "puppies," "babies," "Jesus," "apple pie," "civility," and "social justice?" They'd surely be a monster to do so.

You invent terms to mean what you want them to mean. The concept of social justice is a laughable one to me, because it means absolutely nothing. What are you going to do to get social justice? ROFL What are you going to do? Wave a magic wand? Why don't you go out on your front porch and give it a shot. And jump! Wave and jump! Ahahahaha! ROFL

This is coming from someone who says that there is no such thing as a society. As far as you are concerned, we should all go back to living in caves and fending for ourselves even if it means violence.

There is such a thing as civil society. Yes, it is a concept but it is a concept that has been put in practice throughout history. It is a concept that has contributed to the evolution of the human race. Civility is an aspect of society. For example, there are laws that are supposed to regulate the conduct of citizens for the benefit of society (all citizens).

Those laws (i.e. regulations) are supposed to apply to everyone. But when they stop applying to people who believe that their wealth places them above the law, it is no different than when somebody breaks into your house and steals you safe.

Do you believe there is such a thing as a citizen?

penchief
03-16-2008, 01:11 PM
Patriotic dissent is a luxury of those protected by better men than they.

Sometimes those who have done the protecting are also the ones doing the dissenting. Where do they rank?

I don't think that serving or dissenting are mutually exclusive. I think both are examples of patriotism.

wazu
03-16-2008, 02:24 PM
When you consider the level of panic the Federal Reserve is displaying today, I think we have to be concerned that a serious depression is at least a real possibility. Of all the "bubbles" that we hear about bursting, by far the one that threatens our way of life more than any is credit.

And to those thinking that just because the U.S. tanks, China will tank, there is some truth to that. The difference is China doesn't have a national debt. They have massive cash reserves. They will suffer, but not nearly as deeply as the U.S. will.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 02:29 PM
Sometimes those who have done the protecting are also the ones doing the dissenting. Where do they rank?

I don't think that serving or dissenting are mutually exclusive. I think both are examples of patriotism.

Take your pick. Those that served did not claim that they would not report if drafted. Taco John said that he would not report as he didn't believe in slavery (his words). Later he claimed to be a conscienious objector. I've seen his type before and they are of no value to the country IMO.

banyon
03-16-2008, 02:48 PM
"People who disagree with me are of no value to the country".


Yet another thread dragged into the toilet by this moron.

Taco John
03-16-2008, 02:58 PM
I don't think that there is any doubt that you don't have a conscience in this respesct.

Conscience about what? I have no idea exactly what you're whining about. I presume it has something to do with something nuanced that I said that you've taken out of context because your little pea mind doesn't have the capacity to interpret nuance.


I have noticed that you are not posting such garbage about the country on your own board. Why is that? Afraid that your own people will reject your lack of support for the freeedoms that has been provided for all regardless of beliefs?

What garbage about the country? I love America. I don't have anything bad to say about America. I have plenty bad to say about the policies of the jackasses running it into the ground right now though.

Uh oh! There's that nuance thing again. Why don't you go back to your remote control and protect the nation for awhile and leave me alone.

Taco John
03-16-2008, 03:04 PM
This is coming from someone who says that there is no such thing as a society. As far as you are concerned, we should all go back to living in caves and fending for ourselves even if it means violence.


And on the other side of the fence, we have penchief, who believes that it's my position that we should all go back to living in caves. Yes, penchief... We should all own pet dinosaurs too!


There is such a thing as civil society. Yes, it is a concept but it is a concept that has been put in practice throughout history. It is a concept that has contributed to the evolution of the human race. Civility is an aspect of society. For example, there are laws that are supposed to regulate the conduct of citizens for the benefit of society (all citizens).

Um... What made you think that I wanted to get into a discussion about the definition of civility? You and your straw men... :rolleyes:



Do you believe there is such a thing as a citizen?

:spock:

Why don't you go back and read my posts in this thread and then ask yourself that question. Any amount of reading comprehension should give you enough to work with to answer this question. :rolleyes:

a1na2
03-16-2008, 03:38 PM
Conscience about what? I have no idea exactly what you're whining about. I presume it has something to do with something nuanced that I said that you've taken out of context because your little pea mind doesn't have the capacity to interpret nuance.




What garbage about the country? I love America. I don't have anything bad to say about America. I have plenty bad to say about the policies of the jackasses running it into the ground right now though.

Uh oh! There's that nuance thing again. Why don't you go back to your remote control and protect the nation for awhile and leave me alone.

You say you love your country but are unwilling to answer the call if there were a draft?

You can't really talk about anyone protecting the freedoms that you enjoy because you dont' have the sack to stand on the line.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 03:40 PM
"People who disagree with me are of no value to the country".


Yet another thread dragged into the toilet by this moron.

Once again you have misread what was written and then changed the content.

You are the actual moron here, but calling you a moron is an offense to those in the world that are actually morons. A moron is miles more intelligent than you are!

Yep, this has gone to the toilet because that's the only time it gets to your level!

banyon
03-16-2008, 04:01 PM
Once again you have misread what was written and then changed the content.

You are the actual moron here, but calling you a moron is an offense to those in the world that are actually morons. A moron is miles more intelligent than you are!

Yep, this has gone to the toilet because that's the only time it gets to your level!

Yeah, toss back some more insults that could have been written by any half-witted dullard. You're a real hero.

Quadripelic lepers must have more satisfying lives than you.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 04:17 PM
Yeah, toss back some more insults that could have been written by any half-witted dullard. You're a real hero.

Quadripelic lepers must have more satisfying lives than you.

I notice that you always come in slinging shit and then get bent out of shape when it is returned.

You are the biggest retard on this board, bar none!

Give it a rest, you jump in to defend TJ and make an ass of yourself, quite impressive for an ambulance chaser!

Taco John
03-16-2008, 04:31 PM
You say you love your country but are unwilling to answer the call if there were a draft?

You can't really talk about anyone protecting the freedoms that you enjoy because you dont' have the sack to stand on the line.



Protecting freedoms? What freedoms were protected when the government rounded up a bunch of innocent people to fight in Vietnam? Nobody is protecting a single American freedom in Iraq, nor would they be should we go to war with Iran.

I'm not going to lift a finger to participate in a war of conquest.

banyon
03-16-2008, 04:32 PM
I notice that you always come in slinging shit and then get bent out of shape when it is returned.

You are the biggest retard on this board, bar none!

Give it a rest, you jump in to defend TJ and make an ass of yourself, quite impressive for an ambulance chaser!

No. Pretty much you become an irritable douche any time anyone calls you on your nonsense. It's a tired, tired act, and it's not exactly a secret.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 05:16 PM
Protecting freedoms? What freedoms were protected when the government rounded up a bunch of innocent people to fight in Vietnam? Nobody is protecting a single American freedom in Iraq, nor would they be should we go to war with Iran.

I'm not going to lift a finger to participate in a war of conquest.

As a citizen it's not your independent opinion that matters. If your country calls you are requred to respond.

I only wish that there could be another draft and you were in the prime range to be drafted to see if you would stand by your word or if you would run like your buddy Bill did.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 05:18 PM
No. Pretty much you become an irritable douche any time anyone calls you on your nonsense. It's a tired, tired act, and it's not exactly a secret.

You have the gall to call me an irritable douche? You play on this board like you are some sort of police officer that needs to call out anyone that objects to anothers post. You are a loser of an ambulance chaser and probably always will be.

If you don't like what I post simply put me on ignore. You don't have to respond, it just shows that you are the ignorant ass I think you are.

Fat Elvis
03-16-2008, 06:17 PM
Closer than you think.....


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080316/jpmorgan_bear_stearns.html



NEW YORK (AP) -- Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were close to an emergency buyout deal Sunday night aimed at averting further panic in the financial markets.

Top executives from both companies were in 11th-hour talks about a deal that could sell Bear Stearns for a per share price that is likely to be "considerably less" than the $30 the stock closed at Friday, according to The Wall Street Journal.

ADVERTISEMENT
Bear Stearns shares closed down $27, or 47.4 percent, to $30 on Friday as investors worried about a possible failure of the investment bank. The drop wiped $5.7 billion from the company's market value. JPMorgan shares fell $1.57, or 4.1 percent, to $36.54 on Friday.

Both sides were in a rush to complete a deal before financial markets opened in Asia for Monday morning trading, amid fears that a crisis of confidence could roil the system further, according to sources close to the talks who were not authorized to comment on the record.

Ahead of Tokyo's open, concerns about the credit crisis taking a new, more dangerous turn began to emerge in overseas markets. New Zealand shares opened sharply lower in overnight trading, tracking financial sector-driven weakness on Wall Street and signaling a potential sell-off in Asian markets.

Analysts on Wall Street say the bid to rescue Bear Stearns was more than just saving the nation's fifth-largest investment bank. Instead, keeping Bear Stearns afloat -- even if it is sold off -- was really propping up both the U.S. economy and global financial system.

"This is going to go down in very historic terms," said Peter Dunay, chief investment strategist for New York-based Meridian Equity Partners. "This is about credit being overextended, and how bad it is for major financial institutions and for individuals. This is why we're probably heading into a recession."

The government, led by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, was reported to be closely monitoring the talks. Any deal to rescue Bear Stearns was seen as a lifeline for the entire financial services industry, helping to stave off further weakness on Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., "has been in nearly continuous consultations all weekend," said Brookly McLaughlin, a Treasury Department spokeswoman. She wouldn't comment on the timing of any deal, other than to say "these things are never done until they're done."

After days of denials that it had liquidity problems, Bear was forced into a JPMorgan-led, government-backed bailout on Friday. The arrangement, the first of its kind since the 1930s, resulted in Bear getting a 28-day loan from JPMorgan with the government's guarantee that JPMorgan would not suffer any losses on the deal.

Among the Wall Street investment banks, Bear Stearns was the most closely exposed to the mortgage crisis. The collapse of two of its hedge funds last summer was seen by many as one of the triggers of the current credit crisis.

Management at Bear Stearns worked on Sunday to call clients in Asia who are worried about their business relationship, according to a Bear Stearns employee who was not authorized to speak. Many customers have pulled business from the ailing investment bank since Thursday when rumors began to circulate that it was close to failure.

Many of Bear Stearns' 14,000 employees were phoned Sunday and told to show up to work at 7:30 a.m. EST, the person said.

The Journal also reported that if a deal with JPMorgan were to fall apart, Bear could conceivably file for bankruptcy late Sunday before Asian financial markets opened.

Calls to Bear Stearns and JPMorgan were not immediately returned. A spokeswoman for Lazard Ltd., the investment bank representing Bear Stearns in the talks, did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

This is not the first time Bear Stearns has earned a place in Wall Street history.

A decade ago, Bear Stearns refused to help bail out a hedge fund that was deemed "too big to fail," drawing the ire of its brethren on Wall Street. On Friday, it found itself hat in hand, looking for the same kind of aid.

It was a stunning collapse for Bear Stearns, founded in 1923 and best known in recent years for its success in the once-lucrative mortgage securities market. Its aggressive position in mortgages was also its undoing.

In June, two Bear-managed hedge funds worth billions of dollars collapsed and lost all their money. The funds were heavily invested in securities backed by subprime mortgages -- loans given to customers with poor credit history. Until that point, subprime mortgage-backed securities were immensely popular with investors because of their profitability.

The funds' collapse and subsequent problems in the credit markets called into question Bear Stearns ability to manage its own risk and the leadership ability of then-Chief Executive James Cayne. Critics of the company said Cayne spent too much time away from the office last year playing golf and bridge as the problems unfolded.

Cayne is the same executive who refused to let Bear Stearns provide support as part of a Federal Reserve Bank-led plan to rescue Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. His reticence was said to deeply anger some of his fellow Wall Street CEOs, and the episode came up every time Bear was reported to be in trouble in recent months.

Cayne took over from the legendary Alan "Ace" Greenberg in 1993. Greenberg joined Bear Stearns as a clerk, working his way up through the ranks to eventually take over as CEO in 1978. Greenberg was known for his irreverent style, and his regular memos to employees were turned into a book called "Memos from the Chairman."

Before Greenberg's ascendancy to CEO, Bear Stearns began to expand from its New York roots throughout the 1950s and 1960s, opening international offices and expanding its U.S. operations.

The company was opened in 1923 as an equity trading shop. Today, it has subsidiaries providing a wide array of financial services products for individuals, corporations, institutions and governments. Generally, it provides capital markets, wealth management and global clearing services to its customers.







Can someone explain why one bank failure will undermine the entire confidence in the global economy? How is this different than the S&L crisis?

Fat Elvis
03-16-2008, 06:31 PM
Holy Crap. JP Morgan just bought Bear Stearns for $2/share!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/16cnd-bear.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin


JPMorgan Acts to Buy Ailing Bear Stearns at Huge Discount



Article Tools Sponsored By
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and LANDON THOMAS Jr.
Published: March 16, 2008

Bear Stearns, facing collapse because of the mortgage crisis, agreed Sunday evening to be bought by JPMorgan Chase for a bargain-basement price of less than $250 million, the two companies announced.
Skip to next paragraph
Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

The headquarters of Bear Stearns on Madison Avenue in Manhattan.
Related
Fears That Bear Stearns’s Downfall May Spread (March 17, 2008)
Paulson Defends Bailout of Bear (March 16, 2008)
Fair Game: Rescue Me: A Fed Bailout Crosses a Line (March 16, 2008)
Fed Chief Shifts Path, Inventing Policy in Crisis (March 16, 2008)
Run on Big Wall St. Bank Spurs Rescue Backed by U.S. (March 15, 2008)
News Analysis: A Wall Street Domino Theory (March 15, 2008)
News Analysis: F.D.R.’s Safety Net Gets a Big Stretch (March 15, 2008)
Times Topics: Bear Stearns | JPMorgan Chase

The all-stock deal values Bear Stearns at about $2 a share, based on JPMorgan’s closing stock price on Friday, the companies said. In contrast, shares of Bear Stearns, which fell $27 on Friday, closed at $30.

A deal for Bear Stearns would end the independence of one of Wall Street’s most storied firms and help halt a sweeping panic that set in at the end of last week, causing Bear Stearns’s stock to swoon 47 percent on Friday.

The talks between the companies, which were overseen by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department because of their potential effect on financial markets, were rushed in an effort to reach a deal before stock markets open in Asia at 8 p.m. Eastern time.

Bear Stearns’s chief executive, Alan D. Schwartz, and other top Bear executives huddled in all-day meetings at the firm’s Madison Avenue headquarters, trying desperately to persuade skeptical potential suitors that the firm was worth buying for a price that would likely represent a steep discount to its book value, considered the truest measure of the financial health of a banking institution.

JPMorgan was working with the Federal Reserve on Sunday afternoon to hash out exactly what liabilities would be guaranteed, said people involved in the talks, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the negotiations.

On Friday, JPMorgan, with the backing of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said it would provide financing in order to keep Bear Stearns solvent as lenders and clients rushed to pull their money out.

Bear Stearns’s stock price of $30 on Friday represented a yawning 62 percent discount to the $80 book value that the firm has reported, reflecting the broad view among investors that the fallout from the credit crunch has permanently devastated Bear’s core mortgage operations. JPMorgan’s bid of $2 a share, however, represents a 97.5 percent discount.

JPMorgan appears to have concluded that the business of one of Wall Street’s oldest investment banks is worth far less than the value of the firm’s Midtown Manhattan skyscraper, which is probably worth at least $1 billion.

Wall Street analysts say the sudden collapse of Bear Stearns is not likely to set off a wave of consolidation in the beleaguered financial services industry. That is because the same fear that has paralyzed the markets has paralyzed buyers.

There is little faith in the assigned or “marked” value of so many assets, including but not limited to mortgage-related securities. In fact, the experience of Bear Stearns proves that it is confidence, not capital, that topples even the savviest financial institutions.

“Once you have a run on the bank you are in a death spiral and your assets become worthless,” said David Trone, a brokerage analyst at Fox Pitt Kelton. “If JPMorgan can pull off a rescue, the assets can be saved,” he argued. But if not, the assets may lose their value.

Bear Stearns’s hedge fund servicing business and its clearing operations have traditionally been profitable operations, though they have suffered in recent months as investors and lenders have lost confidence in Bear.

JPMorgan, the private equity investor J.C. Flowers and others have been poring through Bear Stearns’s books since Friday, with the assistance of Samuel Molinaro, Bear’s chief financial officer, and senior members from the firm’s bond and mortgage operations.

Throughout much of its history, Bear Stearns has masterfully persuaded the market that its business — narrowly focused on mortgage finance — was worth more than it actually was. To some degree this trick has been a testament to the coy gamesmanship of two of its past leaders, Alan “Ace” Greenberg and James E. Cayne.

Both men are devout bridge players, and Mr. Greenberg is an amateur magician to boot, so they are well schooled in the art of not showing their hand. Mr. Cayne’s hint eight years back — that he would sell the firm only for four times its book value — was even then a flight of financial fancy.

Wall Street investment banks rarely command such a premium to their book value, given the inherent and unpredictable risks of their business. Nevertheless, Mr. Cayne and Mr. Greenberg were adept at spreading the view that Bear Stearns was constantly being pursued by buyers as varied as European commercial banks and even banks like JPMorgan, though it was never clear that any of these talks reached a serious level.

But Bear Stearns’s quirky culture and the high pay it awarded its senior executives made it a difficult fit for larger, more staid institutions, and it always seemed that Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Cayne were having too much fun running their business to sell it to an outsider.

Now Mr. Schwartz, a longtime investment banker whose approach to deal-making is more pragmatic and results-oriented than his predecessor, raced against the clock to seal a deal that salvages some measure of value for shellshocked Bear Stearns employees, who own more than 30 percent of the firm, and its investors.

“Banks and brokerages are a house of cards built on the confidence of clients, creditors and counterparties,” Mr. Trone said. “If you take chunks out of that confidence, things can go awry pretty quickly. It could happen to any one of the brokers.”

penchief
03-16-2008, 06:43 PM
I think the word "society" is a red herring. That's all. It's just a way for those with a liberal mindset to create another entity that they can demonstrate is being victimized. The entity doesn't actually exist though, and it certainly has no rights.

The better word to replace "society" with is "individuals." In the American system, it is individuals who have rights, not "society." Individuals can be defined. Individuals can take action. Individuals actually exist.

Your question would have been better if you had asked "should that be the goal of an American?" Which the obvious answer would have been laughably, "whether it should be or not, it is." But when you take it to the point of "Should that be the goal of "society?" then you liberalize the question by taking away the individuality of the core unit of so-called "society."

Yes, I understand that it's a bit dogmatic, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. It's very meaningful because ultimately "society" doesn't matter. It has no rights. It has no legal recognition in the US system. There's no sense in confusing the matter by giving any importance to a concept that ultimately has no leg to stand on in our system of governance.

This is the post I was referring to and it certainly does sound like you are saying that there is no such thing as a society. We do have common interests as individual citizens. Society is made up of individual citizens. And when those individual citizens join together for the common good, that is pretty much what a society is. And when people agree on standards of conduct they are pretty much attempting to protect the common good through civil means.

I don't know why you think that your shit doesn't stink but you sure do resort to belittling people an awful lot. You could use a lesson in civility, yourself.

banyon
03-16-2008, 07:53 PM
No. Pretty much you become an irritable douche any time anyone calls you on your nonsense. It's a tired, tired act, and it's not exactly a secret.

You have the gall to call me an irritable douche? You play on this board like you are some sort of police officer that needs to call out anyone that objects to anothers post. You are a loser of an ambulance chaser and probably always will be.

If you don't like what I post simply put me on ignore. You don't have to respond, it just shows that you are the ignorant ass I think you are.

I rest my case.

a1na2
03-16-2008, 08:27 PM
I rest my case.

You never had a case other than crabs.

You attack and claim victory just because you feel superior.

Just a little note here Jackson, you are not superior and never will be.

You are nothing more than a two-bit ambulance chaser and have no hope of being anything more.

Taco John
03-16-2008, 11:18 PM
As a citizen it's not your independent opinion that matters.

In Nazi Germany, you'd be right.

This is America.

Silock
03-17-2008, 12:58 AM
If your country calls you are requred to respond.

Horseshit.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2008, 01:08 AM
Horseshit.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Your bolded statement is an important founding ideal that has no standing against established law.

Perhaps another revolution would correct that matter. Knock yourself out leading it.

Silock
03-17-2008, 01:10 AM
Your bolded statement is an important founding ideal that has no standing against established law.

Perhaps another revolution would correct that matter. Knock yourself out leading it.

You missed the point entirely.

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2008, 01:13 AM
You missed the point entirely.

Then we're even.

You've misunderstood your lawful rights entirely.

a1na2
03-17-2008, 03:29 AM
In Nazi Germany, you'd be right.

This is America.

If drafted and you fail to report you will find that you would be in an American jail, not a Nazi Germany Stalag.

a1na2
03-17-2008, 03:31 AM
Horseshit.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

You bring up a good point but what you have failed to realize is that the founding fathers set up the government to be controlled by the states and now we have the states following the federal government.

Your blessed Supreme Court has been mis-intrepeting the Constitution for many years now and with a more liberal accent there we will be losing more of our rights due to the SCOTUS rather that the POTUS.

Amnorix
03-17-2008, 07:53 AM
You bring up a good point but what you have failed to realize is that the founding fathers set up the government to be controlled by the states and now we have the states following the federal government.

No, that was the Articles of Confederation. The founding fathers realized that system totally sucked, so they scrapped it entirely in favor of a completely new system.

And the people ratified the new Constitution.

Please feel free to educate youself on BASIC Constitutional law issues before spouting your nonsense.

Amnorix
03-17-2008, 07:55 AM
I notice that you always come in slinging shit and then get bent out of shape when it is returned.

You are the biggest retard on this board, bar none!

Give it a rest, you jump in to defend TJ and make an ass of yourself, quite impressive for an ambulance chaser!


I love irony...

penchief
03-17-2008, 08:02 AM
Your bolded statement is an important founding ideal that has no standing against established law.

Perhaps another revolution would correct that matter. Knock yourself out leading it.

.......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.....

I'm not saying it's time for a revolution but when it's obvious that such a usurpation has been taking place on a large scale, it would behoove us to wake the hell up and hold our government accountable instead of enabling that usurpation via blind nationalism and petty partisan politics.

By the way, thanks for posting that entire segment, Silock. It basically supports the point I've been trying to make about representative government all along.

Taco John
03-17-2008, 09:24 AM
If drafted and you fail to report you will find that you would be in an American jail, not a Nazi Germany Stalag.



Or I just might find myself president...

patteeu
03-17-2008, 09:25 AM
Horseshit.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The people granted Congress the power to raise an army and provide a navy in Article 1 of the Constitution. The people did not specify the manner in which such an army can be raised (or navy provided). While it may be out there somewhere, I've never heard a convincing legal argument about why a draft would be unconstitutional, particularly in a time of national peril.

Silock
03-17-2008, 11:03 AM
Then we're even.

You've misunderstood your lawful rights entirely.

The law has nothing to do with where the government derives its responsibility. The Higher Law defense would applicable in such a situation as this.

Silock
03-17-2008, 11:05 AM
The people granted Congress the power to raise an army and provide a navy in Article 1 of the Constitution. The people did not specify the manner in which such an army can be raised (or navy provided). While it may be out there somewhere, I've never heard a convincing legal argument about why a draft would be unconstitutional, particularly in a time of national peril.

I'm not arguing against a draft. I'm arguing against whether or not one is absolutely obligated to do whatever your country asks of you. Many in Nazi Germany did what they did because they were "just following orders," but that doesn't make it right.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 11:13 AM
I'm not arguing against a draft. I'm arguing against whether or not one is absolutely obligated to do whatever your country asks of you. Many in Nazi Germany did what they did because they were "just following orders," but that doesn't make it right.

OK

a1na2
03-17-2008, 01:28 PM
I love irony...

I love the irony as well. You jump in to help defend anyone that makes a comment about one of your posting buddies. It is amazing that it takes three or four of you to pile on when the discussion is between the coward TJ and me.

Have you served your country? Or are one of those that feel that you serve because you pay taxes?

a1na2
03-17-2008, 01:29 PM
Or I just might find myself president...

Of Iraq? You couldn't find yourself using every satellite orbiting the earth.

Taco John
03-17-2008, 01:34 PM
You don't handle it so well when nobody agrees with you.

Fishpicker
03-17-2008, 01:56 PM
back to the subject at hand...

this is from the telegraph (link not working)

Fed takes boldest action since the Depression to rescue US mortgage industry
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Last Updated: 12:48am GMT 14/03/2008



The US Federal Reserve has taken the boldest action since the 1930s, accepting $200bn of housing debt as collateral to prevent an implosion of the mortgage finance industry and head off a full-blown economic crisis.

The Bank of England, the key European central banks, and the Bank of Canada all joined in a co-ordinated move with a mix of policies to halt the dowward spiral in the credit markets, expanding on the "shock and awe" tactics used late last year.

The Fed's dramatic step came after an emergency conference call by governors on Monday night. It followed the melt-down of the US chartered agencies -- Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other lenders -- which together guarantee 60pc of the entire US home loan market. Fannie Mae's share price fell 19pc in panic trading on Monday after Barron's magazine said it may need a rescue package.

"The agency crisis was a Tsunami event," said Tim Bond, global strategist at Barclays Capital.

"The market was starting to question the solvency of bodies that stand at the top of the credit pile. These agencies together wrap or insure $6 trillion of mortgages. They cannot be allowed to fail because it would cause a financial disaster. The fact that this sector has blown up has caught everybody's attention in Washington," he said.

The Fed action set off a powerful relief rally, lifting the Dow Jones index over 340 points in early trading. Both US and European equities have been hovering on key support lines in recent days, threatening to break down through 18-month lows in a second, brutal leg to the bear market.

Stress indicators across almost all parts of the global credit system fell from extreme levels on the Fed news. The CDX and iTraxx Europe indexes that serve as a default barometer for corporate bonds retreated from record highs, although it is too early to judge whether the latest action will start to thaw the credit freeze. The stock market rally after the last central bank intervention in December fizzled out after just one day.

"This is not going to be enough," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.

"The Fed is doing absolutely the right thing by soaking up mortgage debt that nobody else wants. This will have an impact on spreads, but we're seeing the deflation of a major bubble. The Fed is still going to have to cut interest rates by 75 basis points next week," he said.

It is a ground-breaking move for the Fed to accept mortgage collateral, even if the debt is theoretically 'AAA-grade' debt. The Fed is constrained by Article 13 of the Federal Reserve Act from buying mortgage bonds outright, but it can achieve a similar effect by letting banks roll over collateral indefinitely. The European Central Bank is already doing this, shielding Dutch, Spanish, German, and some British banks from the full impact of the credit crunch.

The Fed is to create a new facility that allows banks to swap their mortgage bonds for US Treasuries. It is a well-targeted "sterilized" move to avoid adding fuel to inflationary fire. It follows the Fed's separate pledge last Friday to add up to $200bn in liquidity.

The Bank of England also announced that it was widening the range of elligible collateral as it offers Ł10bn of three-month loans, saying pressures in the money markets "have recently increased again." The ECB and the Swiss have boosted swap agreements with the Fed to provide $30bn and $6bn respectively in dollar liquidity to their own lenders.

Bernard Connolly, global strategist at Banque AIG, said the Fed action may help calm the markets for now, but it cannot solve the root problem of eroded of bank capital.

"There is the risk of a very damaging credit contraction. We face the most serious global crisis since the Great Depression. But this time at least the North American central banks are doing their best to stop it spreading to the real economy," he said.

The emergency actions appear to have been co-ordinated by the Fed's top two figures, Ben Bernanke and Donald Kohn, working closely with the Bank of Canada's Mark Carney. "We should be thankful that we have people in charge who appreciate the gravity of the situation," said Mr Connolly.

The travails at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- once rock-solid institutions -- had combined in a deadly cocktail with a fresh wave of panic over the solvency of the investment banks with heavy exposure to sub-prime debt.

Bear Stearns was forced to deny reports that it was running out of capital and may seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The spreads measuring default risk on its debt rocketed from 246 to 792 on Monday.

Mr Bond said the mortgage agencies may ultimately need to be nationalized. Fannie Mae has already seen its stock price drop 70pc since October at a cost of $50bn in market value, even though it has an implicit federal guarantee. "There is going to have to be a very big bail-out," he said.

Amnorix
03-17-2008, 02:43 PM
I love the irony as well. You jump in to help defend anyone that makes a comment about one of your posting buddies. It is amazing that it takes three or four of you to pile on when the discussion is between the coward TJ and me.

We all pile on because that's one a bunch of reasonable people do when they see one being an idiot. Sometimes it's enough to stand by and smirk or cheer, but sometimes everyone needs to punch the punching dummy.

Have you served your country? Or are one of those that feel that you serve because you pay taxes?

What methods of service would satisfy your lofty standards? And what difference does serving my country make to any argument on here unless it's about how to clean a rifle, or the contents of a MRE?

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2008, 06:02 PM
.......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.....

No shit, bonehead. Thanks for stating the obvious. That's why I invited him to lead the revolution.

a1na2
03-17-2008, 06:22 PM
You don't handle it so well when nobody agrees with you.

Seems like your and your liberal friends are the ones that can't handle adversity. I'm doing just fine.

a1na2
03-17-2008, 06:27 PM
We all pile on because that's one a bunch of reasonable people do when they see one being an idiot. Sometimes it's enough to stand by and smirk or cheer, but sometimes everyone needs to punch the punching dummy.

Gang mentality. You guys need to go to LA and find out just how bad you really are! ROFL

Throwing insults on the internet is really something to be proud of. :spock:



What methods of service would satisfy your lofty standards? And what difference does serving my country make to any argument on here unless it's about how to clean a rifle, or the contents of a MRE?

Considering the whole conversation is revolving around the fact that TJ is afraid to serve in the military as he doesn't want to be a slave to the government should ring a bell in that little noggin of yours, but since you are having trouble identifying the topic at hand I'd say that it is serving in the ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

You do know that more than 60% of the people in the military never have to clean a rifle past boot camp and that's if they even have to do it then.

As far as MRE's go, I've never opened one so I have no clue as to what great delicacies there may be in them.

As for "my lofty standards" go, I'd say that you have no clue of what service is if you have to be such a NORFOK.

In other words - DILLIGAF?

Calcountry
03-17-2008, 08:20 PM
Can anyone tell me again, why in the heck should we give a damn, if the government runs deficits?

a1na2
03-17-2008, 10:24 PM
Can anyone tell me again, why in the heck should we give a damn, if the government runs deficits?

When was the last time that we actually did not run a deficit? The libs here will say that Clinton did, but what funds were not expended were redirected and spent.

Taco John
03-17-2008, 10:34 PM
Can anyone tell me again, why in the heck should we give a damn, if the government runs deficits?



Tell me again... Why do you call yourself a conservative?

Please don't again. You are clearly not. Try "Republican."

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 10:40 PM
I think bunny was being sarcastic.

a1na2
03-17-2008, 11:57 PM
I think bunny was being sarcastic.:eek:

Logical
03-18-2008, 12:42 AM
...

Have you served your country? Or are one of those that feel that you serve because you pay taxes?

Man we could really use John Proctor over here so you two could have a chest thumping festival and you could both tell us how much bigger your dicks are because you served. Then Proctor could tell you that you are nothing because you don't have a medal for serving in Iraq. Man that would be swell.

Taco John
03-18-2008, 01:07 AM
I think bunny was being sarcastic.



I sure hope so.

Count Alex's Wins
03-18-2008, 01:17 AM
You say you love your country but are unwilling to answer the call if there were a draft?

You can't really talk about anyone protecting the freedoms that you enjoy because you dont' have the sack to stand on the line.

You are a colossal ****ing idiot.

Count Alex's Wins
03-18-2008, 01:19 AM
You are the biggest retard on this board, bar none!


Look in the mirror, assclown.

Nobody wants you here.

You contribute nothing.

You are a boil on the community's ass.

Cave Johnson
03-18-2008, 09:46 AM
change is hard on people. Its clear the days of cheap fuel and running all over creation in gas guzzlers is over. Either adapt or pay.

HonestChieffan's hobbies: drowning puppies, telling kids there is no Santa Claus, and "fake adopting" orphans.

stevieray
03-18-2008, 09:49 AM
Look in the mirror, assclown.

Nobody wants you here.

You contribute nothing.

You are a boil on the community's ass.

STFU.. you and nobody else is appointed board sheriff to determine what "credentials" are needed to participate.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 09:52 AM
When was the last time that we actually did not run a deficit? The libs here will say that Clinton did, but what funds were not expended were redirected and spent.

errr...no, the deficit was actually reduced by some $200 billion one year. But don't let facts stop you for a change.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 10:00 AM
Considering the whole conversation is revolving around the fact that TJ is afraid to serve in the military as he doesn't want to be a slave to the government should ring a bell in that little noggin of yours, but since you are having trouble identifying the topic at hand I'd say that it is serving in the ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

You do know that more than 60% of the people in the military never have to clean a rifle past boot camp and that's if they even have to do it then.

As far as MRE's go, I've never opened one so I have no clue as to what great delicacies there may be in them.

As for "my lofty standards" go, I'd say that you have no clue of what service is if you have to be such a NORFOK.

In other words - DILLIGAF?

Ah, I see. Does National Guard Service count?

And no, it doesn't look like you give a f___.

Taco John
03-18-2008, 10:24 AM
Considering the whole conversation is revolving around the fact that TJ is afraid to serve in the military...


I'm not afraid to serve in the military. I see the military as an honorable profession. I just wouldn't fight in Iraq or Iran as I don't see either of these military adventures worthy of me laying down my life.

I'd be willing to fight in defense of this country. I wouldn't, however, be willing to sacrifice my life for military adventures that have nothing to do with the protection of the United States.

I understand that you aren't capable of too much nuance, and won't understand this. But what you fail to understand is that the people around you on this board ARE capable of nuance, and many of them feel exactly as I do. Nobody wants to throw their lives away for no legitimate reason. Even if some politician behind a cherry wood desk in DC thinks that they should.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 10:46 AM
errr...no, the deficit was actually reduced by some $200 billion one year. But don't let facts stop you for a change.

You seem to have missed the fact that the deficit was not reduced and that money was spend on other pork barrel issues.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 10:50 AM
I'm not afraid to serve in the military. I see the military as an honorable profession. I just wouldn't fight in Iraq or Iran as I don't see either of these military adventures worthy of me laying down my life.

I'd be willing to fight in defense of this country. I wouldn't, however, be willing to sacrifice my life for military adventures that have nothing to do with the protection of the United States.

I understand that you aren't capable of too much nuance, and won't understand this. But what you fail to understand is that the people around you on this board ARE capable of nuance, and many of them feel exactly as I do. Nobody wants to throw their lives away for no legitimate reason. Even if some politician behind a cherry wood desk in DC thinks that they should.

Prove me wrong. Go down and enlist today.

You are saying that you will only fight if you feel it is worthy of your life. What you aren't understanding buckwheat is that you either support your country or you don't and it looks like you don't.

TJ is't not shades of gray, it 's black and white. Serving the country in the military is a job that you don't have the luxury of choosing which battle you are involved in, at least to the extent that you are expounding.

Let me know when you've finished basic training.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 10:52 AM
You seem to have missed the fact that the deficit was not reduced and that money was spend on other pork barrel issues.

I'll try one more time.

I did misspeak earlier, and so did you, so let's start with what the word mean. Deficit is the shortfall between the government's income and epxenses in any given year. So you would say "the Feds had a deficit of $100 billion (or whatever) in 2003." DEBT, meanwhile, is the total amount of debt of the federal government, which is currently some absurd number of trillions of dollars. If you want to know exactly how much, do a Google Search for "debt clock", which ought to give you the horribly depressing, ever escalating number as of that moment in time.

In the latter Clinton administration, the federal government ran SURPLUSES, and did not have deficits. This is a bit misleading because it included the tremendously profitable Social Security income/expenses. But still, Clinton PAID DOWN the debt. By $200 billion one year.

This money was NOT redirected to pork or anything else. It was used to pay down debt.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

a1na2
03-18-2008, 10:53 AM
Ah, I see. Does National Guard Service count?

And no, it doesn't look like you give a f___.

Looks like you have not realized that the National Guard has been deployed to Iraq. You have missed the part that the National Guard was deployed to Vietnam. Just how stupid are you?

And not I don't give a phuque about you, if you think there was more behind the comment it just shows your lack of capacity.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 10:54 AM
Prove me wrong. Go down and enlist today.

You are saying that you will only fight if you feel it is worthy of your life. What you aren't understanding buckwheat is that you either support your country or you don't and it looks like you don't.

If you don't serve in the military, can you still be a good American citizen? What if you were an Eagle Scout but had to go to work to support your family since your Dad had cancer?

What if you were 4F because your eyesight is so horrible they wouldn't think about giving you a gun that shot anything other than Nerf bullets?

Let me know. This is very important.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 10:55 AM
Looks like you have not realized that the National Guard has been deployed to Iraq. You have missed the part that the National Guard was deployed to Vietnam. Just how stupid are you?

And not I don't give a phuque about you, if you think there was more behind the comment it just shows your lack of capacity.

So National Guard service counts? Ok, that's good to know.

Boy scout?

Fat Elvis
03-18-2008, 10:57 AM
If you don't serve in the military, can you still be a good American citizen? What if you were an Eagle Scout but had to go to work to support your family since your Dad had cancer?

What if you were 4F because your eyesight is so horrible they wouldn't think about giving you a gun that shot anything other than Nerf bullets?

Let me know. This is very important.

If you ain't cannonfodder, you ain't shit.

Is this assclown (a1) Carl Peterson? You can't be a true fan if you don't have season tickets, and you can't be a true American if you haven't served in the military.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 10:58 AM
Oh -- critical -- what about FBI/CIA/ATF?

Secret Service has to count, I figure -- I mean, they're putting their life on the line every day to protect the President and other high ranking government officials. You agree?

a1na2
03-18-2008, 11:07 AM
So National Guard service counts? Ok, that's good to know.

Boy scout?

Which part of ARMED Forces do you not understand? WAFI

a1na2
03-18-2008, 11:11 AM
If you ain't cannonfodder, you ain't shit.

Is this assclown (a1) Carl Peterson? You can't be a true fan if you don't have season tickets, and you can't be a true American if you haven't served in the military.

You are repeating things that were not said by me.

I've never been a season ticket holder and have never claimed that you had to be a season ticket holder to be a genuine Chiefs fan.

I never said anything about being a true American if you didn't serve. I was responding to TJ's comment that he would not serve because he didnt' believe in the Iraq war and further that he would not serve because he wouldn't be a slave to anyone. There is more that he said, but I'm sure you don't need to see what he wrote, you are on a vendetta with the rest of the gang.

Just because YOU wrote it does not make it historically correct.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 11:13 AM
Oh -- critical -- what about FBI/CIA/ATF?

Secret Service has to count, I figure -- I mean, they're putting their life on the line every day to protect the President and other high ranking government officials. You agree?

No, but what you might be interested in is that the Coast Guard is an Armed Service. Those you mention above are public servants, noble in their cause but during times of the draft they were eligible for the draft just like the rest of us.

eazyb81
03-18-2008, 11:37 AM
If you ain't cannonfodder, you ain't shit.

Is this assclown (a1) Carl Peterson? You can't be a true fan if you don't have season tickets, and you can't be a true American if you haven't served in the military.

Don't mind him, he's the joke of the board. Just point and laugh.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 12:05 PM
Don't mind him, he's the joke of the board. Just point and laugh.


No more than the rest of these guys.

I've shared quite a bit of this boards threads with friends. Most of them ask me why I put up with the ignorance of the people on this board.

Their assessments are that there are a number of Cut and Paste masters that have no original thoughts or beliefs.

If you want to call someone a joke you need to reference more than what you've heard form those that have a definite disdain for my point of view.

Get a life dude.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 12:28 PM
Can anyone tell me again, why in the heck should we give a damn, if the government runs deficits?

1. weakens the dollar, which in turn is driving up the price of oil faster.

2. less national strength to respond to emergencies via tax cuts or spending increases.

3. spending hordes of money on interest on the federal debt. I mean, HORDES of money.

In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

4. Sucks up money that otherwise would be available for borrowing by private enterprise, which in turn means that EVERYBODY has to pay more interest for money borrowed.

5. As a result, it increases inflation.

6. Weakens/eliminates our ability to deal effectively with the looming entitlements crisis.


Other than that, structural deficits are GREAT!

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 12:29 PM
No more than the rest of these guys.

I've shared quite a bit of this boards threads with friends. Most of them ask me why I put up with the ignorance of the people on this board.

Their assessments are that there are a number of Cut and Paste masters that have no original thoughts or beliefs.

Did your friends think I was one of the ignorant ones? Am I one of those with no original thoughts or beliefs? I sure hope not.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:18 PM
Did your friends think I was one of the ignorant ones? Am I one of those with no original thoughts or beliefs? I sure hope not.

This is boring and you are very stupid. Continue as before.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:20 PM
In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt.


I see, and you are blaming the whole national debt on this administration?

More intelligence from the east coast.

jAZ
03-18-2008, 01:24 PM
I see, and you are blaming the whole national debt on this administration?

More intelligence from the east coast.

Do you pay attention to the context of his post?

Can anyone tell me again, why in the heck should we give a damn, if the government runs deficits?

banyon
03-18-2008, 01:25 PM
I see, and you are blaming the whole national debt on this administration?

More intelligence from the east coast.

I guess it says that, IF YOU CAN"T F***ING READ AT ALL.

What a tard. :shake: ROFL

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 01:26 PM
I see, and you are blaming the whole national debt on this administration?

More intelligence from the east coast.

errr....no I didn't blame the whole national debt on this administration, which of course would make no sense at all as BushCo inherited a massive debt.

I blame him for making it worse, which he has consistently done, despite his campaign pledges to the contrary.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 01:27 PM
I guess it says that, IF YOU CAN"T F***ING READ AT ALL.

What a tard. :shake: ROFL


ROFL

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:27 PM
I guess it says that, IF YOU CAN"T F***ING READ AT ALL.

What a tard. :shake: ROFL

What an asshole! You assume that I read the link. I did not. I took the inference from amoronix that the debt was all Bush's fault. You all blame Bush for everything else that is going on at the moment.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:33 PM
errr....no I didn't blame the whole national debt on this administration, which of course would make no sense at all as BushCo inherited a massive debt.

I blame him for making it worse, which he has consistently done, despite his campaign pledges to the contrary.

What president in your lifetime has gone into office and left without increasing the national debt?

Your paranoid tendencies are really amusing.

Your intent was to bash Bush and everyone that has ever read anything you post knows that. Like I said, you are very boring.


Also where in the following did you claim that Bush was not responsible for the whole debt?

1. weakens the dollar, which in turn is driving up the price of oil faster.

2. less national strength to respond to emergencies via tax cuts or spending increases.

3. spending hordes of money on interest on the federal debt. I mean, HORDES of money.

In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

4. Sucks up money that otherwise would be available for borrowing by private enterprise, which in turn means that EVERYBODY has to pay more interest for money borrowed.

5. As a result, it increases inflation.

6. Weakens/eliminates our ability to deal effectively with the looming entitlements crisis.


Other than that, structural deficits are GREAT!

As stated, your basic mode of operation is to blame Bush for everything you see as wrong. It's not the case and we all know that but you continue to bash the President. Quite white of you.

banyon
03-18-2008, 01:49 PM
What an asshole! You assume that I read the link. I did not. I took the inference from amoronix that the debt was all Bush's fault. You all blame Bush for everything else that is going on at the moment.

There was nothing in the post to "take the inference" (sic., actually "implication") from. You didn't have to follow any link, you just read what you wanted to into the post, probably only after a glance.

If you really did read the post closely and still came to that conclusion, well i guess you're even a bigger retard than we all thought.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:57 PM
There was nothing in the post to "take the inference" (sic., actually "implication") from. You didn't have to follow any link, you just read what you wanted to into the post, probably only after a glance.

If you really did read the post closely and still came to that conclusion, well i guess you're even a bigger retard than we all thought.

That's just the conclusion I would expect from an ambulance chaser.

The MO of Amoronix has been the same from day one here. He has attacked the President and administration ad nauseum. I wouldn't expect someone with your lack of attention to detail to follow the process.

I see that you follow the standard name calling when it comes to not having a well thought out answer to post.

banyon
03-18-2008, 02:03 PM
That's just the conclusion I would expect from an ambulance chaser.

The MO of Amoronix has been the same from day one here. He has attacked the President and administration ad nauseum. I wouldn't expect someone with your lack of attention to detail to follow the process.
I see that you follow the standard name calling when it comes to not having a well thought out answer to post.

PSYCHOSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis)
DSM-IV Criteria:
__________________

People with psychosis may have one or more of the following:


[edit] Hallucinations
Hallucinations are defined as sensory perception in the absence of external stimuli. They are different from illusions, or perceptual distortions, which are the misperception of external stimuli.[75] Hallucinations may occur in any of the five senses and take on almost any form, which may include simple sensations (such as lights, colors, tastes, and smells) to more meaningful experiences such as seeing and interacting with fully formed animals and people, hearing voices and complex tactile sensations.

Auditory hallucinations, particularly the experience of hearing voices, are a common and often prominent feature of psychosis. Hallucinated voices may talk about, or to the person, and may involve several speakers with distinct personas. Auditory hallucinations tend to be particularly distressing when they are derogatory, commanding or preoccupying. However, the experience of hearing voices need not always be a negative one. Research has shown that the majority of people who hear voices are not in need of psychiatric help.[76] The Hearing Voices Movement has subsequently been created to support voice hearers, regardless of whether they are considered to have a mental illness or not.


Delusions
Psychosis may involve delusional beliefs, some of which are paranoid in nature. Karl Jaspers classified psychotic delusions into primary and secondary types. Primary delusions are defined as arising out of the blue and not being comprehensible in terms of normal mental processes, whereas secondary delusions may be understood as being influenced by the person's background or current situation (e.g., ethnic or sexual discrimination, religious beliefs, superstitious belief).[77]


Thought disorder
Formal thought disorder describes an underlying disturbance to conscious thought and is classified largely by its effects on speech and writing. Affected persons may show pressure of speech (speaking incessantly and quickly), derailment or flight of ideas (switching topic mid-sentence or inappropriately), thought blocking, and rhyming or punning.


Lack of insight
One important and puzzling feature of psychosis is usually an accompanying lack of insight into the unusual, strange, or bizarre nature of the person's experience or behaviour.[78] Even in the case of an acute psychosis, people may be completely unaware that their vivid hallucinations and impossible delusions are in any way unrealistic. This is not an absolute, however; insight can vary between individuals and throughout the duration of the psychotic episode.

It was previously believed that lack of insight was related to general cognitive dysfunction[79] or to avoidant coping style.[80] Later studies have found no statistical relationship between insight and cognitive function, either in groups of people who only have schizophrenia,[81] or in groups of psychotic people from various diagnostic categories.[82]

2/4 ain't bad I guess. Amnorix is one of the most reasonable posters here, you are one of the most unreasonable. Your record speaks for itself.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:09 PM
PSYCHOSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis)
DSM-IV Criteria=Banyon the ambulance chaser.
__________________



Another classic cut and paste moron. Very good ambulance chaser.

I presume you lose quite a few cases, you're probably going broke by now.

Your classic mode of operation is to insult, call names and slander people.

Where did you get your law degree? box of Wheaties?

Donger
03-18-2008, 02:09 PM
Amnorix, and Banyon to a lesser extent, seem to be the least fringy of our leftist members.

Just my $0.02

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:13 PM
Amnorix, and Banyon to a lesser extent, seem to be the least fringy of our leftist members.

Just my $0.02

I don't believe anyone ever said they were. Their modes of operation is always to the left and attacking anyone on the right. Simple observation tells you that.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 02:20 PM
Your intent was to bash Bush and everyone that has ever read anything you post knows that. Like I said, you are very boring.


(my god, it's like arguing with a rock)

errr...while I happily bash BushCo every chance I get, this would one of the rare occassions where the initial post that you commented on wasn't actually designed as a Bushbash.


Also where in the following did you claim that Bush was not responsible for the whole debt?

:eek: :spock: :doh!:

Stunning. Absolutely stunning.

As stated, your basic mode of operation is to blame Bush for everything you see as wrong. It's not the case and we all know that but you continue to bash the President. Quite white of you.

"quite white" of me? No clue WTF that means.

banyon
03-18-2008, 02:21 PM
Another classic cut and paste moron. Very good ambulance chaser.

I presume you lose quite a few cases, you're probably going broke by now.

Your classic mode of operation is to insult, call names and slander people.

Where did you get your law degree? box of Wheaties?

No, I haven't lost a court case, despite your moronic rantings. I'm sure I will someday.

Most of even the more transient meth-addict hobos I see in court, however, would do a better job of acquitting themselves than you do here.

What don't you get about the irony of "your classic mode of operation is to insult, call names, and slander people". That's all you do. It's the only thing you do here, other than offer an occasional cheerleading comment for something you agree with.

Donger
03-18-2008, 02:23 PM
I don't believe anyone ever said they were. Their modes of operation is always to the left and attacking anyone on the right. Simple observation tells you that.

Not true. I've seen Amnorix support President Bush's actions when they agree with his politics/views.

banyon
03-18-2008, 02:23 PM
"quite white" of me? No clue WTF that means.

Well, I think the "implication", er inference to draw from that is that something that was "quite black of you" wouldn't be decent at all.

Probably something he heard on his ham radio one time and doesn't realize that it's closeted racist terminology.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 02:24 PM
Amnorix, and Banyon to a lesser extent, seem to be the least fringy of our leftist members.

Just my $0.02

An intelligent member of the right! PLEASE STAY!!!!!


:D

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:28 PM
What don't you get about the irony of "your classic mode of operation is to insult, call names, and slander people". That's all you do. It's the only thing you do here, other than offer an occasional cheerleading comment for something you agree with.


I'm just following your lead ambulance chaser.

How many times did it take you to pass the bar? Not Anthony's Bar and Grill on Main Street, or is it that you have yet to pass the bar?

I've slandered nobody and the name calling always starts on from the LWNJ's that you associate with. Return fire is allowed.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:28 PM
An intelligent member of the right! PLEASE STAY!!!!!


:D

We are all intelligent, it's just beyond your comprehension.

Cave Johnson
03-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Props to Banyon for the DSM-IV smack. But where's the R?