Sheiky
-
Content Count
4,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sheiky
-
-
This evaluation of decades of scientific endeavour from a guy who bases his evidence on the weather in Ontario is really useful. Thank you for your contribution, i hope those dastardly politicians listen to you and stop this evil conspiracy that is caring about the environment.Yeah me too, until I checked out the science. My angst is that with Obama putting his policy in place, to me it is no longer worth debating the topic at all, since it is now full steam ahead since the US is now fully onboard. So yes, this is about Obama policy. Blast Bush all you wish, but at least he did not endorse this crap science.Oh well everyone, enjoy driving your Prius' using Windmill energy costing you 20ยข/kW.h. Bunch of fools - I wonder what the next scam is going to be now that this scam is "settled". -
1) Because running the dealership costs money, I don't get why that's hard to understand?2) Yes, but when you're not making money by selling cars, and the cost of keeping the dealership exceeds the profit of selling cars (which in Chrsylers case is apparently negative), dealerships start to close. That's market forces for ya. 3) I imagine they're going to have considerably less costs after they've finished closing down this guy and 799 like him.How does Chrysler save money when this guy closes shop?One less dealer means....less people selling the cars.The cost to run Chrysler isn't going to be reduced with this guy gone is it?Maybe they will have less 'credit' extended, but if they were over extended on credit for the market, then why not let natural market flows dictate the viability of each dealership?We had a Ford dealership near us close 3 months ago. I golf with a guy who owns 2 dealerships, and he's keeping them both open because they break even. -
I'm confused, how does this have anything to do with the government?
-
I did a facebook quiz today and my result was 'very liberal' and a picture of Nancy Pelosi. yay.
-
Oh shit, it's cold in Ontario? Seriously?I mean, I used to think that global warming was a theory based on mass scientific study and empirical research, but now I've discovered that Ontario is cold, It's obvious i've just been duped by those ****ing liberals again.Good to expose the closet liberals. ;)At any rate, play with words all you wish. It is getting colder, not warmer. If you wish to now call it "Climate change" to mask this, go on deluding yourself. Enjoying the snow in Ontario, by the way? -
Oh noes, how horrific, I truly feel sorry for you that the evil government is taking away all your rights as a parent and, heaven forbid, saving your child from chicken pox. I can only hope to imagine how horrible that must feel.The slippery slope already exists. If as a parent I do not want my child to be vaccinated for chicken pox I can not send him to school. I am not endangering his life by refusing to give him a chicken pox vaccine. There are many examples where the government already tells people how to raise their children. This particular case is tough, I would think the child should receive chemo since it seems to be a clear cut situation. But I think the concern about slippery slope is very valid. -
Do you know that Keynes actually wrote an open letter to Roosevelt complaining that he wasn't doing enough?It's not just a simple theoretical matter as you put it there. Whatever Roosevelts thinking, the increase in public spending during his tenure was largely met by increases in tax revenue, meaning the budget deficit wasn't nearly as big as people think it was. Federal spending came no where close to replacing the incredible fall in GDP during the depression. Reagan, Bush and Ford all ran much bigger budget deficits during there time in office (fiscal conservatives don't ya know) and this was at a time of economic prosperity.Individually, the programs encompassed in the new deal again are subject to widely distorted views. The most famous ones (FERA, WPA) didn't run as most people assume they did (they were more social insurance schemes with work requirements) and because of Roosevelt's reluctance to increase the budget deficit they didn't provide a massive increase in overall demand. When we read history books we get the impression that he bumped out the credit card and went nuts, when that isn't really the case at all. As i've mentioned, modern presidents have ran much bigger deficits (operated in a far more Keynsiaist fashion than roosevelt) since the second world war, yet because that was the norm we don't have this grand narrative of great increases in public spending and budget deficits. He may have messed up the economy, but if he did it wasn't really because he was borrowing excessive amounts of money to fill a demand gap like Obama is doing now. His failures are more in the nature of the policies and reasoning behind the reforms he did pass (such as overly inflating wages) and not because of their overall magnitude.I'd be interested to know what you think the difference is. From their own comments (Obama's and Roosevelt's), their theory is the same: if people won't spend their money, we'll just make the government do it for them, and that will rev up the economy. Roosevelt and his treasury secretary both regretted their actions after 7 years. I wonder how long it will take Obama. -
Just throwing this out there as well- Roosevelts actions in the great depression weren't really an example of 'stimulus' spending at all. People have this idea that Obama is imitating him and that we're experiencing the second new deal, but in relative terms this stimulus package and concurrent budget deficit is in a totally different league to the real 'new deal'. Contrary to popular belief, Roosevelt's economic policies weren't an example of Keynesian economics at all. I don't suspect that'll change anyone's respective view on the success/failures of his presidency, but it's a big misnoma that Obama stimulus = New deal = bad. (Not saying that the current stimulus is good or bad, just that linking it to the new deal isn't very accurate at all)
-
Would you rather the courts did nothing and this child died because of his nut job parents?That's probably where I will differ with most people on this subject.I just think it sets a bad precedent. So next are they going to tell me that I have to use Benadryl for a cold and I want to use probiotics (sp). Where is the line drawn? So when there is a chance of death is the line. Okay, well how many people die from the flu each year. So if you get the flu the government can tell you what medicine and how you are to be treated? I don't think that any parent wants to see their child die. -
In my opinion, being that retarded = neglectThe parents were not neglecting treatment to the child. They just don't happen to believe in western medicine. So basically you are saying that the government can tell you how and where you should get treated for disease. It's not like the parents were sitting back and saying oh he has cancer ... better not give him treatment so he can die. They were saying we don't like chemo thus we are going to try a holistic approach to the problem. Apparently the kid agreed with them (although I really don't like that portion of it as an argument). -
I don't believe i've commented anywhere in the past 3 pages on Obama's action or even expressed support for the stimulus package(I don't remember doing that on this forum even)But yeah, I did find that ironic.I mean even if they were the greatest economists in the world, do you guys not see that he has done an absolute 180 in his position? lets spend trillions of dollars. oh! we shouldn't have spent trillions of dollars! I mean it's like a priest telling an alter boy to wait till he's married before he has sex right after he fucks him in the ass (allusion to america's situation absolutely intended). -
-
I agree with that too. However, in my mind, there's just absolutely no question or room for debate in this scenario. I just cannot see how anyone in their right mind could honestly believe that letting the child be taken of chemotherapy because he had the grave mis fortune to be born to the parents he did is the right decision.
-
I don't profess to know the entire biographies of those I linked to, so could you expand on how they are integrity lacking hacks?
-
Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone who disagrees with you isn't qualified to talk on whatever subject you're talking about.He was talking about real economists, not the guys in your list. -
because i was responding to Cowboy not Barack Obama?Why would you post a list of people that Obama now says he disagrees with to answer the question? -
You said that every single independent economists is against Barack Obama's spending.I proved you wrong.Great response. You understand that keynsian economic stimulus involves spending money on things that will actually encourage economic growth, right? And not at the cost of so much debt that we hamper our ability to borrow and overwhelm the budget with interest expense.Did you just google "liberal economist"? -
How the hell can anyone even say that this decision isn't 100% correct?Seriously?
-
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keyneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Galbraithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reichthat statement by him fills me completely with rage. as soon as he gets his budget and stimulus passed he suddenly has an epiphone of how basic economics works? I mean, what are the options here? 1. He actually didn't understand basic economics and pushed out trillions in new defecit spending having no idea what he was doing to the country. 2. He did understand the effect of the overwhelming deficit spending on an economy and made up a bunch of horribly reasoned lies to sell it to people because that's what he wanted to do anyway, despite knowing it was harmful long term.3. He didn't understand / believe / whatever what every independent economist in the world is saying and still believes his economic policies are good, and is just lying about what he believes now to placate people.Is there another option i'm not seeing here that doesn't look either unbelievably inept or sinister on the part of the most powerful man in the world?Anyone? -
Yeah definitely agree with this. I mean, they come from a poor country, are most likely poor and what's worse, they're probably black as well! I don't know about the rest of you, but that should be more than enough to have them imprisoned without a trial for 7 years. We've got to give an example to the other poor black people who are destroying our country and stealing our jobs amright?Well these guys sound like great people to place into American society.People imprisoned for 7 years wrongly by our government, who come from 3rd world places where the US is hated.Sounds like model future citizens.Hope they get their cabbie license immediately -
I never thought of this before, but it's a great point.I have heard/read this point somewhere, and it pretty much defines my view of the media:Think of something you've seen reported in the news, where you have a great deal of personal knowledge. Then think of how poorly the the news story reported the situation. Now, do you think they'll do a better job in the areas where you don't happen to have the information already? -
You know they spend so much on developing because they don't want to health risk of an exploding hammer right?I worked for defense contractors, and it's more complex than that. The problem is that it's not the same hammer as the one you run down to the hardware store to buy, but it does the same job. Instead, they say "We need a hammer that will withstand battle conditions, so that it must be able to 1) withstand 120 degree heat for 14 hours, 2) withstand -60 degree cold for 48 hours, 3) withstand a grenade blast at 30 feet, etc,etc". So even if a hammer off the shelf *would* meet the requirements (which it probably won't), it still requires massive testing and studying. More likely, there are a couple of the requirements that a normal hammer won't meet, so they have to build a special hammer with a special handle. That'll take years of R&D. In the end, you get a hammer that looks and acts like a normal hammer, but costs $1000 because it doesn't have any economy of scale to cover the R&D costs.The phrase "is it bulletproof" came from defense contractors, because that was a requirement of most things supplied to the military. I used to work on computers that were literally bulletproof. And they could be dropped off a two story building. How much do you think that adds to the cost?Nevermind that you could have 100 spares in the back room for 1/10 the cost.... -
I find it pretty ironic he considers himself a Libertarian with his priorities being freedom of speech, yet if in charge he would --The present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, will be replaced by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.- A ban of five years on the founding of mosques and Islamic schools; a permanent ban on preaching in any other language but Dutch. Foreign imams will be forbidden to preach. Radical mosques will be closed; radical Muslims will be expelled.He bitches about not being allowed into the UK, yet he would bar all immigration into the Netherlands and throw out anyone who incites racial hatred? Irony, I think so!Here is a link to Geert Wilders affair which Sheiky referred to:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...lamic-film.htmlSheiky, just wondering why you referred to this democratically elected MP as a nutcase?Is it because :1) That's how the media like to portray him?2) Someone would have to be crazy in Europe to criticise Islam because of the persecution from the nebulous neo-Marxist EU?3) Someone would have to be crazy in most of the world to criticise Islam because of the threat to their life from intolerant muslim fanatics?4) You are a qualified psychiatrist, and have diagnosed him with some serious mental disorders? -
Kind of off topic, but I thought it'd be interesting to hear your guesses on this question -What is US government spending as a % of GDP in the US? What about the Eurozone? I guess it's something I didn't really think precisely about before, but it came up in a paper today as a source from NBER and I found the answers pretty interesting.I agree with this, and this is why it's so complicated. Market participants are not robots designed to respond to the whim of the Federal Reserve, which is why it's basically impossible to keep inflation at exactly 0%. But there are a couple things that are strong general trends, and the main one is that an increase in money supply not backed by economic growth causes inflation. Also, deficit spending makes it harder to prevent inflation, because that's a promise to either raise taxes, which is politically unpopular, or to print more money to pay back the deficit. For the last six months we've been doing both.I believe EG that we may have a short term risk of deflation, but over the next couple years there is a huge threat of inflation. They couldn't be leading us faster in that direction if it was an intentional policy.
Chrysler; The Other Side Of The Government's Intervention
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted