Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/23/10 11:55 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: I have peanut butter klondike bars.

Can I win yet?

No. You need 1100 of them and eat them in parallel.

At 2/24/10 06:54 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/23/10 10:35 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Yes, and given the list I got, I confirmed the assumption that it was best never to make you angry in any way.

I'm not independently wealthy, so it's not like I'm going to go jay and silent bob strike back on somebody who pissed me off online, dude.

WIN.

Besides, I'm not the kind of guy to just snap and kill people, despite what everyone might think.

I'm joking, dude. You are actually quite cuddly :3

At 2/24/10 01:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: On the subject of locking, I have to say that I think Mal wins the awesome award for his lock of the Africa topic.

hahahaha, that's awesome.

At 2/23/10 09:41 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/23/10 09:33 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: O_O
I'm not getting anywhere near your lawn ever.

Weren't you the one who asked me for a list of what weapons I had a while back?

Yes, and given the list I got, I confirmed the assumption that it was best never to make you angry in any way.

At 2/23/10 10:29 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: I definitely need to tweak my commute

:\
How far is your job from home?
Tops here is going to Buenos Aires, ie 60km of highways.

At 2/23/10 09:12 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/23/10 08:43 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

The crisis had a bigger impact than expected, unemployment and GDP forecasts were overestimated in the US and in the rest of the world.

That excuse is just as lame as calling something a "jobless recovery" when there's no such thing.

Depends on what you call recovery, if you measure it in an unemployment basis, then obviously not because you got p^¬p. However, if you define recovery as a recovery of GDP, then that can easily happen.

When spending doesn't work, it's the same excuse: "We didn't spend enough/It would've been worse if..."

Basic reasoning tells you that it would have been worse; if the State hadn't spent that money, then nobody would have, and those businesses and consumers that were able to get hold (directly or indirectly) of the stimulus money benefited.

The only way to keep this illusionary GDP growing, is if we continuously spend money.

But the drawback to that is that our Government has no money, so it borrows it which puts us in more debt, and prints it which devalues our currency.

Stimulus trends:

Short term: Less Pain

So you accept its short run effects? You just said it didn't work.

Long term: More Pain.

You know those Rich-Quick schemes that always fail? That's the stimulus.

I like the masturbation analogy better.

Whatever makes you think that the Government can avoid market forces which everyone else is subject to, is just mind blowing.

Well, let's say that not every person can print as much money as it wants, and no other person is as risk-free as the State.

At 2/22/10 08:25 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 2/22/10 07:56 PM, Proteas wrote: Which just goes to show, you can't really polish a turd... or can you?

I love that episode.

Dorodango is just awesome on its own. I really want to make a couple of them myself (out of dirt, not poo).

On a less disturbing note: win

At 2/23/10 08:00 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/23/10 06:57 PM, stafffighter wrote: You want to spend several hours drying, shaping and polishing dog crap? I say go for it.

You're right, that does sound kind of dumb...

Besides, I finally managed to get my hands on .50 lead balls for use against neighborhood dogs anyway.

O_O
I'm not getting anywhere near your lawn ever.

At 2/23/10 08:53 PM, SevenSeize wrote: It's supposed to snow again tonight!

11ºC IS NOT SUMMERRRRR
>=(
also, massive amounts of rain.
Kewl and short video about it.

YES TRAINS.

Re reading the article I forgot to highlight this ridiculous part:

In fact, there were multiple forces hitting concurrently in late 2008 and into 2009. Oil prices dropped dramatically. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, the price per barrel went from $145 in July 2008 to below $37 in mid-January 2009.

Hey journalist, if demand decreases (wild thinking: maybe because of sort of MAJOR RECESSION GOING ON) prices fall.
ECON101 PEOPLE

At 2/23/10 08:58 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Anyway, I was curious myself how everyone was feeling a year later.

You only commented here because you think that posting in my threads will lead to me being attracted to you in the most depraved sexual way.
And you're right.
:3

At 2/20/10 03:18 PM, Memorize wrote: "Unemployment won't go oer 8%!"

"It would've been worse had we not passed it!"

The crisis had a bigger impact than expected, unemployment and GDP forecasts were overestimated in the US and in the rest of the world.
We went from 6% growth to 4, to -2 and ended up in 0.4. And apparently the growth machine is on again and so is the inflation one too, unfortunately. But nevermind us.

At 2/20/10 04:21 PM, adrshepard wrote: The second guy's article is more convincing since he stipulates the point of the NYT author right away, then explains why it's irrelevant.

Yeah, the second article is a response to the first one, so it has a chronological advantage. I believe that is bias coming from Mankiw, but well.
However, the second article's view on economics is retarded. I don't want to go technical, but stagflation did not come to destroy the Keynesian stance, but to limit the applicability its most extreme conclusions to a single case scenario (ie, the Great Depression), and make a healthy mix with its predecessor theories. Moreover, since their conditions are valid today, keynesian macro models are as valid as they were in the 30s.

Unfortunately, he spends too much time talking about uncertainty in economic models and hardly anything about the long-term costs. There shouldn't have been any relief element in the stimulus aside from tax cuts. Providing unemployment and health insurance benefits barely does anything for the economy. It doesn't increase consumer demand or stabilize the labor supply, since welfare and medicaid do that already at the least possible cost. Though the "less fortunate" would be more vulnerable, they also happen to be the most replaceable labor force in the country.

As if tax cuts were the solution; most of that income gets saved and does not enter the economic flow.

There should have been less emphasis on public projects, too. State leaders probably didn't only include "shovel-ready" projects that were certain to bear a positive investment return; creating jobs quickly was the priority. For every make-work "improvement," the economic effect would be greater if it were entirely simulated: all the employees and firms involved would make money, yet there wouldn't be any reduction in inventory because nothing was actually built.

At 2/20/10 10:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The problem is any of the jobs the government creates with stimulus can't actually be used to REPAY foreigners in any meaningful sense.

How much of the stimulus bill do you think went to imports? Because using rough numbers, the imports/GDP ratio in the US is 10%, making the effect completely negligible.

At 2/20/10 11:15 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The stimulus will be lauded and praised next year. believe me. The job creation is beginning now and will continue to grow through election season and unemployment numbers will drop into 2011.

I doubt it; I believe the stimulus effect has passed, and it consisted in cushioning the impact of the financial freezing on GDP. As always, the last man standing backing everyone up is the State. 2011 growth will be caused by regained confidence by the private sector, but the future does not look to bright. Europe has some bombs to defuse before the world can party.

But how can a one time influx of cash into the labor pool actually create sustainable jobs?

It can't.

The recessionary cycle is every 7 years, peaking at the third or fourth year

The economic cycle is nowhere that linear. However, I agree on the possibility of a W recession (ie,"Oh yay the recession is over,oops it is not"), Benanke and Obama being to blame, because of interest rate raising and fiscal freeze.

At 2/21/10 04:21 AM, Korriken wrote: the only problem with government spending to create jobs is... well... the government has no wealth of its own. so in order to spend money to stimulate the economy, it has to take money out of the economy first. take sand from the left side of the bucket and place it in the right side of the bucket.

19th century economics is BACK!

*ahem^
I read my Marshall completely through
From beginning to end and backward too
I read my Marshall so carefully
That I'm now Professor of the U of C

And cannot explain the current crisis because my models do not accept unemployment as a possibility.... or so the rhyme went.

Enough poetry.

1) The State, despite having an important re distributional role, it does create wealth, since it produces goods and services like the private sector.
2) Taking from one place and putting in another one does not need to be (and rarely is) a neutral operation. Basic example, if I take income from Paul, who lieks muffins, and give it to John, who lieks caik, then production will shift from muffins to caiks (hmmmmm). More interestingly, if I take income from Paul through debt, who has a lot of money and can't find a safe place to put it and give it to John who is in dire need of money to finance his new business, then everyone wins.

all it does it shift the weight around a little. you still have the same amount of sand in the bucket. not to mention borrowing and printing money causes inflation, which is a shadow tax that causes prices for everything to rise.few years back a 20 oz soda was 1.09. now its 1.39. in 5 years it will probably be $2.

Individually, prices vary, but inflation has been (abnormally?) low for the last two decades in the US.

stimulus bills are in the same boat as masturbation. it makes you feel good, but in the end you're just fucking yourself.

hahhaha, win.

I need stress management, I can't sleep well at night pre midterm/final/signing up for classes.

The controversial stimulus bill of the Obama administration is now one year old. Greg mankiw has provided links on his blog, that I'd like to share with you. One of them believes that the bill was positive, the other one criticizes it.

What say you? =o

Good job about keeping in the middle: rant about healthcare, immigrants are to blame about everything, and btw, abortion sucks.

At 2/10/10 09:51 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 2/10/10 09:34 PM, Proteas wrote: I meant that in a kind of "rushed out and bought it in fear of a blizzard" kind of sense, but all right, fair enough. ;-D

Summer... here... is.... DEATH

Well, to me anyway. >30*c = death
And bugs :(
Mosquitos are all over me.

Anyway, today I bought 2 (TWO) Computers. One lame PC and one lame Notebook, for a total of $5400 (divide that by 3.87 to transform to US dollars) The lame notebook ish mine :3

At 2/4/10 12:33 AM, Saxturbation wrote: Do special interest groups realize that there is only a certain amount of money in circulation

What's with saying money all the time? Say goods.
Nevermind, picky economist.

It just seems a little ridiculous that they can't realize this and they still lobby. Here is a game that they discusses where you must balance the budget of Maryland. Try it, it's very hard.

I WON

Maaan, I should work for the government.

Also, nice finding.

At 2/4/10 11:03 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 2/4/10 10:46 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you want to contend that people are irrational

I never did, did I? I quoted material from some people who disagreed. My claim is that it is not a logical assumption that all people are rational opportunists motivated solely by self gain, and that this assumption by you and others is a logical fallacy to base your argument on.

I would claim, however, that rational thoughts of humans are not universally accepted and do not lead to universal behaviors. And as such, it would be difficult to have one theory which accounts for everything, especially when it makes such narrow assumptions

As a brilliant theorist once said " theories should be judged not by their psychological realism but by their ability to predict behavior". No economist seriously believes that people are only guided by self interest and go around with a utility function and derive it and eqaulize it to zero. Homo economicus is just a theoretical tool - and quite a useful one, I might add. It is true that if we take it too far it starts giving silly results, as the Sen example there. The key lies in how far we let the model go.

At 2/6/10 11:02 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: "Action, exhibited by all humans, is "purposeful behavior" (Human Action, p. 11).

I know who wrote that
:)

At 2/7/10 12:27 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 2/7/10 12:21 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: Still have 'em
Gyarados Charizard Dragonite Villeplume Jolteon Dugtrio

Screw that lineup

Blastoise Flareon Victoribell Riachu Pigeoit Snorlax

All level 100. Because I used the cheat code for Blue.

FLAREON?
FLAREON?
HAHAHAHA

Also, Jolteon>raichu
The rest is debatable.

Who didn't like pokemon back in 1999?

The Japanese, because they already had Gold and Silver :p

That means they like it MORE
>=(
I had Gold, but a flood ruined my cartridge :(
That's why I live in an apartment now! :D
That and because my parents got divorced.
Again.

At 2/7/10 12:53 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I liked Pokemon up until Gold and Silver came out, but once all the new undiscovered species of Pokemon started appearing, I developed ADD.

There's s new version coming soon! Heart Gold Soul Silver.
But for the DS :(

I wonder if I'll even see the Super Bowl tomorrow. I may be writing a paper with my group. Fuck.

Unrelated, I went to see Invictus and it was kewl.

At 2/7/10 12:10 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 2/7/10 12:03 AM, Imperator wrote: Gold and Silver are 10 years old already? What's that make Red and Blue......cause those are the only two I remember playing.

Red and Blue are like 16, 17 years old.

Still have 'em
Gyarados Charizard Dragonite Villeplume Jolteon Dugtrio

Hard to imagine it was that long ago when people could say the name Ash without other people snickering.

READY TO BATTLE ASS

IT'S ASH, DAMMIT, ASH

Never heard that joke :\
Who didn't like pokemon back in 1999?

At 2/6/10 11:52 PM, Imperator wrote: Ok, I completely forgot the Superbowl was tomorrow......

The only thing I know about the superbowl is that it is like the world cup final for Americans. But I am completely ignorant of its structure and nature.

At 2/6/10 10:35 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: The fact that Pokemon Gold and Silver came out over 10 years ago all of a sudden makes me feel old.

Not . I was in the UK and I couldn't get it =(
Whoa, ten years since the London trip?
I feel old. *drinks*

I can't even drink yet.

Weird age limits you have.
</Yoda>

Sigh

yeah

At 2/6/10 11:08 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I had my old moments in Spanish class this week. We had to practice preterites, so one of the things we had to answer was "What did you wear when you were 10 years old?" I told the truth: I wore pantalones de Hammer.

I have no idea what that is.

The undergrads were confused. I'm also apparently the only person in the class who read American Girl books.

see above

Actually, I still have my Molly doll.

see above

Been talking with my boyfriend and one of my friends from Pittsburgh. They got walloped.

Here it has been raining hard. The thunder sounded like gun fire =(
No more giant cockroaches, though.

At 2/6/10 11:13 PM, SevenSeize wrote: This is what I found at Hastings today and thought of you all. <3

Your nails never cease to amaze me.

At 2/6/10 09:49 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 2/6/10 05:50 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: CEO payment is determined by the size of the company he directs. Even if he is a mediocre CEO, and can only increase revenue by 1%, but the company has a total revue of 10B, he's worth 100 million a year.

There's a difference between how much an individual makes for a company and how much they earn.

Obviously, otherwise, there would be no profit. The equalization comes from the marginal product of labor, and not the average product. Erh, nevermind.

My billing rate is 8 times my pay rate (hourly), for instance. Even if this was a min wage job that'd be a huge difference. But the point is that the CEO doesn't increase revenue by 1%. They manage people who increase revenue.

Semantics. If I tell you (and you of course, believe me) that I can increase your revenue by 1% and that revenue is 10B, and I demand a yearly salary of 50 million you'd be willing to pay me that salary, you wouldn't care if I did so by working 24/7 directly or managing people or simply being lucky at the lottery. And that's why CEOs earn so much. Ex ante, 10Billion, expost 1% more (or X%).

THat's why CEOs make so much money. Capping theirsalaries would create an incentive for them to take other jobs, that are less profitable to society.

What other jobs?

Any other qualified job.

The guy in your article is speculating that they'd be lawyers or hedge fund managers, but that's not necessarily true.

Precisely, he was giving examples.

The article itself admits CEOs in other countries make a fifth of what our CEOs make and still do an excellent job.

Precisely because the economic theory behind their pay is correct; if the company's revenue were 1 Billion instead of 10, then their salary would be 1/10th of what they are. This is the case in other countries, because other countries have smaller companies, which in turn have less revenue.

Besides, do you want a guy working only because he's making a shit ton of money or because he wants the job and wants the company to do well?

Why are there more lawyers than sociologist? Because the market indicates its needs through the price mechanism (wages). What would happen if sociologists start making more than lawyers? There would be more sociologist? What would happen if CEOs make less than hedge fund managers?

Probably the most important lesson one can learn about Microeconomics, is that incentives matter. And those incentives are revealed through the price mechanism.

That's why Friedman called his Microeconomics book "Price theory", but nevermind.

There are hundreds of arguments for pay caps.

And yet the only one you have stated is that you find it morally incorrect. But that argument crashes against practical issues, as it is common with moral arguments.

And again, I'm not swayed by your article. I've read just as many in the times and in Time magazine that laugh at that particular article you're quoting.

Well, link to it and we shall see.

And seriously, 70% of revenue in executive bonuses? That doesn't make you wince?

You have not linked to the case you are discussing, therefore it is my obligation as a critical thinker to suspend my judgement on the issue.

At 2/6/10 09:03 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Even if you argue that a CEOs skills are more valuable, they aren't 10xs more valuable than any other worker. They on average make 360,000 a year (but again only some of them really make the big bucks. There's lots that make less and drag that number down.).

CEO payment is determined by the size of the company he directs. Even if he is a mediocre CEO, and can only increase revenue by 1%, but the company has a total revue of 10B, he's worth 100 million a year. THat's why CEOs make so much money. Capping theirsalaries would create an incentive for them to take other jobs, that are less profitable to society.
Dr. Frank explains it in the NY Times

At 2/5/10 07:56 PM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 2/5/10 07:36 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 2/4/10 11:46 PM, Gunner-D wrote:

To cap this post I will post my ideal life exit strategy...

This is just plain insane.

Thank you for those pie charts I appreciate the feedback as well.

Nah, it's ok. I learned by doing them. I didn't know Japan had so many US bonds.

At 2/3/10 01:13 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/3/10 12:59 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Depends on what kind of tax you're talking of. It seem to me that you mean a corporate tax (X% of profits) then the effect on prices is very much disputed. Stiglitz spends literally chapters of his Public Policy book explaining the different views on the effect of this kind of tax. Is it on salaries that the company pays? Is it on prices (Krzyzaniak & Musgrave)? Is it on profits (Harberger & Mieszkowski)?
Now, if we're talking of a classic ad valorem tax (ie X% of the price of the good sold), it depends on several factors, but wages and profits fall, (wages may not fall if we're talking of a good that does not employ a relatively important amount of labor), and prices increase.

Well don't those three possibilities have a common ground in that the burden of the tax is passed on? Genuine question, I'm not much of an economist.

One of them is not, if profit falls then the owner gets screwed. Generally, it's a combination of the three.
And I was talking ad valorem taxes on a good, not corporate tax.

What type of tax seems irrelevant for the company, but relevant for other groups, based on what you're telling me here. The employees get hit (reduced salaries), the customers get hit (increased prices). If the profits get hit, for the company to survive, it has to turn the burden around on the customers or the employees, or the business winds up failing, correct?

Not if it's a global tax, there's just nowhere to go for the owners of capital. (saying capitalists sounds too marxy).

Bottom line, I'm not seeing how taxing the company burdens the company, so to speak. I can see it burdening employees with pay cuts, and customers with higher prices.

If however, you're talking about a personal income tax, the only effect is on the reduction of income.
That's why the personal income tax pwns :D

I think we're discussing corporate taxes in this instance, unless I misread something somewhere. The premise was we tax the "big businesses", like banks and oil companies as a "solution" to our economic woes. SMs point being "shit rolls downhill", and the burden ultimately falls on everyone else, rather than the companies themselves.

Empirical and theoretical data is not conclusive in that assertion, there are models and data that do point to a reduction in profits, harberger's.

At 2/4/10 11:46 PM, Gunner-D wrote: Everyone has heard the of Keynesian economics. In just a few words, it is summed up as...

"Spend now, Pay later."

No. If it had to be summed up it would be "Persistent unemployment is possible".

This ensures economics growth

In the short run.

and is the backbone of capitalism today.

Depends. Expansive fiscal policy has not been used in advanced countries since the 60s, but it is true that low interest rates have been an important part of policy making in the last 40 years.

But when does this theory going to become undone? When does it become discredited and stop being practiced?

As with any theory, when there's empirical data that contradict it, and another theory that can fit the new data.

Or possibly, is it healthy? The buildings, utilities, roads, occupations, and leisures would not be afforded to us if credit was not available. Our definition of freedom is based around this system of credit through funding of schools, recreation, and arts.

However the major topic I want to touch upon is debt, personal and national...

On a personal level...
Attaining a bacholer's degree on a student loan at UMASS Amherst... $120,000
New car... $15,000

That is already $135,000 of debt immediately after graduating college. This is the average price of a house in 2009. So, without mentioning other bills, someone on their own in this situation is left with the average price of a mortgage in 2009, with no down payment and a higher interest rate. Simply put, any type of increase in pay this debtor has attained because of there advanced education is erased for about 20 years to pay back these loans. This does not include one of the largest facets of the "American Dream"; ownership of your own home.

Without going into way too many numbers or situations, I'll explain home ownership in a nutshell for most of us...

Bound til death. To elaborate, MORT (death) GAGE (bound).

So with personal debt in mind, we should examine the big picture, our own national economic recovery, and possibly transformation, and the spending this government has made towards these efforts in an extremely skeptical light. The U.S. is 6 months out from defaulting on the national debt,

which is almost 100% of our GDP,

WHAT?

Public debt:
39.7% of GDP (2009 est.)

and we are still spending on this war, that reform, this bailout, that takeover, and this stimulus in a seemingly constant repetition. When does it stop? When do we reach positive again?

Generally, when the economy gets ok. Eg Clinton during the 90s.

Do we ever? And who do we really owe?

All this talk about China buying our debt, but they own not-too-big of a fraction. Who else do we owe?

See graph below:

To cap this post I will post my ideal life exit strategy...

This is just plain insane.

At 2/3/10 11:33 AM, Imperator wrote: A smart man wrote:

taxing corporations raises the cost of living for everyone else

Exactly. Put taxes on grocery stores, and guess what happens? Cost of a potato shoots to $3. Put tax on oil companies? No problem, they just raise the price accordingly.

It's a pretty dimwitted opinion to believe that businesses won't raise their rates in accordance with taxes to keep the profit margins the same.....

Besides, why bother taxing them, when you just turn around and bail them out of debt anyways?

Depends on what kind of tax you're talking of. It seem to me that you mean a corporate tax (X% of profits) then the effect on prices is very much disputed. Stiglitz spends literally chapters of his Public Policy book explaining the different views on the effect of this kind of tax. Is it on salaries that the company pays? Is it on prices (Krzyzaniak & Musgrave)? Is it on profits (Harberger & Mieszkowski)?
Now, if we're talking of a classic ad valorem tax (ie X% of the price of the good sold), it depends on several factors, but wages and profits fall, (wages may not fall if we're talking of a good that does not employ a relatively important amount of labor), and prices increase.

If however, you're talking about a personal income tax, the only effect is on the reduction of income.
That's why the personal income tax pwns :D

At 2/2/10 02:03 PM, Saxturbation wrote: People who are in the higher bracket need to have more taxed to them because they hold more of the money in circulation.

I fail to see the logic here.

At 1/31/10 12:57 PM, lapis wrote:

Couldn't you express it as a product of numbers?

At 1/31/10 09:30 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/30/10 04:42 PM, morefngdbs wrote: what kind of a job are you doing where they have a right to drug screen you ?

Civilian contractor for a major 3-letter federal agency. I'm also having a background check done for a Public Trust clearance.

Public trust?

At 1/30/10 04:42 PM, morefngdbs wrote: When do we get a look at your new Tattoo ???

Right fucking now!

Six hours for this bad boy.

I second more's comment.
------------------------------------

So I went to see some friends yesterday night. Guess what we were doing at 4 am? Listening to Beethoven and playing Scrabble. Yeah, we're hardcore like that.

At 1/30/10 03:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I recall someone saying that it could be worse; The government could borrow a google-plex

That would be physically impossible, I believe.

At 1/30/10 02:29 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/29/10 11:21 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: =IF(IF(IF(C6=C4;0;IF(F4=F6;IF(C5<I5;3500 000-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=I5;(3500000-L6-35 0000*C5)/2;0));IF(C5<F5;3500000-L6-35000 0*C5;IF(C5=F5;(3500000-L6-350000*C5)/2;0 ))))+C6>C4;C4-C6;IF(C6=C4;0;IF(F4=F6;IF(

Gesundheit.

Danke schön.
I think I'll separate that over several cells, because debugging has become hell.

At 1/30/10 12:33 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: The English is on the other side of the box, Der-Lowe.

Ah, that explains it. We get things in portuguese and Spanish. And sometimes in um Arabic? because suddenly we export to Arab countries. I hear that Saudis drink mate now.

At 1/30/10 11:40 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Well, I braved the snow in my little Honda

Your Honda's not little. A suzuki fun is small. My English teacher got the new version, but it was a gift, apparently. It's automatic!!! But she couldn't even drive, so she had to do the course and test and everything, at the same time that I did.

this morning to get my pre-employment drug screening. Getting back was a little bit of a struggle, mostly because so many people had spun out. In an hour or so I'm headed south to Richmond, where they have at least eight inches already. I'm taking the truck, so Steve will have to survive with my hatchback for the duration of the weekend, but we're in walking distance to a bunch of stuff here so he should be fine even if it gets bad.

It's not the snow that intimidates me on days like this - it's the other drivers. People assume that because they have a 4WD vehicle they can just drive like they normally do.

I remember watching a show about some guys going with their 4WDs out on the beach or sth, and the snob driving his jeep grand Cherokee got stuck, and had to be pulled out by the less elegant yet more powerful old Jeep.

When I get back, I will probably have some horror stories to tell, as well as some schweet ink.

Yay

At 1/30/10 01:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: For instance, i believe that 2/3rds of all economics professors are registered democrats,

Really?
I thought it was the other way round. Specially the Microeconomics ones. Those are unbelievable at times (ergo, Chicago).
HEY, you need to see the video at my blog. It's where my sig message came from! :D

At 1/30/10 12:31 AM, Saxturbation wrote:

At 1/29/10 03:28 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Link?

Here is your link.

As I thought, they're not going to increase the debt BUT to increase the debt cap, which is a ridiculous idea in the first place.

So yeah, this thread phails.

EXCEL MINDFUCKKKKKKKKKKKK
=IF(IF(IF(C6=C4;0;IF(F4=F6;IF(C5<I5;3500 000-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=I5;(3500000-L6-35 0000*C5)/2;0));IF(C5<F5;3500000-L6-35000 0*C5;IF(C5=F5;(3500000-L6-350000*C5)/2;0 ))))+C6>C4;C4-C6;IF(C6=C4;0;IF(F4=F6;IF(
C5<I5;3500000-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=I5;(350 0000-L6-500000*C5)/2;0));IF(C5<F5;350000 0-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=F5;(3500000-L6-3500 00*C5)/2;0)))))<0;0;IF(IF(C6=C4;0;IF(F4=
F6;IF(C5<I5;3500000-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=I 5;(3500000-L6-350000*C5)/2;0));IF(C5<F5;
3500000-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=F5;(3500000-L 6-350000*C5)/2;0))))+C6>C4;C4-C6;IF(C6=C 4;0;IF(F4=F6;IF(C5<I5;3500000-L6-350000*
C5;IF(C5=I5;(3500000-L6-350000*C5)/2;0))
;IF(C5<F5;3500000-L6-350000*C5;IF(C5=F5;
(3500000-L6-350000*C5)/2;0))))))

yeah, I made that, and it makes sense to me.