Originally Posted by Justin '77

Destruction?? So you assert that, outside the hands of that particular group of stockholders, the factories and tools break, the mechanics go braindead, and the inventories disintegrate?

Kind of a weird take on the whole 'corporate personhood' myth. But whatever floats your boat...

H-m-m-m. I see even the allegories don't make it into your lexicon.

Oh well ...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With the prospect of anthropogenic global warming they could conceivably share the same infernal climate. Just think of Seville, Palermo, Athens, and Tel Aviv having the climate of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (headquarters of Aramco).

Tel Aviv and Gaza won't exist if AGW goes full bore -- they will be swallowed by the Mediterranean. We'll be doing Ahmadinijad's work. Well done.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Totally. And everyone knows that only those specific organizations are capable of manufacturing automobiles, employing people to do so, or indeed even making use of ready-to-go tools and installations. What apocalypse would have resulted from allowing the GM, Chrysler, and Ford wealth to be transferred from proven-incompetent hands to demonstrably-more-competent ones... One shudders to think. American cars might even be made by people who don't give money to those particular shareholders at all! The horrors! The portfolios! The carnage!

Good thing the the government was there to take money from the public at large so it could give money (naturally, not the exact same money, but the workings of the taxation-spending connection are something even MMT doesn't deny, no matter how hard it tries to mask them) to save the riches of that particular small group of people. Some of them might have ended up not quite as rich, otherwise.

The voice from magic pony land – sorry, wrong again, at least in the real world.

There were a million jobs at stake. I realize in magic pony land one just sprinkles magic pixie dust and all those people instantaneously re-organize into your garage entrepreneurs stamping out really cool cars off their 3D printers. I mean that is really cool, but ahem, in the real world, sorry, those people are going to be in long waits at the unemployment line hoping to get enough money to put food on the table in the evening and praying little Stevie or baby Sue doesn't get sick because they have no health insurance. Your fundamental lack of understanding this makes you a creep even in magic pony land - no pooped out golden nuggets for you mister!

And again, what's with the govt spending costing taxpayers anything??? You keep saying my explaining federal spending is not dependent on revenue is old hat, but then you keep spouting off this nonsense. What's up with that? You're not on Lithium are you?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The mental gymnastics that leftists like odin and rightists like JDFP and JPT go though in order to deny the existense of the Russian and iranian threat is mind-boggling. The main problem with bush's foreign policy was that it was not strong enough. This is the main reason why obama has largely thrown the anti-war left under the bus. The main trouble spot is the economy but that is because the republicans are deliberately worsening the crisis in order to force obama out of office. A president who follows obama's economic policy with a free hand to do simultanously with a bush-style foreign policy would be ideal; in fact the bush-style foreign policy if anything should be on steroids. What the voting base these days has been unable to understand was that bush's failure was due to faulty application of the foreign policies, not the policies themselves. Same with obama, the economic prescription was brilliant, that is prescisely why the GOP is doing everything to prevent its application, they stand to lose too much if any success is permitted.

You're beyond chickenhawk status, you've achieved chickenshit status. What people like you need is to get in an actual fight. I have no doubt what the outcome would be, but I think once you mend, it would do you a world of good and it would be one less chickenshit in the world.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

from newsmax.

Mourdock: Pregnancy From Rape ‘Intended’ by God

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancy caused by rape is something “God intended” and not a situation that justifies an abortion, roiling a tight race less than two weeks before the election.

Mourdock’s comment came in response to a voter-submitted question toward the end of a debate last night with his opponents, Democratic U.S. Representative Joe Donnelly and Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning.

yea, with Mittens we not only get the return of the NeoCons to have our way with the brown skin people of the world, but we also get our women here at home back into baby makers for, well, any guy that just might have a hankerin -



Can a majority of Americans be that stupid to put these guys in charge? I guess we'll find out on Nov 6.

Romney has been caught lying under oath, according to Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...nder-s-divorce

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Romney has been caught lying under oath, according to Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...nder-s-divorce

Hey, he lied to save his buddy from having to pay off the wife in a nasty divorce. She's just a baby maker who probable was past her prime, why would Romney voters care??? They're family value voters, afterall!

Why is Playwrite even allowed to post anymore? He is single-handedly destroying this forum with these inane rants. Maybe that's the point.

Originally Posted by playwrite

yea, with Mittens we not only get the return of the NeoCons to have our way with the brown skin people of the world...

Oh my yes. Because the Nobel peace Prize winner has been so hands-off with the fuzzy-wuzzies.

Do you actually believe the shit you spew?

(follow-up question: In god's name, how?!?)

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Why is Playwrite even allowed to post anymore? He is single-handedly destroying this forum with these inane rants. Maybe that's the point.

i was getting the impression that this forum is unmoderated. so maybe everything goes here.

Gallup has Romney +3 today, down by 2 points. Rasmussen still has Romney up +4. The RCP average now is Romney +0.7, and Huffington Romney +0.3. 10:46 AM pacific time.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...omney-vs-obama

Update, 11:53 AM PST: IBD keeps Obama up +3, so RCP average is down to 0.6% Romney. Every little bit of decline for the lying douchbag is good news for we the people!

Oooh. I don't see many polls from Time Magazine, but they have Obama up 5 points in Ohio today!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You appear to have an agenda. I can't have a discussion with you if that is the case.

Prince

Gee Prince, Playwrite is SO unique in that respect!

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Why is Playwrite even allowed to post anymore? He is single-handedly destroying this forum with these inane rants. Maybe that's the point.

You're just mad because I point out the sheer lunacy of comparing Obama and the Dems to what passes as the GOP today.

Get a clue before you get some more tire tracks across your back.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh my yes. Because the Nobel peace Prize winner has been so hands-off with the fuzzy-wuzzies.

Do you actually believe the shit you spew?

(follow-up question: In god's name, how?!?)

I have the ability to discern, and applaud, our efforts to get the remnants of Al Qaeda from the endorsing a nuclear exchange from Israel on Iran.

You’re a permanent surly adolescent that hates your country that coddles you so you can't make that or any other such discernment – it just wouldn’t be Xer cool to do otherwise.

I bet even in magic pony land, they see you as a one-trick pony.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

He's definitely not unique in that regard. I believe we're all aware of your Anti-Reagan, Anti-GOP, Anti-Trickle....Zzzz
Whoops! I almost put myself to sleep that time!

You see Eric, you're being upfront about you having an agenda, IMO. I'm cool with that, but I'm just choosing to not talk politics with you personally because I want to maintain some sort of internet-friendship.
IOW, talking with you is more important to me than debating politics.

Prince

Yeah, but are you upfront about YOUR agenda? I don't see you changing your positions much in response to the facts or the truth when it is presented to you. You just go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I don't see myself changing much either. Or anyone else on this forum. So why single out playwrite just because he writes in a salty way? He's no different than any of us, not just me.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Are you being difficult on purpose? I fully realize the MMT-perspective wouldn't be concerned about future taxpayers(until it's deemed appropriate). It was a joke that I believed would let you know that I understood that it wouldn't be a concern. Apparently I was wrong in that belief. Like I said before, I think you just don't get my sense of humor.

Re: Your level of respect for the Price Mechanism: Later in your post you do say this:



!



Re: The bolded part: Did I say that and somehow forgot? I don't believe I even implied any increase in future demand. What the hell? Where did that even come from?

Maybe this is why there's an apparent disconnect between us: I'm not talking about what I believe should be done, you are. In fact, I don't believe I've really made many(if any) statements about what should be done. I'm not predicting anything, only commenting to see what your opinions are(and to see if it's worth even having any discussions, quite frankly).

I'm going to stop here before I say something I'm sure I will regret later. I'm not angy, but I am frustrated with the inefficiency of this discussion.

Sincerely,

Prince

PS: If you just want to discuss Macro-Economics and believe you already have all the answers, there's plenty of people on this MB with which to do that. I find those discussions to end up becoming circular, based mainly on opinions(especially when the other person is convinced of their correct position).

You keep saying we're having a difficult time communicating and suggest it might be a result of my misunderstanding your humor.

Well, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has been suggested as one definition of insanity.

If you want to have a possible informative exchange on these matters maybe cut out the supposed humor and just state what it is your looking for and/or what you actually believe or think.

You may have forgotten but this started with you inquiring about my opinion on what I believe our macro economic issues. Now you say I have an agenda and want to talk about macro-economics.

This is another reason you should get out and interact with people. The cats will be fine for just a couple of hours, Prince. Now that is humor.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, but are you upfront about YOUR agenda? I don't see you changing your positions much in response to the facts or the truth when it is presented to you. You just go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I don't see myself changing much either. Or anyone else on this forum. So why single out playwrite just because he writes in a salty way? He's no different than any of us, not just me.

SALTY??!!! I'll show you salty, you landlubber!

[Note to Prince - that's humor, again.]

What to watch for on election night. If Romney wins New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, he will win the election. Otherwise, Obama has a chance to win. He can lose all but one of those and still win, if he carries Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

No Eric. I do the "sleepy-thing" not because of your political statements, but because that's ALL you ever talk about. I mean, we'll be discussing The Who and you'll throw-in some Anti-Reagan-thingy.

Here's an example:

Me: Hey Eric, don't you just love "We won't get fooled again"? I think it rocks!
You: Yeah, Townshend is awesome, but that's all changed because a bunch of idiots got
fooled into putting Reagan into office and his trickle-down policies that ruined.....Etc. Etc. Etc.
Me: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

See?

Yeah I guess I'm a johnny one-note! Trickle-down this, trickle-down that. I should write and record a song about it. Oh wait, someone did. It's called "Won't Get Fooled Again," my favorite song.........

I seriously don't have an agenda, per se. I'm not attempting to change anyone's Mind, nor do I want to. I certainly do have a desire i/r/t this Election outcome that I've stated out-right. You may feel I'm being one-sided, but I don't feel that way about myself. There's plenty to criticize the GOP about. Plenty! "Meet the new boss; Same as the old boss"!

I am concerned with actual Policy, but even more concerned with the way Policy is operationalized. IOW, you tell me what you want and I'll give you opinions on how that might best be achieved while minimizing the damaging effects of bad Policy in an operational sense.

Also, you and I see "facts" and "the truth" differently. I believe a lot of those are merely just opinions.
I can't do anything about that.

I was interested in seriously discussing something about the GM-Bankrupcy with Mr. Playwrite.
He responded with a bunch of political crap. Circular opinion-based arguments end-up being a
very inefficient use of time especially when one person doesn't have an open mind on the topic.

"And that's all I have to say about that".-Gump


Prince

PS: If you seriously believe I'm attempting to change anyone's Mind, just think of how many people are on
this MB, and how much effect that would have on the election....

Hey, people like me feel we must do anything we can! Romney would be such a disaster at this point. Just more trickle-down................

The issue here is not if you are trying to change someone's mind, nor do I think there's anything wrong with that. If we know the truth, as best we know it, why not share it? The issue is, are you willing to change YOUR mind as a result of others' posts here? Not many posters here, if anyone, can truthfully say that. Including yourself. Anyone putting down any other poster for "having an agenda" or "being stubborn," is being a bit hypocritical, I would say.

If you want to learn about something from another poster, I suggest wading through the parts you disagree with, and not trying to change his/her opinion, and you might learn something amid the disagreement. If you want to explore the disagreements between you, then don't give up and say "zzzzzzzz" until you have explored them for a while. Don't hope for anything else; most people are stubborn and won't change their minds because of what you say. As you might say, "just a suggestion."

- with functional brainstems.

Good post from Jon Perr

The Economist pounds Romney on the economy



In the next several days, The Economist newsmagazine will make its 2012 presidential endorsement. Despite its mantra on free trade and free markets, in the past that icon of international business and politics has endorsed both Democrats (Bill Clinton in 1992, John Kerry in 2004) and Republicans (Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000). But while there is no guarantee the publication will repeat its 2008 support of Barack Obama, an endorsement of Mitt Romney would come as a something as a surprise. After all, from taxes and the auto bailout to the U.S. economic recovery and so much else, The Economist has been pulverizing Romney's policies and talking points for months.

Two weeks ago, The Economist surveyed several hundred academic and business economists as to which White House hopeful would be a better steward of the economy. The results were clear, especially among the professional economists of the National Bureau of Economic Research:

Our main finding should hearten Mr Obama. By a large margin they rate his overall economic plan more highly than Mr Romney's, credit him with a better grasp of economics, and think him more likely to appoint a good economic team.

That outcome shouldn't have as a surprise to the editors. Like the Republican leaders who called President Obama's rescue of the U.S. auto industry "the road to socialism" and "the leading edge of the Obama administration's war on capitalism," The Economist opposed the bailout that ultimately saved over a million American jobs. But in April 2010, the magazine acknowledged its error, proclaiming, "An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not." And when candidate Romney earlier this year penned an op-ed echoing his jaw-dropping boast that "I'll take a lot of credit" for the salvation of Chrysler and GM, The Economist was having none of it from the author of "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt":

Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.

It's [no] wonder why by August The Economist ("So Mitt, What Do You Really Believe?") concluded:

All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it...Competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I'm interested in what you think about different dynamics from the MMT perspective; Not the whole theory and every prescription that you feel is productive. I already know that stuff. Your responses to my humor actually do
tell me a lot though, IMO.



Actually, this little "drive-by" to a reponse of yours to JPT is what started our economic discussion.
Personally, I thought it was pretty funny(and still do!)



Prince

PS: I'll tell you what, in the future, if I have a serious question concerning MMT, I'll do my best to be specific. But, I would also like to reserve the right to continue "sniping" because that's how I have fun. How's that?



Yarrrrr!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Oh, creative destruction! Of course. Why didn't I thnk of that. There is one thing, though. The cyclic rate is rising with the destruction coming much quicker and being more complete. What happens when the rate exceeds the capacity of the system to build anew? That seems to be happening now in some industries. One misstep can kill a company: look at Research In Motion as a prime example ... or Nokia, for that matter. As high as Google is today, Yahoo has been there and fallen. The question arises, is this process a net benefit?

I wonder whether the exponential growth in electronic technology and intellectual property has come to an end. What used to be magical innovation is now a mere commodity. Those of us born before 1960 can remember when in turn compact discs and home video tape were the greatest new thing. Now... try finding a store with a good selection of classical compact discs. You can find plenty of recorded VHS tapes -- at Goodwill. (I have heard that the mp3 is not an improvement over the compact disc).

It could be that the marginalization of the middle class has knocked out the market of "early adapters" -- the sorts of people who paid $2000 for a VHS player or $500 for a CD player back in the 1980s when one could buy a Chevrolet Citation (a crappy car) for $6000 MSRP. In view of the recent Lesser Depression, the free-spending habits of any but the elites are over for some time. Innovative companies need early adapters who buy into an innovative improvement before the production lines lengthen, the bugs are out, and competition emerges and profit margins are high.

For computer size there is one obvious size limitation -- the human finger has limits to agility. It will be impossible to reduce the size of the computer keyboard. Likewise the cellphone and the remote control.

The most recent research indicates that we are crossing the point where creative destruction produces too little gain during the creative periods to cover what it destroys on the backside. The creative periods are getting compressed to the point that the cost to capitalize a new product or business venture is not recovered fully before the product cycle completes or the venture fails ... and the process repeats.

This could be a consequence of the Lesser Depression. But don't forget the tech bust of 2001-2002. The tech business never really recovered before the crash of 2007-2009. Consumer spending on electronics is basically replacement now, and hard times are not the ideal times for high-cost innovations. It may be that the miniaturization and consolidation of software is the current wave... so why can't someone put the data associated with Beethoven's nine symphonies on something with the data density of a single Blu-Ray disc playable on a Blu-ray player?

(I have a DVD player old enough to not have progressive scan, and I now use it exclusively for playing music CDs).

We will probably have a new market for really advanced technologies in consumer entertainment once the next High begins. Think "television" in the late 1940s.

So yes, I prefer to keep something operating that is fully capitalized and also pays many good salaries -- if its feasible. Get rid of the management team, and perhaps the stockholders need to take big haircuts, but try to keep the enterprise ... again, if its viable. To be honest, GM needed to shrink even more than it did, and it needed to get back to being a company that making motor vehicles. Chrysler was actually a better car company, though a rotting hulk financially. Both are now profitable ... and making good cars. GM still has a way to go.

General Motors was best described a subprime lender that owned an auto manufacturer to supply something to finance. GM had to ditch divisions that effectively competed with each other; Pontiac competed with Chevrolet, Oldsmobile competed with Buick, and Saturn went from a good idea to a disaster. Nobody could ever tell me the difference between a Dodge and a Plymouth, either.

All in all, the current American paradigm of management paid well to treat subordinates badly will have to go. Such a paradigm is unlikely to achieve anything other than create a resentful proletariat that will be a fifth column in the event of political or military distress likely in a 4T.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I have the ability to discern, and applaud, our efforts to get the remnants of Al Qaeda...

Yes, we're all aware of your ability and inclination to believe lies if they come from the right mouths.

I'm sure that's as much a comfort to the various murdered (and to-be-murdered) human beings as it is to whatever vestiges may be of your own conscience.

Nevertheless, the dead are no less brown (at least what parts of their outsides remain intact, scattered among their race-nonspecific innards -- which themselves are no less red, white, grey, and pink) for being blown up by the one bastard than they were for being blown up by the previous one, or will be under the next one. And that's the part contrary to the point you seemed to be trying to make.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yes, we're all aware of your ability and inclination to believe lies if they come from the right mouths.

I'm sure that's as much a comfort to the various murdered (and to-be-murdered) human beings as it is to whatever vestiges may be of your own conscience.

Nevertheless, the dead are no less brown (at least what parts of their outsides remain intact, scattered among their race-nonspecific innards -- which themselves are no less red, white, grey, and pink) for being blown up by the one bastard than they were for being blown up by the previous one, or will be under the next one. And that's the part contrary to the point you seemed to be trying to make.

yikes. is this why you were quizzing me about "brown people" the other day?

why the weird emphasis on skin color?

creepy.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I changed my siggy because of my recognition that JB's song:"Pray" held value.
If that's not changing one's mind, I don't know what is!

OK I give you credit for saying "Pray" has value. Good. People also seem to have a great deal of trouble changing their mind about Bieber, as well as about politics. That's strange too. It just goes to show how stubborn we all are about everything!

I actually learn a decent amount about what different people feel is important. Most of the time I'm not against stuff per se; I'm just not for it(although I'm against more "bad" things than I'm for "good" things). IOW, I'm neutral. Sometimes people feel that if you're not "for" their belief, that you are "against" them. I don't think like that.

Neutral, hmmmmm. No vote for Romney then? I tell you, that % of agreement I have with him, from only 7 to 13% on all these questionnaires, gives me pause. You can't fake that, and I can't be neutral about it.

I only do the "sleepy-thing" with you, Eric. Cuz i think yur "speshul".

OK I'll take that as an honor. Although, regarding what you say about me and trickle-down/Reagan etc.; I only have to argue that point over and over, because people (such as yourself) speak the trickle-down philosophy over and over. The fact that the Republicans do that, and get away with it, is amazing to me. The more they say it, the more it has to be refuted. Or in other words, it has to be spoken against so often, because they say it so often. So my broken record, is only an echo of their broken record. There has never been a political party so stuck in one ridiculous policy, ad nauseum, in history. Do you fall asleep everytime one of those pols utters the words: "job creaters"? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz indeed!!!!

It looks like playwrite has copied you!