161 Forum Posts by "MOSFET"
At 5/24/12 06:20 PM, TheMason wrote:
Not at all. What you are trying to do is:
1) Move the discussion away from my answer to your statement/question that all depressions/recessions are caused by a drop in aggregate demand. I showed that there is at least more than one root cause of down economies.
2) You are trying to take my argument and build a strawman from it which you can then turn around and burn down using nothing more than an emotional analogy.
I felt it was an apt analogy. I'm not particularly emotional about it.
It is important to not treat the symptoms with "cures" that are just as bad as the symptom we're trying to stop. We've been trying stimulus...Bush tried stimulus. It didn't work, people just retired debt. Clinton wanted to tinker with minority home ownership so the community organizers and wall street 1%ers got their wish and got FannieMae/FreddieMac approval for sub-prime mortgages.
I think it important that we go after root causes, but that doesn't mean that symptoms should be left untreated.
When we get the government involved with the market it causes distortions in the economy that the government is ill-equiped to address.
Especially when you consider that for 80+ years we've been following the Keynsian model of priming the pump...in good times as well as the bad. We're just doing the spending and none of Maynard's saving for the bad times. Instead politicians (of both parties) are using government spending as a way of keeping their bases fat, dumb and happy. BUT someday we will have to pay bill for our stupidity and greed.
I agree, you did find another cause. And admittedly, I'm twisting your intent, but it is just an opening for you to clarify and advance discussion. However, I still stand by my statement. In medicine, it's important to treat the symptoms (pain, swelling) when necessary as well as the root causes. Sometimes root causes are out of a doctors hands like what the patient does outside of their homes. Likewise, the solution to root causes are out of reach for the government and all they can do is treat the symptoms. As you say, government is ill-equipped to handle it, and that is usually by design.
I find your examples of Bush's stimulus(and how it went toward paying off debt) and the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae versions of stimulus interesting. In both cases, the money gets funneled back to the banks. So an even more apt analogy is that these financial institutions are like giant mosquitoes, randomly stabbing at places where the money is and they just sucking up wealth from people, and stimulus doesn't work because these mosquitoes run straight over there and have a feeding frenzy. So this stimulus stops bouncing around the entire economy like it should.
This ties into the statement that 2002-2007 economic boom was fake, not because people started spending more freely with extra cash on hand, but because everyone basically took on more debt. Is that right?
At 5/23/12 06:50 PM, TheMason wrote: At this point we had the fear of contagion, where other "too-big-to-fail" banks had heavily invested in these junk products and were threatened by collapse as well. This helped lead to inflation and a constriction on credit which in turn led to a decrease of aggregate demand. So the 2008 crisis (as well as the Great Depression) did not have such as decrease as a root cause but rather as a symptom of the disease.
So basically, what you are saying, metaphorically, that blood loss is just a symptom of the real cause of getting stabbed. So we shouldn't do anything to mend the wounds but instead just stop the stabbing.
I think it important that we go after root causes, but that doesn't mean that symptoms should be left untreated.
At 5/23/12 07:38 PM, EKublai wrote:At 5/23/12 12:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:My general philosophy on economic governance is more of a "Free market on a leash" thoery. A pragmatic attempt to harness the potential of pure capitalism whilst trying to protect against the strong harms of unfettered capitalism.Keynesian practices are largely inapplicable in today's (post-1970s actually) economy because the country is/has been going through a period of both high unemployment and high inflation, which under Keynes' theory was impossible. This isn't his ignorance talking, its the fact that no economist of the right mind ever dreamed of a day where the macroeconomic policies of a government could be so abysmal that they would fail to balance their own budget.
I don't see the link between a government failing to balance their budget and high unemployment / high inflation. Could you clarify this point?
At this point, something's gotta give before we can practically return to this way of thinking. People need to start saving again and become better consumers or else every up in the economy is just going to be another bubble.
I agree, but that would mean paying paying blue collar workers more than they are getting, most live paycheck to paycheck.
At 5/23/12 02:46 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Keynesians love cheap credit, they believe 100% of economic downturns are due to lack of aggregate demand.
Well yes, if no one spending, then no one is buying. I can see that leading to an economic downturn. What other ways are there for an economic downturn to happen.
If it was just for another girl, I'd just break up with your current girl friend and go for new blood.
But this other girl is her friend? It's a trap! most likely.
They don't make you work faster. Ultimately, tasks have to be finished in a timely manner. It's why deadlines exist.
Proper time and stress management helps you complete tasks within deadlines and do them faster. If you're relying on last minute panic to help you finish a task, that is both poor time and stress management, and it will wear you out and you'll start making silly mistakes on your projects.
At 5/15/12 04:24 PM, Benevolent9 wrote: I'd say I was an above average student, getting mostly B's and A's. When you started out as a runner, was it in an IT company? I've been looking for entry level jobs, but it seems every employer is looking for guys with 3+ experience. I would gladly start off with a tester job, even an internship.
Are you using your University's Career Center? They typically have a lot of entry-level job postings there.
This topic reminds me of Everquest.
Followers of Innoruuk, the Prince of Hate, include nearly the entire dark elven race who regard him as their "Father". They believe that hate is a creative force, or rather "THE" creative force in the universe - creativity born of destruction. Love and kindness are tools for those too ignorant to know what they want or too cowardly to do what is necessary to obtain it. They believe that it is only through the total disdain of your enemies that you can gain true power over them. Pity and mercy have no power when confronted with contempt and viciousness. It is the honest belief of the followers of Innoruuk that if they were to hate strongly enough, they could destroy all of Norrath.
At 5/15/12 11:31 AM, Benevolent9 wrote: For those who graduated, how does the job market look from your eyes? There are hardly any entry-level jobs in the video game design industry or media based market.
There are few entry-level jobs in any technical field. There are a ton of openings for experienced engineers and developers.
Start freelancing. Work part-time in retail or food-service, play less games and start making your own games/media. Keep looking for those entry-level positions. That college degree opens many doors for you, but it's not going to guarantee you a job. Nowadays, you have to become your own entrepreneur, salesman, and technical expert to make it in this tough global economy, especially when starting out. Once you land that 1st or 2nd job, it's easy sailing.
At 5/12/12 09:57 AM, Korriken wrote:At 5/12/12 03:54 AM, Jizzlebang wrote:Shit, any scandinavian country I guess. They're not hardcore dictatorships, but that's not the point either. High taxes, Socialized healthcare and massive safety nets big enough to catch any idiot.there's a difference between a country with socialist programs and a socialist country. Many countries have social programs yet the market is still free (mostly). then you got the countries where most of the big industries (or all) are owned by "the people" (read: the government).
I find it ironic that most of the products we purchase here in the states come from socialist/communist countries, it's like capitalism can't compete.
At 5/12/12 01:05 AM, Verspar wrote:At 5/11/12 11:48 PM, MOSFET wrote: People aren't focusing on the solutions, because they don't agree with how the problem was framed in the first place. It might force them to accept a solution they might not agree with. For example, Climate change being a real thing. But there are people who even deny climate change is even an issue, in order to protect certain businesses from being regulated.So when we don't contribute to an argument, and make it worse, we are arguing for selfish and insecure reasons? So we feel more fit to just sit in the middle of the street and cry our eyes out because we don't get what we want, instead of actually negotiating a better solution than the one that was presented to us? I don't believe in abortion personally, but I can't see why one wouldn't even address a way to prevent the need for abortion in the first place if they are against it. I mean, people are pro-abortion because there is a high rate of people who need or are looking for abortion, but if the need for abortion cease to exist, so will abortion and pro-abortion.
Not necessarily for selfish and insecure reasons. It's about what do we value more as a society; Freedom for women, or the life of an unborn child. You will never eliminate the need for abortion, since those values will occasionally be at odds. Very few think abortions are desirable already, even those the support them. You can offer contraception, but even today there are big arguments about them, religious freedom, or even the logistics of just getting people to use them.
Even if everyone followed birth control measures, it will not eliminate the need. There will still be life threatening pregnancies. There will still be parents, when getting their child tested in the womb, who will want to abort them due to some defect. Situations for people change, maybe the pregnant woman realized she wouldn't get the support she needed and simply couldn't go through with it by herself.
At 5/11/12 05:58 PM, Verspar wrote: Like I said, people pay too much attention to the problem and not enough about the solution.
People aren't focusing on the solutions, because they don't agree with how the problem was framed in the first place. It might force them to accept a solution they might not agree with. For example, Climate change being a real thing. But there are people who even deny climate change is even an issue, in order to protect certain businesses from being regulated.
Avengers, cuz I just watched the movie and it was AWESOME!
I'm familiar with the Justice League via cartoons. But I never felt the characters played off each other as well as they did in the Avengers. And usually the DC comic heroes are too strongly associated with their stomping grounds. Batman belongs in Gotham City fighting mobsters in silly costumes, not on some trans dimensional world fighting mutant aliens.
At 5/10/12 10:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 5/10/12 09:24 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Socialism = collective ownership over the means of production.That's communism. Socialism is a governing policy where the government has high taxes but provides a large amount of services.
As far as strict definition bismuthfeldspar is correct. Communism is the idea of getting rid of classes (eliminating class warfare) poor vs rich, bourgeois vs elitism, haves vs havenots. But those terms have been interchanged so much in politics.
At 5/10/12 04:06 AM, Gambit wrote: I really hope he wins the election, but he should've seriously wait for 2013 before saying such a thing. All the people who didn't know who to vote for and dislike homosexuals now know what to do.
he's got a good chance of winning.
He's just not going to get the congressional support.
4 more years of deadlock and bad compromises.
At 5/9/12 06:37 PM, Zirocket-8 wrote: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-recounts-11-year-old-
sons-nightmare-addiction-to-internet-porn
What do you guys think? Discuss
I think porn is overrated. Also, the problem that the parents had with their kid, in the article, could come from any sort of media.
Although, I am sympathetic to the parents, it's difficult to be a good parent when the child-parent relationship starts to break down. People are too quick to judge the parents in these types of situations. Sometimes parents work really hard so they can provide the best for their child. They can't supervise them 24/7. Certainly the porn industry isn't very helpful to parents in raising their kids.
That said, pointing the finger at the porn industry as the reason a kid is screwed up is disingenuous and doesn't absolve the parents from the responsibility of parenting. Parents who allow their kid to do whatever by themselves, because they think they are fine, are asking for trouble down the line. Always try to connect with your kid and maintain a strong relationship with them, ALWAYS.
At 5/9/12 08:50 PM, DirtyMeatball wrote:At 5/9/12 08:49 PM, brokenrecord6299 wrote: Call ME old fashioned, but whatever happened to JESUS?Didn't you hear? He died. Sad story, really.
He got better.
Then he flew into space.
At 5/6/12 09:11 PM, ig299 wrote:At 5/6/12 08:25 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote:is that true?At 5/6/12 07:58 PM, ig299 wrote: does anybody know what program adventure quest stif heads and all those games were made with?Flash.
For the front end maybe. Back end they probably used some database server and either java, php, or .NET.
At 5/6/12 06:45 PM, phsychopath wrote: An annoying sentence by sentence rebuttal, that if phsychopath just read a few more sentences he would see an attempt at an explanation has been made, and in the end looked like an unthoughtful jerk.
Making it legal will not make it safer for women, all it does is legitimizes the industry. If you do legalize and regulate, someone playing by the rules would have to pay the workers fair wages, health insurance, and safe/clean working conditions. This cost is past onto the consumers, making it expensive for them. No doubt the women working in a legal house will be fine, and that's great. However, that doesn't help with human trafficking, or the exploitation of women. It won't deprive illegal houses of an industry.
Illegal houses will still be illegal, and they'll still operate as before. Legalizing prostitution would give them air of legitimacy while not being legitimate at all. It also allows the notion that it's ok for women to be sold for sex. They would still be illegal, but jons will still want their services; Younger girls, better control of their anonymity, or cheaper prices than the local legal house. Way more flexible business model than a legal, government backed, whore house.
Regulating it would also be an extra cost to the tax payer, and frankly it's not an industry that has public support. Nor do I want it to have public support. I still see it as the exploitation of women, often exploiting them for being poor and needing money. It would also make it government backed business. While it could be nice for awhile if regulations are done right, as we see in today's politics, it's easy for politicians to loosen regulations in the name of increasing economic growth and then system goes to shit.
And yes, I've heard and seen a "bust" operation. Usually the poor girl has been forced to find clients and pass the payment to her pimp. If caught, depending on the laws in the area, she's often given a choice, go to prison, or rat out her pimp. Often they get the help they need to be cared for. Were she better educated, and if she were her own business woman, she could probably be more discrete in public and avoid getting busted. Increasingly, more localities are decriminalizing prostitution for prostitutes, which I do support, but prostitution should still illegal so authorities can go after jons and pimps.
Here's a person with more expertise on it. I am, after all, just some guy on the internet.
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/00010 7
At 5/6/12 09:40 AM, Benji wrote: How am I supposed to teach my son to be a man without getting him a prostitute when he turns 8?
...how was I supposed to have a son without getting a prostitute and poking the condom?
By teaching your son to not be a pussy, and show him how talk to girls with high self-esteem.
At 5/6/12 08:03 AM, Rapacity wrote: The argument for universal healthcare would maintain that a moral society muust provide healthcare for those that can't afford it.
The argument against paying for universal healthcare would be that it would be an obligation for the individual to pay for other individual's healthcare, whether they agreed with the country funding the individual's hospital bills or not. Therefore if universal healthcare were introduced, that country would never be truly "free".
So, healthcare: right or privilege?
When it comes to the well being of individuals, society has a responsibility to insure that each individual is taken care of so that they, in turn, may continue (or become) productive members of society. Whether government is involved or not, it's still society's responsibility to provide. The problem is those that leech off the system, and that is a matter of structuring the law to prevent that sort of behavior.
Also your definition of "free" is a bit different than how I would define it. Consider this, some would say Gravity is pretty oppressive. But without gravity, would you be able to toss a ball in the air and catch it when it falls back down? would you even be able to walk on a flat surface?
Healthcare will help those that afford treatments to get them, so that they can live more productive lives and not have to worry about filing for bankruptcy when they can't pay for their medical bills. If it's structured correctly, it can move our society to even greater heights.
At 5/6/12 02:55 AM, phsychopath wrote: You're such an idiot. Illegalizing something doesn't stop it, look up the great depression and the banning of alcohol; the mafia thrived on the fact that alcohol was illegal because they had a monopoly over the market.
That's because prior to prohibition, alcohol was ubiquitous in society. Most everyone drank alcohol. And drinking in moderation wasn't a big problem. But not everyone goes to a hooker for pleasure, and it's not a product for consumption either. Legalizing this will not stop the awful parts of this profession, only help to hide them more effectively. Regulating it is costly and will probably be a mess. It's easy to imagine politicians making a mess of things.
And while legal whore houses might have cleaner rooms and women, they will be very expensive. The illegal whore houses, which will still exist regardless of whether it's legalized or not, will still have trafficked women, who will mostly likely be much younger, that are sold for cheaper prices. Plus, these houses get the benefit of legalization by proxy, even if they don't register or get a license.
This is also not at all like prohibition either. Nobody can stop two consenting adults from having sex. Nobody can stop them from exchanging any type of currency. As if the authorities can do anything about either of those things.
Legalization of prostitution doesn't help with the exploitation of poor women and human trafficking. In fact It would make it more difficult for authorities to find exploited women, since now they can hide in plain sight. Yea you could make it an industry, but then you would have to regulated it and collect taxes to be able to regulate it effectively. With the more women willing take being a hooker for a professions, they'll get less money to survive on. It's just not worth it imo.
There is evil in this world, but there isn't absolute evil. There is nothing so evil that there isn't something even eviler, and there is no evil that can not be overcome by good.
Go up to her and say hi.
Tell her that she's cute or awesome.
Then quickly change the topic, preferably to something you both mutually agree on.
