Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/28/13 11:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: How do you NOT know how Russia gets provoked and you're taking all these so called classes? Complete moron.

Please, enlighten me.

Other than the fact that they have publicly WARNED the US (just Google "russia warns US," you'll get USA Today, ABC, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, and more) here's the scenario, idiot:

Oh boy warnings, because you know, people have never gone against their word before.........and besides, we've done a lot worse and more provoking things during the Cold War, and that sure as hell didn't start WW3.....

Iran has a defense agreement with Syria. If Syria gets attacked, Iran has to enter according to that treaty. Russia backs Iran. China has an obvious interest in the energy coming out of the area and will not let the Anglo American structure dominate the area. Plus they will definitely back Russia because Russia + China = credible nuclear threat and both sides know that. See how this works?

If Iran was so concerned about Syria, why haven't they intervened yet against the rebels? If Iran was really concerned about the stability of Syria, wouldn't we see more signs of it during the conflict? I sure as hell haven't. Iran's too busy dealing with embargoes and their own domestic problems, not to mention they just put up a new president. And why would Russia back Iran? Just to piss us off? They've already done with with Snowden. They don't have to escalate to conflict to give us the finger. China would never go to war with us either: who do you think owns a good chunk of a debt? We go, and all that money goes with us too. And lol at nuclear threats: in this day and age, no state is going to launch a nuke, cause we'd go back a nuke them to kingdom come immediately. The Cold War may be over, the still the standard response to a nuclear launch is the MAD strategy. If someone is going to set off a nuke, it's going to be a stateless combatant, and we sure as hell are going to be tracking it as much as possible.

You should LISTEN in class. Although this is obvious as hell.

Haha no it ain't. I hate to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't follow the apocalyptic storylines that COD would like you to think. People for the most part now, try to avoid large scale conflicts because we've already seen, they don't end well! Who gets to pick up the mess afterwards? You? Me? Good luck trying to rebuild society after that.

Seriously, I know it's the summer, but it doesn't mean you can turn your brain off.

At 8/28/13 04:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: I think you should stop posting. And your life is useless. BrianEtrius, PLEASE get drafted and die.

I'll sign up for the Marines right after you. Of course, in your case, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't know which end of the gun to point at the enemy...........

I'm guessing you still haven't taken a class on modern political/economic thought, as well as a class on manners and civilized debate. See how far that'll get you in life.

You know what? Humor me.

So tell me genius, how does China and Russia get invoked? Let's hear exactly how your doomsday scenario is going to happen. Surely you must have logic and reasoning behind it with clear cut examples........

At 8/28/13 12:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Fuck off shithead. None of you got banned by that fag aviewed for giving your views, so the tyranny is all about you because you fags were calling for it.

Was that a slur you just used? A homophobic slur, none the less? Come on Poniiballs you should know better than that. What shithole did you have to climb out of to post this anyways?

And come on, there's like, two threads on Syria on the front page. How about you actually contribute to the discussion and prove your worth rather than proclaim, "Fuck off and die!", because, when it really comes down to it, I'm sure that's what the majority opinion is of you on this board.

Have you taken that Econ 102 class yet?

At 8/25/13 02:29 PM, Ceratisa wrote: The 1300+ dead compared to 300 something, ya big difference ACTUALLY.

Oh, so there's different values for unarmed civilians' lives being shot by the military?

Good to know that people's lives aren't valued the same. Glad you're not running foreign policy.

At 8/9/13 12:58 PM, darkja wrote :

ok tell me why money should be used when everybody farms and electricity gets powered by people who enjoy providing instead of just for getting by as a job?

What's money, for that matter, currency, if not just a name for a substitute good that everyone can more or less universally accept the value on?

I could use carrots as a form of currency just as much as dollars. The notion "all money is evil thus we have to get rid of it" is such a horrible fallency.

At 8/4/13 08:54 AM, Korriken wrote: Is it now? You mean the CIA doing polygraph tests on the same people over and over who happened to have been involved in the Benghazi attack to detect possible leaks to the media is... unrelated? You're seriously grasping at straws here.

Okay Korriken, what's more likely here:

A) CIA knew the attack was going to happen, let it happen, and cover it up by trying to silence over 20 operators they had on the ground, or

B) CIA had other things going on in Libya that they don't want other people (I.e.congress, the president, etc) know, like arms trafficking to countries in the mists of civil war?

There would have to be a major huge conspiracy for A to happen. B, much more likely.

have they? Has it been disproven that it was a terrorist attack? Has it been proven that there actually WAS a protest? I think not. Has it been proven that the government's assertion that there was a protest, when there was not does not constitute lying? I doubt it.

Hey, here are all those emails and reports I remember the GOP callIng for last year, didn't this shut them up then too?

Do you REALLY believe that the whole 'protest gone wrong' scenario was an honest mistake?

What is the phrase, military intelligence is a contradiction? My guess is that they couldn't get an accurate picture what was happening on the ground at the time and waited. I also remember when Susan rice went on she had the phrase, " based off our current intelligence", though correct me if I am wrong.

Also, the attack didn't even happen a full year ago so how could the arguments be a year and a half old?

Year, whatever. Point is, if you think I'm grasping on the CIA part, you're grasping to try to pin this on someone. At this time, what's the point? Rice got most of the blame already, Hilary got out for the most part scratch free so she's still game for 2016, and again, this really had nothing to do with Obama. This is witch hunt, no less, and I'm surprised that you Korriken aren't smart enough to see that. You're better than this, come on.

At 8/3/13 09:12 PM, Korriken wrote: Naturally, nothing will come of this. Even if a republican wins in 2016, he won't do anything. Neither side is going to attack the other side in such a way as to get their predecessor arrest and put away for criminal offenses because that would open the door for retaliation from their successor.

So basically:

Unrelated CIA report about Libya and Benghazi,

It's an Obama conspiracy! Let's bring up all that nasty political arguments from a year and a half ago, which, by the way, have all ready been disproven!

That's what your argument is boiling down to, which makes zero sense. Come on Korriken, you're better than this.

At 8/3/13 02:27 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Whi

Crap I hate spotty wifi.

Anyways, I think Steve has hit the nail on the head here: it's not so much the amendment itself but rather how it's been applied. What is an arm? What is a state militia? Etc. since these terms are such loosely defined it's hard to apply them evenly.

Furthermore, one has to consider how DIFFERENT the world was back then. We were still primary a farming/hunting economy, where Native American raids and animal attacks were much more prevalent. The military, while trained, could still be out-maneuvered by a couple decent crack shots. Oh yeah, you could totally survive being shot. Granted, it would hurt like hell, but you could survive.

Nowadays, we're a primarly manufacturing and investment economy. Animal attacks and raids? Those thing sounds like bad horror stories than anything else now. And just try outgunning the military today, Hahahah. Got shot? You got maybe 20 minutes to seek immediate medical help, depending on where you got shot.

The world and America has changed drastically. If the Consitution is supposed to be a living document, should pn't it too change with the time?

Whi

At 8/3/13 11:55 AM, Korriken wrote: so in essence, Obama lied, plain and simple for political reasons. THAT is the scandal. Our President lied to the American people and kept lying when people called him out on it, and only when he realized this wasn't going to go away did he finally tell the truth.

Like I said earlier: where in your conspiracy soup does this connect back to Obama? In your link there's no connection to the executive branch at all, this is a internal manner within the CIA that's seems reasonable given what the CIA does.

It's like calling "fire" when there's no smoke. There's no scandal here yet to make that claim.

Hold on a second.

All CNN has reported is that the CIA is trying to keep things hush hush with their operatives on the ground during this time period. That sounds like something the CiA would normally do, because God knows what they were during in the area, perhaps scouting or intel or something. Either way, it doesn't sound completely like a scandal......more like the CIA trying to cover it's tracks. My guess? They were using Libya as a staging area to get arms over to Syria. And why not? It's naitive to think we haven't been helping the rebels for a while.........

At 7/17/13 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Word is that production company is already well into production of "Sharkghost".

I was really hoping for "Tyrannocano" in which a volcano erupts T. Rexes.

Sharknado was.......eh. Made for a fun night laughing at the stupidy for sure, but in comparison to classics such as MegaShark Vs. Giant Octopus, Sharktopus, Pirannaconda (that one was an instant hit) Sharknado is about in the middle.

Mathematical!

At 7/17/13 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Word is that production company is already well into production of "Sharkghost".

I was really hoping for "Tyrannocano" in which a volcano erupts T. Rexes.

Sharknado was.......eh. Made for a fun night laughing at the stupidy for sure, but in comparison to classics such as MegaShark Vs. Giant Octopus, Sharktopus, Pirannaconda (that one was an instant hit) Sharknado is about in the middle.

Mathematical!

At 6/28/13 09:36 PM, Poniiboi wrote: You are the most amusing of all these people. Thank you for entertaining me every time I come to Newgrounds.
I told you what to do. Start a thread, ask a specific question, and we can have a discussion. Otherwise hush, puppy.

My god you must have a memory problem as well, as I told you to make a topic if you had to to redefine your points.

Let me ask this again: please explain this point:

At 6/25/13 10:51 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Quantitative easing will be the cause of the bubble. Low interest rates + ridiculous amounts of paper money devaluing the currency = bond bubble/housing bubble/currency bubble. Expect massive inflation soon.

Is it that hard of a request?

Again, the fact that you've dodge my question yet another time not only validates my point further, but also your complete lack of social etiquette. At this point I'd say your manners are just as bad as your grace.

At 6/28/13 04:29 PM, Poniiboi wrote: BE, you don't run anything, dude. Stop giving orders. You suck.

So you admit you are wrong then?

All I ask is a simple yes or no and an explaination. Is that too much to ask then, or, are you not civilized enough to give an answer?

If you can't even answer this you're not worth anybody's time.

At 6/28/13 03:06 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Brian, you can't goad me into a generic argument about econ in a Jones thread. Start another thread, make econ the subject, and ask a specific question instead of just trying to create a scenario where you can regurgitate your 101 class over and over again. Until then, sir

Oh, so then you can't defend that point? I guess then it is invalid if you choose not to defend your point, and for that matter, any point you now make from now will been seen as even more suspicious because we now know you may make a point and then choose not to defend it so why should we accept it as valid?

It's your point to prove, not mine. So either admit you were wrong, or stop stalling and prove your point.

At 6/28/13 12:53 PM, Poniiboi wrote: YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT.
This is a Jones thread.

Your claim, made in this thread, which I have an objection to: (it was the last page for Christ's sake)

At 6/25/13 10:51 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Quantitative easing will be the cause of the bubble. Low interest rates + ridiculous amounts of paper money devaluing the currency = bond bubble/housing bubble/currency bubble. Expect massive inflation soon.

Prove it. Show me where this happens, preferably with mathematical models so we can both clearly how and when this happens. Because I've refuted this statement using said models that are commonly known and available to anyone who wants to learn basic macroeconomics.

Since I obviously don't understand macroeconomics then by your standards, please explain how this happens, and given the complexities of economics, I suggest you start from the bottom up. This is your point to prove, not mine. I'm mearly calling you out on it.

Your lack of a proper response only further validates my argument, moreso than yours.

At 6/28/13 02:19 AM, Ceratisa wrote: He never really made it the focus he said he would.

Again, though, it wasn't really Obama's call anyways. Look how long it took him to finally come out in support of gay marriage and that was only after Biden pulled a Biden and tested the waters for Barack a week earlier. There was no way he was going to pass something on the level of DOMA- I honestly still think a lot of country is not ready for gay marriage, and for that reason even though Obama supports gay marriage he would not lead the charge. Barack's too politically start for that, and the Republcians would have for gasoline for the fire. Better to let the Supreme Court get the heat (they do anyways) and let the states decide than to try to step in and probably do more harm than help.

At 6/28/13 06:42 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Thoughts? Excuse me...coherent thoughts? LMAO

Yeah. Stop stalling and answer the damn question. Explain economics from the ground up. If you say my models are wrong present your own models and explain why they are more right than mine, and I would love to see the math behind it too. If I can do it certainly you can, right? Or, ultimately, are you saying you're too lazy to look this up? Because if you were a true advocate of independent research you'd realize the model's I've used (I've even linked more complex versions perviously too) are relatively common tools in the economist's toolbook.

TL;DR: Explain economics. Now. Otherwise your pint has as much validity as my dog's morning shit I gotta pick up daily, and let me tell you, right now, that turd is pulling ahead of you by a wide margin. Now, is this a coherent thought your tiny walnut of a brain can comprehend now?

I still expect an explanation of economics, not a "thoughtful" tactless response. Otherwise, you've proven my point that you are completely illogical and full of shit. Answer the question, and I'll respond in tow.

Honestly the Republican Party would rip itself apart further and quicker. Look at the state of the GOP now, Bohner couldn't even deliver on the votes he promised on several bills. What makes you think all of a sudden the Republicans would comes together and work harder under Mitt? If anything, there's a war between Tea Party conservatives and "RINOs".

At 6/27/13 09:50 PM, Poniiboi wrote: So you agree Caramelhuskie is an idiot? Great!

How about you stop putting words in my mouth and read what I said? Oh wait, that's right, you don't get sarcasm, another concept you seem not to be able to comprehend, among others.

Let me break it down: Cam's post history>yours. By a long shot, and by any logical and reasonable person (which, in this case, I'm excluding yourself for obvious reasons) standard's, even if Cam isn't right he sure is a hell of a lot smarter than you, which is going to make anyone more inclined to believe him than you.

Yeah, let me break down the entirety of economics into a five sentence paragraph! You moron.

You have to start somewhere. We have this whole forum for this issue. Start a new topic if you if too. Like I said, you have to start somewhere.

I'm waiting...............

At 6/27/13 05:20 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Like most other Americans, it doesn't really affect me at all. Obama didn't seem to be as involved as he suggested he would be though.

How could he? From the get-go this was a state-level issue that the federal government had little to do with(with the expection of taxes and benefits, which the federal government is responsible for, but that was solves with the court's ruling on DOMA) so unless he was going to pass a federal level law (which would have been a trick in itself with the current state of Congress) which he still probably wouldn't have, given how his views on gay marriage have "evolved".

I'm a bit worried about the Prop 8 ruling, as it sets an interesting precedent, which is what the 3 distenting judges were talking about: Prop 8 was a ballot initiative put on by the voters, not proposed by the state congress. When Prop 8 passed and was challenged in the state Supreme Court, Jerry Brown, the California state attorney general at the time, declined to defend the measure in court. As a result, the defence for the law was a separate group of non-state affliated attorneys. The argument made to the Supreme Court from the Prop 8's opponents was that these "stateless" (forgive me for the lack of a better term) lawyers had no right to an appeal once the state Supreme Court made its ruling. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of. Do you see the problem yet?

Well, with the way the ruling went, it's now legally possible for the state to put up a ballot initiative but then decide not to defend it in in the Supreme Court- but if the state's not going to defend a law that they proposed and passed, why did it put it up in the first place? Why should we let nonstate affiliated lawyers defend the constitutionally of state law before the state Supreme Court?

Again, to be clear: I'm happy about the ruling. I'm just not happy how the ruling went about.

At 6/27/13 05:25 AM, Poniiboi wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/search/topic/camarohusky

LMAO LOL XD XD XD

Wow, the first time proving your sources? My god, that must have been so hard for you. How many weeks of therapy did it take? Too bad your source is a valid as the dog poop on the bottom of my shoe. It doesn't do anything, besides making yourself look more of a dick.

By the way, I would love to hear you try to explain how economics works. Because so far, your points are holding up as good as a floppy drive.

It's a step in the right direction, for sure, but let's not get too overhyped about this, because here's what's happen so far:

Doma is unconstitutional: the federal government will observe and upheld same-sex marriages. This does not mean the government has legalized gay marriage, rather it will observe it as a legal binding structure between two adults. This leaves whether gay marriage is legal or not to states rights still.

Prop 8: it's not that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, rather, the court ruled that the plaintiff and the supporters of Prop 8 had not legal basis for their appeal process. The Supreme Court, however, did not rule whether Prop 8 was constitutional or not. That would have been a much more definitive ruling had they did.

What's interesting to me in both these cases is the make-up of the majority versus the desentting. Scalia flipped from supporting Doma to being against prop 8, while sotomyer went the opposite. Man Supreme Court justices are weird.

Still, it's a good day, but there's still a lot of work to do. Keep moving forward.

At 6/25/13 10:51 AM, Poniiboi wrote:

Incidentally I do agree that there may be another bubble coming, depending on how things play out. The top global bankers have, on the surface of it, attempted to end the recession via quantitative easing. Whether or not it works will determine if history remembers them as monsters or idiots.

There's always another bubble coming, first off. It's like asking if it's going to be sunny sometime in the next week. Uh, probably, and it probably will rain, BUT THAT'S HOW THE ECONOMY WORKS.

History will remember the Fed quite well actually, because they did everything within their power (monetary policy) to ease the recession. If anything, history will remember Congress as assholes because they couldn't get their act together to increase fiscal policy, which in times of recessions and liquidity traps (which we were very close to) fiscal policy has much more effect than monetary policy.

This is why Congress arguing over that budget bill over the past few years has fucked with our economy more during this recession. You don't want less government spending, you want more. Or, at least, a permanent tax cut (though not as effective)

Quantitative easing will be the cause of the bubble. Low interest rates + ridiculous amounts of paper money devaluing the currency = bond bubble/housing bubble/currency bubble. Expect massive inflation soon.

My god how many times do I have to explain this to you? This is basic macroeconomics! Have you studied macro? Jesus, for a guy who's all about independent research you sure don't know much about economics.

We're in a recession, right? Means people aren't buying as much, right? They're holding on to their cash, right?

Ok good. Glad we're on the same page here. Let me repeat at this time that THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. I REPEAT, THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. That's what the treasury does. Two separate organizations to prevent precisely what you've claimed: hyperinflation.

So what does the Fed do when it sees this? Well, they do two things, both trying to get the economy back to equilibrium(out of the recession): 1) they buy bonds from people, inputting raw cash into the economy for a bond. 2) they lower interest rates on the bonds they offer to sell. What does this do?

Well, first, by buying bonds the Fed is putting more cash into the system. The idea is that with a lower interest rate and more physical money people will go out and buy more than what they're previously consuming, and with that little boost maybe our economy gets out of a hole. Furthermore, with a lower interest rate, maybe investors will invest more. With that boost as well we more further away from being in a recession.

And what determines a bubble is something if I tried to explain to you you would not get, because you don't do your own research. But long story short, a bubble is caused by not inflation, but because of expectation. Now tell me, how are you going to combat human expectation? You can't. Thus, bubbles will always exist. Now, whether or not the consequences have global impacts upon the economy or not is a different question all together, but on principle bubbles have to exist.

And like I said before, your research has been conducted with half of the facts missing. Government has the ability to hide its involvement in things, so your empirical data is flawed.

So how is government hiding itself when I ask a random person on the street if they like tomatoes more than carrots? There must be some sort of mass conspiracy there then, right?

You can't come to a conclusion based on just hard, visible facts. Politics is not math. Even math is not math. If you tried to fly to the moon using Euclidean geometry, which is perfectly fine for approximating earthbound calculations, you'd be lost in space forever.

Too bad we have non-Euclidean geometry, which is still math. If you were in a room of mathematicians, physicists, hell, anyone who has studied beyond Multivariable calculus would have each individually slap you for saying such a stupid thing, and then proceed to discover something new with most likely (gasp!) government money, which we would all benefit from. So what the hell were you trying to say?

But too bad you can't see beyond your own nose.

At 6/12/13 04:44 PM, Feoric wrote: I think you mean deflation, hyperinflation under a gold standard is nearly impossible.

If you want to use "mainstream" (lol) word than yes, deflation.

In economic academia, deflation is inflation, just the other way, so it's just inflation. Kind of like there's no such thing as subtraction, just addition of negative numbers.

Oh no, there's more math.

At 6/12/13 03:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: FIAT CURRENCY!!!!!

Oh... Wait... Wrong person.

No, right person.

YAY FIAT CURRENCY IS THE BEST YAY IT GROWS WITH OUR ECONOMY SO WE EARN MORE YAY MATH

SUCK IT GOLD STANDARD FOR BEING PRONE TO HYPERINFLATION THAT COULD LEAD TO MUCH BIGGER DISASTERS (see monetary policy during the 20s and 30s, lol)

*sweet dance music*

At 6/12/13 03:04 PM, Poniiboi wrote: You just keep trying to turn around arguments and project, project, project. It's tiring and I won't engage it any more. As for your peanut gallery Etrius and Pox, they didn't say anything relevant. They must have reading comprehension problems.

Lol I have reading comprehension problems? That's like calling the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't even read a single thing anybody has posted that's against you, instead feverishly denying anything that hurts your position, even if it's clearly true.

But you don't care about that part. Obviously.

Fuck it, Imma explain my model again, and this time, please read it, because if you had the first time you would have seen that because of math we can include everything in our equations.

At 5/28/13 12:54 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Fuck it, lets do some more math about the Fed.

IS/MP curves are commonly used as models in determining monetary policy. I'm going to use the version I was taught, and while other models exist, I like the math on this one.

IS=(a-b(R-r))/(1-x) =PY

where IS is investment spending,
a is confidence of imports, exports, government, consumers and investors(!)
b is the sensitively of investment demand to real interest,
R is the real interest,
r is the rate of interest set by the Fed
(1-x) is the economic multiplier (this deals with how transactions create more transactions and so forth)
and PY is potential GDP. If PY is positive we're in a boom. If it's negative we're in a recession.

MP is monetary policy. It's the targeted interest rate by the Fed. I'm denoting it here with the Fisher equation, i=R+Pi, where i is nominal interest, R is the real rate of interest, and Pi is inflation. For all intended purposes it's gonna be constant because the fed sets this at r, denoted above. It might help to think of i as an opportunity cost of holding on to a bond versus having cash.

It might also be good to look at our money demand curve (Md) as well, which is typically written in this sort of fashion:
Md=P*L(i,Y)
where
P is the price of the bond,
L is some function of money demand that revolves on nominal interest (i) and GDP (Y)

(Btw, you can take the Md curve and stick it on a graph with money on the x axis and nominal interest on the y axis. As a result, your Md curve is more of a downward sloping line(do some algebra to get this, not too bad). Now, if we were to be on a fixed currency, say gold or silver, that line would be completely vertical on our graph. That means if for some reason Md increases (which happens all the time) the nominal(!) interest rate increases. This leads to hyperinflation quite quickly. This is another way a gold or silver standard fails as a monetary policy)

So now that we have our toys, let's play with them. IS/MP models are set up in a way such the MP line (which is horizontal and set at r) intersects a downward sloping IS line (algebra shows it's downward sloping, you can do that) when PY is zero, ideally. Also note inflation and confidence of everybody (and I mean everybody) fits in this model.

Okay. So now say investor confidence drops, because for some reason they feel like it's a bad time to invest. Why? Again, good motherfucking question. (Keynes called them "animal spirits" lol) So a in our IS curve back up there drops, which means IS decreases, which also mean PY decreases and now is negative, which means we're in a recession for the time being. If we had no central bank (such as the Fed) this is the end of the story. There's nothing we can do until investors get back on their horse and decide to start investing again. When will that happen? If you can tell me that, you're better off playing the stock market than being on this site buddy. Also, since PY is negative, Md is lower than before.

So instead of waiting, let's have our central bank lower their rate. r drops, so where the MP line now intersects our now lower IS curve is much closer to 0 on the PY side than before, which is what we're trying to aim for here: trying to get the economy back to it's potential output. But, since r is now lowered, our IS curve, because it's defined with r as a variable, goes, "Hey, there's now a lower interest rate. I think I might go buy some bonds." (r decreases, so IS increases. Look at the math) now hopefully we're back to 0 at potential GDP. As a result, Md increases.

Without the Fed none of what I said would be possible in case of a drop in investor confidence save an increase in government spending(gasp)......

Now, you may ask, where is human greed? Well, this whole branch of economics (as well as most mainstream economics today) comes from neoclassical economics,, the basis of which is this: ready?

You do things to get the most happiness (utility) from them. People, being rational, try to maximize their utility. How do you do that? Anyway you like! Morals and ethics don't exist here, it's pure internal instinct why you make the choice that you do: to get the most utility from! That's how humanistic factors are taken out of our models-we assume everybody is a greedy bastard to begin with go from there.

By the way, if you knew math, how can there be missing money in my equation? If you would have noticed, GDP includes everything. It's Gross Domestic Product for a reason: it defines everything in our economy.

Do you even have a concept of how economics works?

At 6/12/13 02:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Some men are tall and all doctors are tall. Does it follow that some men are doctors?

lol

Depends who's telling you the information. If its government than OMG IT'S A CONSPIRICY TINFOIL HAT TIMEYOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE

Lol

At this point it's like watching a train wreck into the ocean during an earthquake caused by Godzilla. You should really run in the opposite direction as fast you can and find some shelter fast, but it's so damn amusing to watch.