Originally Posted by playwrite

"lost (create money)" - no it doesn't. The lost or money is held on the FED's account; it's not in the actual economy. Whether they make or loss money doesn't matter; it goes into the "profit" the FED turns over to the Treasury and from there it goes poof into the ether from which it came. Who cares?

Its the difference between the real value of the mortgage papers vs. the perceived value that the Federal Reserve (an actor with no cost constraints) is willing to pay. That difference creates an increase in available funds, acting in effect to lower interest rates.

"false" - the paper says nothing about the transmission mechanism; it only shows a correlation. The mechanism could be all or in part a result of behavior (i.e. hysteria), but who cares commodity prices jump all over the place and, as the paper states, for many different reason. but it's influence on overall sustained generalized inflation is weak and getting weaker. Energy is the exception but its big historical moves have always been cost-push and make any demand-pull changes puny in comparison. Who cares?

It's the financial sector. Once they can convert non-liquid mortgage paper to highly liquid bank reserves, they're armed with more fresh ammo (cash) to invest. Equities? Well, P/E is already fair and anything else would be a bubble. Cash? Expectations point to devaluation. Commodities? Sure, what could possibly go wrong?! "I mean they just kinda go up and down and you can't really explain that, can you scientists!?"

Actually, we can explain the cause as well.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrankel/CP.htm

High interest rates reduce the demand for storable commodities, or increase the supply, through a variety of channels:

¤ by increasing the incentive for extraction today rather than tomorrow (think of the rates at which oil is pumped, gold mined, forests logged, or livestock herds culled)
¤ by decreasing firms' desire to carry inventories (think of oil inventories held in tanks)
¤ by encouraging speculators to shift out of spot commodity contracts, and into treasury bills

"counter-productive" - you say counter, I say non. Who cares? I'm not defending monetary policy. It's BS and that BS is counter-productive to understanding the real problem in the economy - lack of demand due to the paying down ("savings") of an unprecedented household debt overhang not seen since the late 1920s -and, we know where that went and how long it took to get that resolve - and that was when smart people like Keynes and FDR knew what to do. Today, hardly anyone does and those that do are not in power to do anything about it.

If we all have to get out and push the truck out of the mud, I want to make sure the idiot in the driver's seat isn't gassing it in reverse...

At best, there is only one reason why the FED does what it does and that is to try to keep this line going down -



- so that overhang can keep coming down in the face of insufficient demand so that the economy doesn't completely stall out. Everything else is a side show.

Uh, that just tells me that households aren't able to pay down debt. It's not like the existing debts have cleared, we've just stopped making progress against it and started heading back to the pre-crash peak.



Elections or not, the economy is in for a bumpy ride, and we're not even headed in the right direction yet.

Yesterday Playwright stated that the election might hinge on foreign policy...maybe that'll be the case. Apparently, we had a 48 hour warning to the possibility of attacks and the Obama Admin did NOTHING to prepare....zip, zilch NADA...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-8135797.html

Also no that the press got over its mega "O" thinking that Romney had such a huge gaffe they are starting to ask serious questions like "Is Egypt our ally or not" Obama fumbled that yesterday saying they were neither friend or foe...the record was cleared today when they did say that indeed, they are our ally....Obama doesn't even know that Egypt is our ally? EDIT-No alliance just a "strategic partner" in the middle east. A sitting President didn't know this? He even had to be corrected by Jimmy Carter...fitting....
http://nation.foxnews.com/jimmy-cart...corrects-obama

In addition during the attack Obama went to bed. The Admin had no idea for 8...yes 8 hours the whereabouts of the Ambassador

Its nice to see the press is actually starting do its job and ask questions about this debacle...

I saw the trailer -- and it was about as inept film making as I could imagine (not that I have seen Robot Monster or Plan 9 From Outer Space). Actors seemed painted into a 'desert' that might as well have been wall-to-wall carpet. Characters seemed out of place in view of their blue eyes. (It is possible to use simple CGI effects to get that right). The script had Mohammed caricatured as a lecherous, warmongering, churl.

It is about as objective a view of a religion as the Nazi smear Jud Suess was an accurate depiction of the Judaism of the title character. Whoever got thirty pieces of silver for this bilge might as well go back to selling used cars.

My, my... All this bluster and bile and no one seems able to recognize a little bit of asymmetrical warfare when they see it.

Fascinating. I guess they really do win sometimes.

Originally Posted by The Rani

World peace should be arriving any minute now.

The peace train is long overdue. Look out cause it's comin' right on through

Edit: so is Obama's re-election. 3 new polls +5 or more tonight.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

My, my... All this bluster and bile and no one seems able to recognize a little bit of asymmetrical warfare when they see it.

Fascinating. I guess they really do win sometimes.

As it turns out -- there was no mass protest in Benghazi. It was a terrorist attack, pure and simple -- nothing to do with a putrid flick.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

As it turns out -- there was no mass protest in Benghazi. It was a terrorist attack, pure and simple -- nothing to do with a putrid flick.

The putrid flick in question was apparently "released" in July...on youtube..probably 10 Americans probably even watched it... until now...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. PW was a Marine in his time and his son is one today. What's your story?

Well, that's what he claims to be. But, I'm not a believer because I have yet to see the signs of a Marine.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You trust your own perceptions on that score? No one of any sense would.

Yes I do. Trusting my own perceptions has worked very well for about four decades now, the times that I don't is when I get into trouble.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All Americans (or damn close to it) believe in freedom of speech. All Americans (or damned close to it) believe that some kinds of speech, although entitled to freedom, are despicable.

You are one of those who do.

Also, the fact that those two propositions (freedom of speech and the fact that some kinds of speech are despicable) are not incompatible, is NOT something that is dependent on values. It's a logically-inevitable fact that they can both be true. That either of them actually IS true is a values statement (ALBEIT ONE YOU AGREE WITH, SO QUIT THE PRETENSE, PLEASE), but that they are not in conflict is a statement of objective fact.

I don't know. I'm going to work through a bit of my role playing background. Maybe it will help see another perspective. I'm just not sure you are interested in other perspectives.

A good while back, I used to role play in a Star Trek Federation Council game. Each player ran an ambassador that got one vote in the Council. The game master, once a month roughly, would give us some grave threat facing the Federation. We'd come up with possible solutions, propose them as bills, vote to amend said bills, then vote final approval. Quite often the problems presented by the game master were not very well veiled thefts from the front pages of recent newspapers.

A large part of the game was doing it all in character. My character was Joy Mudd, an android programmed with classic science fiction principles as the Prime Directive and Laws of Robotics. At Priority One, she couldn't interfere with pre-starflight civilizations. At Priority Two, she could not kill or injure sentients, nor through inaction allow sentient to be killed or injured. At Priority Three, she had to preserve, protect and defend the Federation Constitution, which included the Guarantees, the equivalent of our Bill of Rights.

So, any time Joy was presented with a problem, she had to solve it along the lines of her programming. After coming up with a possible solution, she had to sell it. If she wanted the Vulcan vote, she's argue that her solution was profitable. If she wanted the Ferengi vote, she'd have to argue that it was profitable, or at least cost effective. If she wanted the Klingon vote, she'd have to argue it was honorable. If she wanted the Betazed vote, she'd have to argue that it would bring tranquility to the populations involved.

The various players were really into Star Trek. It wasn't just about 'winning,' about presenting the solution that was eventually voted in. It was about staying in character. It was about really knowing the culture of the fictional planet one was representing, and presenting it well. While we were generally all big fans of the planet we chose to represent, we knew the other Trek cultures as well. We could admire a player who could step into an alien world view and present it live.

After years of playing Joy... The Prime Directive. Respect the culture of each civilization. Do not attempt to change it. This is not just a moral principle, but prudence and good politics. A culture will not respond well if one tries to coerce it into changing, if one is judgmental, if one attempts to coerce it. Asimov's First Law of Robotics. Thou shalt not kill. Life is sacred. One should not use force to solve a problem until all other means have been tried. Joy was designed for play in a ship game, as a Starfleet officer. Her programming was intended for an entirely different style of game. Playing her on Council was interesting.

Anyway, if I was running a Federation Council style game today, and trying to steal an issue to debate from today's headlines, I might well use the Klingons as a proxy for the angry arabs. "You have dishonored my clan and my people. I shall have blood." A klingon player given insult and dishonor to his people could easily take this ball and run with it. Klingon culture emphasizes honor and courage. They don't do rule of law. You just don't do anything that will tick off the other clans unless one wants to deal with the resulting violence. If one hypothesizes that a Federation cleric gave dire insult, and that Klingon culture demands their honor be avenged, one could have an interesting debate. And, yes, the Guarantees are part of the Constitution, Joy would have to defend the right of free speech, but at a higher priority she'd be trying to preserve lives.

Coming here, I can just say I don't see many good role players. In the gaming communities I frequented, we could have a fine exploration of fictional cultures in character, but quite possibly switch planets, and argue the opposite sides of the issue. Here, most everyone is locked hard into a single perspective. There is no assumption that members of other cultures, or even other political parties, might be just as dedicated to other world views and values with good historical reasons.

In the right game, I could role play "You have insulted my God. Your words are fighting words. Your blood is mine." No, that's not my home world view. I'd rather play Joy.

Switching gears, my own world view is scientific first, political second and religious third. Objective facts are scientific. They are things one can measure. They can be refined into mathematical shorthands such as F=MA or E=MC². Social sciences are softer. Broad statements might be usually true, but not always true. I can say a spiral of rhetoric precedes a spiral of violence. To suggest where I'm coming from, I can point at animal behavior as well as human history. This doesn't mean there won't be exceptions. Social sciences work on probabilities and fuzzy logic. Humans are more complicated than cannon balls. Yet, the proposal that spirals of rhetoric precede spirals of violence is testable. One can look at the real world and determine if it is so.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

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.

How does one prove that the Creator endowed us with certain unalienable Rights? The above paragraph is dead center of my political world view. I don't know that any of it can be proven as objective fact by observation. I can look at various cultures, both modern and historical, and see that cultures featuring the above beliefs tend to do better than those that do not. At the same time, I can point at many governments whose primary purposes are not to secure human rights. I can point at many governments that do not derive their powers from the consent of the governed. The above reflects a world view, a set of values. It does not reflect objective fact.

As much as I embrace the above world view, I recognize that other cultures are equally bound to quite different world views. These forums reflect that even in the United States there are widely divergent world views and that those who hold these world views are not apt to change them, cannot evaluate them objectively. World views of cultures across the world are equally revered by other populations.

From the perspective of the world views of many many Americans, the film in question is both free speech and despicable. From the perspective of many in the Middle East, the film in questions is blasphemy. It demands serious protest if not a blood price. Mind you, it does not seem clear whether the blood price taken was a celebration of the anniversary of September 11th, or part of the blasphemy protest.

Now, the problem from my perspective is not to prove my values and world view superior to some other set, but to make my values and world view understandable. People who hold different world views are not stupid, they are human. A debate on what is the best world view is ultimately futile, and will remain so until people can state their world views in observable testable ways such that inductive proofs can be performed while dogma is not part of it.

And I'm kind of with Joy. One should not kill or injure sentients, nor through inaction allow sentients to be killed or injured. This is a difficult problem. Part of solving the problem is understanding the world views involved. If one is centered totally on one's own perspective, if the primary method when dealing with those with different world views is to assume they are wrong, stupid, immoral or otherwise lacking, one is not going to get anywhere in terms of actually preserving lives. The primary objective should not be to convert all and sundry to one's own world view. It isn't going to happen. Attempting to make it happen is futile.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The peace train is long overdue. Look out cause it's comin' right on through

Edit: so is Obama's re-election. 3 new polls +5 or more tonight.

The irony of this post is funny.

I'm not a pacifist, so I'm not being a hypocrite for voting for Obama.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I don't know. I'm going to work through a bit of my role playing background. Maybe it will help see another perspective. I'm just not sure you are interested in other perspectives.

In this particular context, no, because I consider them irrelevant, which means I didn't wade through your long post. Maybe someone else did and it wasn't completely wasted.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I saw the trailer -- and it was about as inept film making as I could imagine (not that I have seen Robot Monster or Plan 9 From Outer Space). Actors seemed painted into a 'desert' that might as well have been wall-to-wall carpet. Characters seemed out of place in view of their blue eyes. (It is possible to use simple CGI effects to get that right). The script had Mohammed caricatured as a lecherous, warmongering, churl.

It is about as objective a view of a religion as the Nazi smear Jud Suess was an accurate depiction of the Judaism of the title character. Whoever got thirty pieces of silver for this bilge might as well go back to selling used cars.

Romney finally gets around to it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1883523.html

Only about 3 days late.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Well, that's what he claims to be. But, I'm not a believer because I have yet to see the signs of a Marine.

... and I'm sure your own experience will allow you do that effectively.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In this particular context, no, because I consider them irrelevant, which means I didn't wade through your long post. Maybe someone else did and it wasn't completely wasted.

Well, OK, though the main point was how many people here are incapable of stretching outside of their own world views. Among role players, we learned to appreciate those who could think different, who would make the effort to get into the mind set of another culture, even if fictional.

Here it's all about having a closed mind. One's own perspective is the only correct one. One strives not to listen, and to insult anyone with a different opinion.

There's more to it than that, but not if you don't want to listen. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

It is bizarre to see what's happening to the left. They are universally blaming this video, and essentially taking a position against freedom of speech. I've seen left wingers all over the place in the last few days basically saying that free speech should be limited. Never mind that the video in question was little more than a minor propaganda tool of convenience for Al Qaeda types looking to stir up crowds on the anniversary of 9/11.

I hope they will soon start condemning Richard Dawkins, et al. Otherwise they've completely thrown out what little credibility they had left on this type of issue. The hypocrisy is so glaring that nobody can miss it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

They are universally blaming this video, and essentially taking a position against freedom of speech. I've seen left wingers all over the place in the last few days basically saying that free speech should be limited.

Really?
Maybe you shold post some links then instead of jut expecting others to take your word for it.

No one that I've read, and I'm sure that I read a lot more sites that lean left than you do, is arguing for censorship.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Really?
Maybe you shold post some links then instead of jut expecting others to take your word for it.

No one that I've read, and I'm sure that I read a lot more sites that lean left than you do, is arguing for censorship.

Here's a quick one, apologies for the conservative authorship.

Misplaced Blame for the Embassy Attacks

Over at MSNBC, a riot of consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. “Good morning,” declared Butler, “How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.”

Barnicle set his sights on Terry Jones, the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran a while back and who was allegedly involved in the video as well. “Given this supposed minister’s role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where . . . at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador, is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.

”Deutsch helpfully added: “I was thinking the same thing, yeah.”

What it shows is that the leftist brain is pathological, not rational. They celebrate attacks on Christians put out by major Hollywood studios, but they want people jailed for releasing a low budget YouTube video attacking Islam.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Its the difference between the real value of the mortgage papers vs. the perceived value that the Federal Reserve (an actor with no cost constraints) is willing to pay. That difference creates an increase in available funds, acting in effect to lower interest rates.



It's the financial sector. Once they can convert non-liquid mortgage paper to highly liquid bank reserves, they're armed with more fresh ammo (cash) to invest. Equities? Well, P/E is already fair and anything else would be a bubble. Cash? Expectations point to devaluation. Commodities? Sure, what could possibly go wrong?! "I mean they just kinda go up and down and you can't really explain that, can you scientists!?"

Actually, we can explain the cause as well.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrankel/CP.htm

High interest rates reduce the demand for storable commodities, or increase the supply, through a variety of channels:

¤ by increasing the incentive for extraction today rather than tomorrow (think of the rates at which oil is pumped, gold mined, forests logged, or livestock herds culled)
¤ by decreasing firms' desire to carry inventories (think of oil inventories held in tanks)
¤ by encouraging speculators to shift out of spot commodity contracts, and into treasury bills



If we all have to get out and push the truck out of the mud, I want to make sure the idiot in the driver's seat isn't gassing it in reverse...



Uh, that just tells me that households aren't able to pay down debt. It's not like the existing debts have cleared, we've just stopped making progress against it and started heading back to the pre-crash peak.



Elections or not, the economy is in for a bumpy ride, and we're not even headed in the right direction yet.

A lot here to agree with -

The macro says the feds could be deficit spending a whole hell of a lot more without any concern for inflation and pull us out of the morass, pay down the household debt overhang and then get the hell out of the way. But honestly where the money goes does trouble me greatly. I'd rather have Obama driving the car than Romney obviously, but certainly not confident that would mean no hanky panky.

Yep, consumer credit is a concern. There can be some of this; it's normal. But it certainly could F us over again if people are that stupid or desperate (i.e. lack of wage growth). Get that federal deficit spending up and that would get wages up to maybe prevent the desperate credit growth, but honestly, I'm not confident at all about the stupids or the vultures. Minsky rules.

But what the hell, markets are up!

Originally Posted by Copperfield

My, my... All this bluster and bile and no one seems able to recognize a little bit of asymmetrical warfare when they see it.

Fascinating. I guess they really do win sometimes.

...Bingo.....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... and I'm sure your own experience will allow you do that effectively.

Pretty funny.

This morning’s new NYT/CBS poll has Obama up by 3 points. But note that this is the first of their polls with a likely voter screen. If you look at registered voters — so an apples to apples comparison with their last poll, which was taken in July — it’s an 8 point move for Obama.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...e-over-romney/

Poll: Obama Holds Narrow Edge Over Romney

President Obama holds a narrow three-point advantage over Mitt Romney among Americans most likely to vote in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, OK, though the main point was how many people here are incapable of stretching outside of their own world views.

Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with what most of us were discussing, which is why I didn't feel like going there. It's become almost a nervous tic with you. No matter what we're talking about, for you it moves by inexorable gravitational tide to the subject of values lock.

Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

You will or you won't, and either way I don't give a damn.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Here's a quick one, apologies for the conservative authorship.

Misplaced Blame for the Embassy Attacks




What it shows is that the leftist brain is pathological, not rational.

Ecological fallacy.
You're assuming that the opinions of a few talking heads represents millions of others who you don't personally know.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Here's a quick one, apologies for the conservative authorship.

Misplaced Blame for the Embassy Attacks




What it shows is that the leftist brain is pathological, not rational. They celebrate attacks on Christians put out by major Hollywood studios, but they want people jailed for releasing a low budget YouTube video attacking Islam.

Let me get this straight: You're using the example of a single program to reaffirm your opinion and apply it to an entire group of people. Have you ever considered moving to Cairo?