RE: Raising the debt ceiling

RE: Raising the debt ceiling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/15/2011 11:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You're focusing on the illustration rather than on the point anyway, which was that rational individual decisions can be irrational in aggregate. Like I said, my focus was that of a critic; hence, your point was not my point, but that can change. Be that as it may what willbeurdaddy and his attempt to give you a spanking I feel is weak for the following reasons: willbeurdaddy is taking the flip and more conventional position which no doubt gives him the sense that he is correct. You, Musicmystery, are clearly trying to buck the system which willbeurdaddy is attempting to work to his advantage. You too are a critic, but also a partisan. If I may be so bold as to speak for you. You feel that the problem concerns a refinement. Your approach is scientific, more scientific than those you feel that I am criticizing; consequently, you feel my criticism is unfair for which you may have a point. Goldman Sachs, et al, relied on science, but their application of these "scientific" ideas were not scientific, however. With them it was religion which is the point whether you know it or not I believe you are making. As long as it seemed to work, it was fine much like how a con artist could bankrupt you because he/she found a way to cook the books. I watched a documentary concerning such a con man yesterday. Putting my King Solomon hat on, when you wrote "Rational individual decisions can be irrational in aggregate." what you meant was the sort of correctness described by willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Rationality is found in the process, not the results. Individually raitional decisions are just that, rational. They cannot be aggregated into something irrational....bad decisions, yes...but not irrational ones. can be achieved through forensic analysis of the results, that is via back engineering. So what I'm saying is the mistake willbeurdaddy is making was the same sort of mistake the bums at Goldman Sachs made. As long as the process is rational, you are necessarily going to get rational results, that is it is all going to aggregate the way you expect it too. Their reasoning was circular, however. It is the fact that the results aggregate that make the process rational and not the other way around. What process achieves this is a guess; consequently, you are guessing that the process is rational because it appears to satisfy certain criteria. What willbeurdaddy is asserting is that no back engineering is necessary. You can proceed forward on faith alone. This approach is not altogether inappropriate given that often times planners don't have all the answers on the outset and must rely on their prejudices in addition to a little hocus pocus. It is easy to understand how central planners would have a need for something that helps them sleep more soundly even if it is a bit out there. The problem is once the ball gets rolling unless you are inclined to be a martyr for the truth, it is next to impossible to stop the train short of it crashing. There are some criteria, however, that have stood the test of time and have been given to us by extraterrestrials or angels or what have you. What reverse engineering can give you are novel solutions that contradict these ideas that have stood the test of time to your detriment. Hence, from this point of view willbeurdaddy has a point, even if he isn't going to be my daddy. Think of it as a matter of testing. How well tested are these newfangled ideas really? That is a potential weakness in your approach. How do you respond to this charge Musicmystery? Anticipating that Musicmystery might have a difficult time responding and having become impatient (after just a few seconds), how might he respond? The solution is to not seek revolutionary change. Instead you show that through some conservative changes important gains in arenas where a solution has been sought for some time are possible. Musicmystery gave one such example. Instead of thinking of the other guy as having failed to hold up their end, another way to look at it may be useful. That the client has the impression that the other guy is failing to hold up their end suggests that the client has pressed this point, but reached a dead end. No one was budging which is a sign that what the client was arguing was not regarded as persuasive which begs the question, why? Is it really just as simple has the other guy failing to hold up their end? Can a forensic analysis of the problem point out aspects of the problem that were overlooked by the client? That is my guess what Musicmystery is selling. I am guessing that his work involves data mining. The danger appears to center on not recognizing the limits of this approach and going hog wild thinking that you have discovered a new liberating cosmic principle. This is exactly what has happened, however. One Musicmystery might be delightful, but put a room full of them together, just think about the power they could raise. Revision History I thought to add the last two paragraphs so as to avoid three consecutive posts.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 12:28:08 AM)
A conversion would emerge from the synergistic interactions where before as individuals they were thinking forensic analysis, but collectively they would be thinking Goldman Sachs. We found the answers to everything, proceeding in the forward direction. Paradise awaits us! Vestiges of the former would remain, however. Collect all the data you can find, spy on everything and everyone much like someone would collect weather data. Musicmystery did say something about Katrina, did he not? I apologize for being a critic, but this is where the facts are taking me. Who among you is willing to concede that I am wise, that is intellectually dominant? It is the reason I require extraordinary females. A would never be able to hold the interest of an inferior being. Peacock feathers! Regretfully, what awaits these money changes is not paradise, but Hell. Revision History My ability to make this addition to the above post apparently timed out. Then, I thought to add a few more thoughts, then polish my knob to a high sheen. Think of it like building towards an orgasm, the final line of the proof.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 1:34:48 AM)
To continue my lament. This is an excerpt from something I wrote earlier, but didn't publish it. Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon Yes! He was a very wise man. He appreciated the beauty of women, a lot. Are there no such females I could appreciate and praise? I have devoted myself to greatness, yet it means nothing to you. I suppose it is like how Moses felt when he descended from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commands to find his people unworthy and broke the tablets. Revision History I thought to add the last sentence of the first paragraph, then the final paragraph.

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 2:32:51 AM)
I must admit you're thorough, albeit sometimes a bit cryptic. However you have won Sir, the crown. The award for the longest posts on CM. I hand you the award without reservation. However you might be getting too much into the thought process, rather than the tried and true simplistic cause and effect reasoning which seems to have worked for the tenure of humanity - up to a certain point in time. If there was a dawn of the age of reason, it seems now that there will also be a dusk. One like you might find my stance simplistic, but now is the time to assert that I am a problem solver by nature as well as profession. Complex issues involving complex electronics. From this stance I can say with certainty that sometimes the simple approach is the best. I believe that to be the case when it comes to economic issues. Overcomplication obscuring basic logical tenets has created a big mess. Simple, you can make money out of thin air, but basic logic dictates that if too many people do it, there will be problems eventually. I think eventually will be sooner than most think because most cannot properly separate issues, analyse and properly apply simple logic. Also note that in the auto industry, while there were problems, they would never have gotten so severe if the automakers had not decided to play bank. When banking was simple, it worked. Fractional banking was one of the first complications, making money out of thin air. If it had not been allowed, things would be quite different. The growth of the economy would be much lesser of course. But if you think about it simply, after the rough times were over, we would be in great shape by now. If we wanted wealth, we would have to create real wealth, not scrip. And I am not referring to lack of gold backing for our greenbacks here, that doesn't really matter. The fact is inflation doesn't exist except as an inverse concept. The value of things do not change without direct influence, the value of the money does. These concepts are hard to grasp for those who were educated in institutions. They have a subset of facts without an adequate foundation. One detrimental effect of the age of specialization. Robert Heinlin had a saying about that. I think he was right. (not that I have read him, I'm just aware of the quote, that specialization is for insects) But now the indications are that we are getting backed into a corner, financially. Those who dispute that are not being logical. In the face of strife they refer to a textbook, not considering that the author might have been wrong. Think Keynes here. At any rate, let me bore you with the actual topic. Do you think they should raise the debt cieling ? If you think they should, or perhaps must, what steps could be taken to offset the sheer fact that we are simply digging into the hole deeper ? In that light, I would like to see what your possible solution would be, since you obviously have an analytical mind. In this case, could you analyse the situation rather than the thought process ? Who knows, you might be able to solve the problem in one fell swoop. T

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 4:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I must admit you're thorough, albeit sometimes a bit cryptic. However you have won Sir, the crown. The award for the longest posts on CM. I hand you the award without reservation. If only you were a woman. I recall one young and beautiful woman who took pity on me and tried to coach me. She was a little evil, but nobody is perfect. I liked her though for whatever reason. Ah, the folly of men. I'm also hard headed, but since I'm not trying to seduce you I'll move on. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or However you might be getting too much into the thought process, rather than the tried and true simplistic cause and effect reasoning which seems to have worked for the tenure of humanity - up to a certain point in time. If there was a dawn of the age of reason, it seems now that there will also be a dusk. It sounds like you are also referring to Occam's Razor, but not quite. My analysis shows that we have given up reason altogether in that none of it is intellectually honest. Superficially, it looks like reason, but isn't. It is formality without logic. In order for a formal logical argument to be sound it must satisfy two conditions: It must be structurally sound. Its premises must be true. People have taken stoicism, for example (think Mr. Spock), as logic. As long as it is free of all emotion, it must be logical! Yeah right. I can remain logical during the most passionate states imaginable which I suppose is an intellectual accomplishment in itself, to have that sort of control and focus. Think, brother of Mr. Spock, the passionate Vulcan. He was a character in one of the Star Trek films. Let me see. It was Star Trek 5 The Final Frontier. Actually, the notion of the passionate Vulcan was a concept that Leonard Nimoy who played Mr. Spock had been building on for years. It is interesting that Leonard Nimoy is a poet. In a sense that he was trying to create is in a way the essence of poetry. It could be argued that it took a poet to create Mr. Spock and do what Leonard Nimoy did with the character. His character was a masterpiece. I have managed to create a semi-poetic style of my own as well. I am certainly intellectually dominant in that I can destroy someone who is very smart with such ease as to not even notice it. Most are not as nearly as intellectually dominant as me. Most rely more on snobbery. Because I am very dominant. I am not submissive and the world demands a create deal of submissiveness. This makes me an independent thinker. I can be cryptic in that I am very good at working with abstract ideas directly. I often do not need to translate concepts into something concrete. Unfortunately, this translates to a weakness in my writing style where I will gloss over details, partially because it is impossible not to do so. Infeasible is a better word. Some of it does not fit in this category, however, and correspond to areas where I can improve. It is something I am aware of. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or One like you might find my stance simplistic, but now is the time to assert that I am a problem solver by nature as well as profession. Complex issues involving complex electronics. From this stance I can say with certainty that sometimes the simple approach is the best. Now you are clearly talking Occam's Razor, that is intellectual austerity. The sort of problems engineers work on are not the sort of problems economists or central planners work on, however. There were some posts I made on a similar topic which may interest you. See http://www.collarchat.com/m_3525695/tm.htm "A rant about deliberately fuzzy math." I see you are already familiar with the thread. In a nutshell engineering is more of an exact science and this insulates you from the sort of problems these other people have to work with. For fairness sake, this is something you need to bare in mind. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Overcomplication of the basic logical tenets has created a big mess. Simple, you can make money out of thin air, but basic logic dictates that if too many people do it, there will be problems eventually. I think eventually will be sooner than most think because most cannot properly separate issues, analyse and properly apply simple logic. Is your argument valid as in structurally sound? at least that is my impression. The problem is inherently qualitative (the problem concerns your premises), not to say that this is your fault. Whether it is your fault or not, as a factual matter it is qualitative. It certainly can happen, but their is reason to believe that the current crisis is different. In the early part of 1998 those who ran the economy had not yet had the fear of God put into them. Today, they are a lot more scared and may be a bit more sober for it. So I'm not all that worried. Think of it in terms of the nuclear industry. Be afraid, very afraid, when you start hearing that they believe nuclear power is safe. So long as they are mildly paranoid we are reasonably safe. I used the word mild because genuine paranoia is never good. I am also encouraged by the fact that the banks took the money, but refrained from spending it. If they spent it we would be facing hyper-inflation. Though we have an inflation rate which is uncomfortable, we are not facing at the present time hyper-inflation. Could the banks turn around and all of a sudden flood the market with currency? Yes, but that is a matter of speculation as they say. It doesn't help to dwell too much on it. Could the conspiracy theorists be right? Possibly, but let's hope not. Though our "ruling elite" have a Luciferian character, let's hope that their heart is genuinely in the right place despite appearances; otherwise, we're screwed. It needs to be realized, that most of us don't have to make the sort of decisions they do; consequently, it is a very different world which is something that many of us make no attempt to account for. I forgot to mention another aspect of the problem it is possible that you may fail to realize. It is possible given what you wrote that you are a proponent of the gold standard. There were good reasons why we got off of it. The problem is gold is not able to keep up with the demand for currency. Could we have reached a compromise position where the dollar continued to be backed by gold, but the amount of gold would vary over time? Perhaps. If I was your United States Senator, I would consider the viability of such a bill. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or At any rate, let me bore you with the actual topic. Do you think they should raise the debt cieling ? If you think they should, or perhaps must, what steps could be taken to offset the sheer fact that we are simply digging into the hole deeper ? In that light, I would like to see what your possible solution would be, since you obviously have an analytical mind. In this case, could you analyse the situation rather than the thought process ? Who knows, you might be able to solve the problem in one fell swoop. As a practical matter the debit ceiling needs to be raised because we are not yet prepared to do what it takes. We need to cut defense spending, for example. We need to realize that the war on terrorism is insane. What the Democrats are facing is the realization that a terrorist attack could turn the tide of an election against them whereas the Republicans have less reason to fear it. They have taken a tough stance and this partially insulates them; hence, the Obama administration has in some respects become a worse offender than the Bush administration on some points. They cannot rely on the projection of military force to the extent that Bush did for example. The public didn't consider these things. We are trying to defend our country against 19 people. I'm referring to the 19 9/11 terrorists. It is a total needle in a hay stack. It is a lot easier to thwart an invading army. They have set themselves out on a ridiculous task. It would have been better to absorb the punch. Until we come to the realization that peace is better than war we have to continue on this path. Realize that a total collapse of the economy because we are x in debit is no worse than a total collapse of the economy if we are 10x in debit. In this respect it is like death. You can only die once. A collapse is a collapse. We might as well put it off for as long as we can. Take the con artist who bankrupted a bank. If they play nice guy and turn himself in, he's going to prison. If he gambles, he might go to prison, but then again he might not. If he plays the nice guy, the bank might fail anyway. 5 years verses 20 years in prison either way whatever you had is gone. Kiss the wife good bye. It is slightly better to have 5 years, but that's about it. After a few years you will have had time to acclimate to your new environment. This is a variation of the prisoner's dilemma. Those in power are familiar with the prisoner's dilemma and its rational solution. What we need to fear is someone without an education who thinks he or she can get us out of this mess, home grown nonsense. Our best chances are to continue to work with the very ideas that have put us into this mess to begin with. Only after things settle down and we get past this crisis will we be able to reflect on what we got wrong. That is perhaps why little has changed. Why the same people who f*cked us are still at the helm because they are the only ones who actually have some measure of understanding of the problem. I hope to bring sanity to the world. I believe that one day I will move the axis of the world. It is vital that I survive, well fed and sexed. My advise is, Don't go jumping out of any windows. Stay the course.

rulemylife -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 6:19:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM It sounds like you are also referring to Occam's Razor, but not quite. My analysis shows that we have given up reason altogether in that none of it is intellectually honest. Superficially, it looks like reason, but isn't. It is formality without logic. In order for a formal logical argument to be sound it must satisfy two conditions: It must be structurally sound. Its premises must be true. People have taken stoicism, for example (think Mr. Spock), as logic. As long as it is free of all emotion, it must be logical! Yeah right. I can remain logical during the most passionate states imaginable which I suppose is an intellectual accomplishment in itself, to have that sort of control and focus. Think, brother of Mr. Spock, the passionate Vulcan. He was a character in one of the Star Trek films. Let me see. It was Star Trek 5 The Final Frontier. Actually, the notion of the passionate Vulcan was a concept that Leonard Nimoy who played Mr. Spock had been building on for years. It is interesting that Leonard Nimoy is a poet. In a sense that he was trying to create is in a way the essence of poetry. It could be argued that it took a poet to create Mr. Spock and do what Leonard Nimoy did with the character. His character was a masterpiece. I have managed to create a semi-poetic style of my own as well. I am certainly intellectually dominant in that I can destroy someone who is very smart with such ease as to not even notice it. Most are not as nearly as intellectually dominant as me. Most rely more on snobbery. Because I am very dominant. I am not submissive and the world demands a create deal of submissiveness. This makes me an independent thinker. Believe it or not, I rarely think about Mr. Spock. But it is certainly nice to have someone here who is "intellectually dominant". I'm quite sure you can teach us a lot. Especially about StarTrek.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 6:33:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife ... It is certainly nice to have someone here who is "intellectually dominant". I'm quite sure you can teach us a lot. Especially about StarTrek. I am confident that you speak for the masses [8\|].

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 6:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Who knows, you might be able to solve the problem in one fell swoop. I'm working on it. In all seriousness, it will take a few years to amass all the knowledge that I will need to put what I know in the proper form to be useful. In the meantime I can't only hope the world is around when I'm finished. At the present time my work is much too abstract. The cynicism of people, especially females, is so great that they are willing to toss out the very thing they are looking for according to some egotistical notion that they know better. I exempt myself from this naturally because I know better. I have not worked so hard to get no where. The snobs can shove it because at days end I will be their superior and they will be kissing my ass. I needed some recreation, too much f-ing study.

rulemylife -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 6:58:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I am confident that you speak for the masses [8\|]. Which, of course, you are intellectually superior to.

CerVeza -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 7:00:59 AM)
Lets raise the debt ceiling to a bazillion million billion, it doesn't matter. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN and to make sure leftists don't whine all over the carpet. Seriously though, no to the debt ceiling raise until there are substantial cuts. One is that silly monster called obamacare. Ever notice leftists are sooo generous... with your money? Not so good giving their own money.

rulemylife -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 7:23:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CerVeza Lets raise the debt ceiling to a bazillion million billion, it doesn't matter. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN and to make sure leftists don't whine all over the carpet. Seriously though, no to the debt ceiling raise until there are substantial cuts. One is that silly monster called obamacare. Ever notice leftists are sooo generous... with your money? Not so good giving their own money. You do realize that the debt ceiling was raised seven times in the eight years of the Bush administration? Five of those seven by a Republican Congress. Ever notice that you rarely have any idea what you are talking about?

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 7:39:07 AM)
I left this implicit earlier, but the problem is that we already went past bazillion million billion. This is not the first time we were in this pickle. The first time it was kept out of the newspapers. It is almost like we are sitting at our desks in the World Trade Center waiting for the building to fall. The damage was already done. Yet, there remains hope that everything is going to be ok. The problem at the moment isn't about fixing it. It is about keeping the building from finally imploding by all means possible. It's all white knuckles. The building is about as near collapse as it can get, but ingenuity may yet prevail. The old rhetoric about future generations I fear is no longer relevant. It is no longer about the future. It is about the here and now. Only if we resolve the present crisis can we concern ourselves with future generations. How to explain it? Where is all this money? It is stored in the form of potential energy as stress in the super-structure. As long as everyone remains calm things will not fall out of balance. So I suppose, go ahead and worry about future generations so long as it is all rhetoric. It will keep you distracted. I'm going to unsubscribe and check back less frequently so as to avoid distraction myself. I don't care because all that I know is that I'm at my desk and I've got things to do. Can't do anything about it so I'm going to let the firemen take care of it. Revision History I thought to add the second and third paragraphs.

tazzygirl -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 8:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: CerVeza Lets raise the debt ceiling to a bazillion million billion, it doesn't matter. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN and to make sure leftists don't whine all over the carpet. Seriously though, no to the debt ceiling raise until there are substantial cuts. One is that silly monster called obamacare. Ever notice leftists are sooo generous... with your money? Not so good giving their own money. You do realize that the debt ceiling was raised seven times in the eight years of the Bush administration? Five of those seven by a Republican Congress. Ever notice that you rarely have any idea what you are talking about? dont confuse him with facts. the fantasy world must be a preferable place.

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 10:46:05 AM)
We probably ought to start a thread in which we can discuss these finer points of reasoning, the solid color of base logic versus the fractals created by precise thought. Sometimes it is time to think without a blow by blow account, like announcing a play by play at a sporting event. If I have read you correctly you seem to think that our "leaders" have taken a nihilistic approach to the problem. I think it possible. That would also then mean that they think it best to forestall the inevitable, at whatever cost. This is where I disagree. I played the bankruptcy game. There was a point when I knew that it was never going to get paid off, and defaulted with perfect timing. I did not wait until the last minute. There was a proper time, and that is when I did it. This is what this country should do in my opinion. What happens after the inevitable ? Well usually one picks up the pieces and rebuilds. The problem here is that each day, more and more of the tools and materials we will need to rebuild are disappearing. Companies moving entire factories overseas, selling off valuable equipment for scrap, basically gutting the place. The finely crafted industrial structure is effectively being thrown into a huge bonfire. We have but a slim chance now, but not for long. Not only are our raw materials and machines being scrapped for a quick buck, the educational system is in the dumpster as well, and with no signs of rising above - anything. The fact is that all US citizens cannot become thinkers and ponderers, or even soldiers. The resouces run thin. All we have is an agricultural base. Wheat, bombs, planes and a few other things. We do not use our own mass market, which was cultivated for decades. We make paper clips and pizzas. The rest of the mass market has been taken over by "free trade". Nobody ever considered that free trade is not necessarily fair trade. those who paint a rosy picture of this economy and it's future are delusional, but not moreso than than average. For many years the USSR boasted of growth, and chided us for our unbridled consumerism which was part of what they called our decadence. But now, when was the last time you saw the letters CCPL on something new ? They collapsed. But they are still there, and things are getting better. It was Putin I think who warned our politicians not to do what they did because it does not work. They learned from their mistakes, and that is due to the effect of consequences. Isolation from consequences is the perfect recipe for dull minds. People read something that is positive and think it's all going to be just fine. It is not. So what if we just said that in a certain year we are simply going to stop paying interest on the national debt ? Not to mention that we will not be returning the principle right away. We would be forced to live within our means. How bad can that be for the supposedly richest country on the planet ? Well it can be bad. We continually dismantle every piece of the "machine" that made this economy strong. this is true on many levels and it is clear that the wrong people are in power and have been for a long time. However, saying that does not solve anything. I am near concluding that nothing can be done, even if the most intelligent and insightful were to lead, it has simply gone too far. So if that is true, the collapse is inevitable. Then the process of rebuilding true wealth can begin. Why not now ? The sooner we start the sooner we get it done. Occam would be correct in asserting this I think. To get down to the straight talk, nobody wants a bite of the shit sandwich. Of course we don't. But to not act to correct the situation by whatever means is to lay this problem on future generations, and current trends indicate that they will be even less able to deal with it when the time comes. The change has to come at all levels. From the bum at Bill's gate to Bill Gates, from the dog catcher to the President. The people speak with the loudest voice possible when - and every time - they have to get the latest and greatest Chinese junk. When they buy those gadgets they create jobs, but not here. There have been calls to "buy American", and it is/was not a small movement. But now it is impossible. And people have no clue why the raw materials for a product can be shipped across the ocean, assembled and then shipped back at a lower total cost than if the product was manufactured here. And of course there is the pie in the sky. People who can't even read their own diploma think that they, in fact we all can be intellectuals and we don't have to build anything. It is a form of hubris to think one's self above actual work. Can the engineer who designed part of your car read a micrometer ? Can the designer of your TV set read and effectively interpret that trace on an oscilloscope ? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. They are above such things. They do not read, they write. Take that aspect into the equation. Everyone knows how to write but noone knows how to read. What then is a value of being able to write ? The international market largely does not want our product, they want our materials. They can process them more efficiently because of labor costs. Pay someone two bucks a day and he'll be happy to get out of that mud and straw hut, and will kiss your feet, while we, having had a taste of le dolce vita would laugh at that offer for our precious time. The only thing a proletarian has to sell of any value worth mentioning is his time. That holds true in alot more situations than most know. What's more, due to mental laziness, poor education and the loss of the work ethic, that precious time falls in value. And it will be all we have left. We are selling off our natural resources, which actually includes scrap, like steel and aluminum, etc. So if this goes on for long enough, not only will we be unable to use the natural resources, we won't have them anyway. If we had taken a big bite of the shit sandwich about twenty years ago, recovery would not be as hard as it would be today. There is no reason to believe that trend will change, so what's the point of waiting ? The point of waiting is selfishness. Only the here and now matters. The "ME" generations. Our prosperity was false. It was an illusion, like an athelete with a serious cancer growing inside, destined to become nothing but a shell with cosmetic surgery. Or perhaps a gun. (by gun I mean very powerful weapons, that's my metaphor for the day) The problem is acute, malignant and rapidly getting worse. I can see it at all levels of society. Perhaps people do tend to see what they're looking for, but if I am looking for a needle in a haystack, a hammer is not the right tool. Who among us is getting regular raises in pay, or is experiencing low or no "inflation" ? I can't think of anyone. There are very few places on Earth without debt, or with reasonable debt. Antarctica comes to mind. How can everyone be in debt to each other at the same time ? There is a load, the load of people who make money supposedly from thin air. But like any other scam, which is what it is, once too many people do it, there is a problem. I know the rest of the world is not in the greatest of shape, but I am concerned with this country. I have no control over what this country does, and even less over what other countries do. Is there a valid solution ? I am starting to think there is not. T

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 4:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or We probably ought to start a thread in which we can discuss these finer points of reasoning. I doubt you could publish a paper on the subject. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or If I have read you correctly you seem to think that our "leaders" have taken a nihilistic approach to the problem. It could be said that the whole of Western society is based on nihilism and has been so for a long time. The problem is the modern world is one big social experiment with no precedent. There is no guarantee that it will survive. Our leaders are making it up as we go along. It has all been at the seat of our pants since the beginning. It is just that we though it was going to be war or overpopulation or something like that, that was going to do us in. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I think it possible. That would also then mean that they think it best to forestall the inevitable, at whatever cost. That is what life is all about, forestalling the inevitable. What you are advocating is hopelessness. As long as there is time, there is hope. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I played the bankruptcy game. There was a point when I knew that it was never going to get paid off, and defaulted with perfect timing. I did not wait until the last minute. A single bank will have enough resources to forestall its demise for some time. Here we are talking about the world economy. The World Trade Center buildings were an example. They took their time. The World Trade Center did not behave as typical buildings do for a reason. They were built very much like the current global economy is built today, along similar principles. How those buildings fell is how the global economy is going to fall if it should. It could mean the end of human civilization so I don't think you fully understand the potential ramifications of "biting the bullet" are. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Is there a valid solution ? Pray quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or If I am looking for a needle in a haystack, a hammer is not the right tool. Home grown nonsense. Terror is a very effective instrument of control. It is what is used in the game of chess. You disallow your opponent to make certain moves because the move is too expensive to consider. The problem with the war is that it was expensive and may have taken us in the same direction as Star Wars, what Reagan's Star Wars had done to the former Soviet Union. It bankrupted them. A few years later it is possible that we may have bankrupted ourselves fighting a pointless war and brought an end to our society. Socrates warned his city state of the impending disaster. He was executed for it. We do have tweezers. It is called spying on the American people. That is our tweezer. Ain't that a lovely shit sandwich. Just apply reason for a moment. Shortly after 9/11 our national defense was on high alert, but where was the enemy? Are you saying 19 airline hijackers brought down the mighty United States single handedly? Apparently so. The terrorists don't even need to bother attacking us. We have been doing their job for them. There is a medical condition where the immune system of the body attacks you and that is what our immune system has done. It has attacked us. It couldn't handle 19 airline hijackers with box cutters. Maybe al-Qaeda is the AIDS virus and we managed to contract AIDS.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/16/2011 5:55:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: CerVeza Lets raise the debt ceiling to a bazillion million billion, it doesn't matter. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN and to make sure leftists don't whine all over the carpet. Seriously though, no to the debt ceiling raise until there are substantial cuts. One is that silly monster called obamacare. Ever notice leftists are sooo generous... with your money? Not so good giving their own money. You do realize that the debt ceiling was raised seven times in the eight years of the Bush administration? Five of those seven by a Republican Congress. Ever notice that you rarely have any idea what you are talking about? dont confuse him with facts. the fantasy world must be a preferable place. And Obama voted against them. Why the turnaround? Because when you have no experience you have to learn some things on the job.

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/17/2011 6:16:41 AM)
"I doubt you could publish a paper on the subject." You seem to come to that semi-condescending attitude honestly, so I take no offense. I have no intention however of publishing a paper that very few would read or understand. Speaking of publishing, note the difference in the words "bare" and "bear". Note the relative spellings do not support the excuse of a typographical error in : "For fairness sake, this is something you need to bare in mind." Enough on that. Suffice it to say that I am not without error. "It could be said that the whole of Western society is based on nihilism and has been so for a long time." I won't debate that, but the scope is larger than simply that extant in western civilization. Consider the Shinto tenet concerning extreme pride in dying for the Emporer. I find it universal in religion. Even the framers of the Constitution could not keep religion out. Not that they didn't try. Note the use of the word "Creator" in that document. They still failed. "That is what life is all about, forestalling the inevitable." I reject that. If you are talking about death of the individual I suppose it is true. But those who control society must think in terms of that society. Forestalling the inevitable simply passes the buck so to speak on future generations. On a personal level, say you have no health insurance. You and your child both need a life saving operation and you can only afford one or the other. There is nowhere to turn for help. Who gets the operation ? "The World Trade Center did not behave as typical buildings do for a reason. They were built very much like the current global economy is built today, along similar principles" With that I will agree. Modern buildings are structured for a controlled demolishion, at the end of their life cycle. Some take this as evidence of some great conspiracy, and though it is, it is not compelling. It does seem however, that the structure of the economy is now intended to have a finite life. I will not conclude though, that it was intended to be in the beginning. But that is neither here nor there, what it is now is what we have to deal with, no question. "It could mean the end of human civilization so I don't think you fully understand the potential ramifications of "biting the bullet" are." I don't agree. My hometown went into default. The reasons were not even the typical ones, but the results were not catastrophic as they were made out to be. Nobody came and rolled the desks out of city hall. Police and fire services didn't grind to a screeching halt. All the bogeymen were false. Details on that situation avilable on request, and how it applies to a nationwide default is not completely clear. Defaulting does not mean the end of the federal reserve as some have claimed. Even if it did another way to transfer money would be established. The difference is that we would not be able to trade internationally as easily without credit. This would bring forth a forced isolationism that some actually would support. Some say there would be no more benefits for the retired or disabled. I'm not so sure. For example they pay farmers not to grow certain crops. Simple reasoning tells that this is a form of price support, to eliminate competition. Who do you think would sponsor such actions ? Big business of course. Sometimes the effect can draw attention to the cause. Why would the government purposely make food more expensive for it's citizens ? There are very few answers that fit, none of them in the public interest. "Pray " I really hope you were joking. "Home grown nonsense. Terror is a very effective instrument of control. " Sorry, I did not use the hammer reference as a metaphor. The inefficiency of government is quite apparent, and is so prevalent that it is probably by design. And nihilistic ? Look at the real results of the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Details on request. But the end result was a very small upsurge in the economy, at the expense of more personal credit defaults. "what Reagan's Star Wars had done to the former Soviet Union" What happened to the USSR was not our doing. It was outright theft on a grand scale. We could never accomplish that because they have alot in the way of natural resources. Internal problems caused their demise, and are probably what will cause ours. Did our prosperity depend on minerals from the ground ? It may be a good fallback to sustain an economy, but is not the whole picture. Consider the emergence of Japan at the international economic table so to speak. They had and have practically no mineral resources. Just a port and labor. We still have the ports, but we fail at selling the labor. As I said before, everyone is not destined to or capable of becoming a thinker, an engineer, or some other professional without physical labor. There is a large contingent of proletarians who have no such abilities or aspirations. If we don't sell their labor, we either have to support them, or kill them, either by direct action or attrition. "We do have tweezers. It is called spying on the American people. That is our tweezer. Ain't that a lovely shit sandwich" Tell me about it ! What's more such actions do nothing to make us any safer or to fix the real problem. Typical these days. "Are you saying 19 airline hijackers brought down the mighty United States single handedly? Apparently so." Huh ? I never asserted any such thing. I have written though that looking for the hijackers was futile, because they are all dead. So they look for the twentieth hijacker, just like they "looked" for McVeigh's accomplice. Those who are fed up with the actions of the US government do not number in the dozens, it's more like billions. At least a billion. Consider the reasons why, and what it cost to get here. Who paid for it ? This is one of the things which must stop. However we are now in so deep that closing say, 100 military bases over the the world wouldn't do any good. There would be no jobs for these ex-soldiers. They would either live on a military pension, SS or work for the government. That does nothing to even begin to ameliorate the problem. "It couldn't handle 19 airline hijackers with box cutters. Maybe al-Qaeda is the AIDS virus and we managed to contract AIDS. " Not the best metaphor, but I get the point. However the fact still remains that if we minded our own business neither AIDS nor terrorist attacks would be an issue. Nobody, even in Russia would entertain the idea of attacking us in any rational thought. With Russia we have M.A.D., very few others have even the ability to attack us, except by terrorist means, which are essentially guerilla tactics, but carried out somewhere other than one's homeland. Even Hitler would have never considered it. And the North Viet Namese would never have strapped bombs to children if we weren't there, invading their country. Strange how resources were spent to preserve the Union here back in the late 1800s, and then resources were spent to break up unions on foreign lands thereafter. Probably an outgrowth of the "divide and conquer" methodology. This all has to stop. Perhaps our "leaders" see some sort of pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but nobody else sees it, and it has not materialized either. That phosphorous in Viet Nam would not make or break us, neither would the cadmium in Serbia. Antagonizing the middle east has also not come to fruition based the price of petroleum based products. So my conclusion is that these means were not effective. And to keep repeating the same actions expecting a different result is the definition of what ? This is why a "controlled meltdown" is necessary to set things right. Like slow fission, under control, while we still have some measure of control. You are of course aware of what happens when fission is not under control. T

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/17/2011 7:01:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CerVeza Lets raise the debt ceiling to a bazillion million billion, it doesn't matter. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN and to make sure leftists don't whine all over the carpet. Seriously though, no to the debt ceiling raise until there are substantial cuts. One is that silly monster called obamacare. Ever notice leftists are sooo generous... with your money? Not so good giving their own money. Take off your Limbaugh colored glasses. Were were you when Reagan quadrupled the national debt? Where were you when Bush ran deficits up and up and up again? Probably somewhere waving the Republican flag, blathering about patriotism, while the structural deficit got worse and worse--yet continually ignored. While nothing got done about social security or Medicaid/Medicare, and while a health care system spiraling out of control got.....a prescription drug plan for seniors that didn't work. This partisan crap is why we have financial crises. If every "leftist" disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change.

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/17/2011 7:48:08 AM)
The republican flag : [image]local://upfiles/196508/521BE8BF55344BFD9FAB6296580F7780.jpg[/image]

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/18/2011 6:58:57 PM)
Termyn8or you raised numerous points. I set out to respond to each of your points, but ran out of time. Instead I thought to respond to something you wrote and I settled on this. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Modern buildings are structured for a controlled demolishion, at the end of their life cycle. This is not what I was talking about. To be blunt I don't really want to share what I know because the things I know are the result of much hard work over a life time. It is a matter of self-respect. I want at least credit. It is unlikely that I will receive it, however. I will just be walked over and so I don't see the point. What I would need is a grant to carry out the computer simulations on a supercomputer, at a minimum. My focus, however, is elsewhere. If it made me money, I might be interested, because then a female would be interested in me. I'm not going to get pussy, this way. Pussy doesn't respond to these things.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625