GeorgiaDon 340
Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteSo THAT"S why they all like NASCAR!QuoteThe 1% make money off of crashes you know
Don
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
One step closer to "Big Brother". This time on a world-wide basis.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
rushmc 18
QuoteOne step closer to "Big Brother". This time on a world-wide basis.
+1
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
The last thing we need is Bigger Governments. We already have too many unionized public sectors people who spend their entire day surfing the internet telling the world how Big Government is the solution to all our problems if we only forever eliminated those pesky entities called corporations from the world landscape. We don't need more of the same.
Now if you will excuse me, I must head off to work now. Someone has to pay for all those "anti-business" unionized government workers and their promises of socialist bliss under their nanny state.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Now if you will excuse me, I must head off to work now. Someone has to pay for all those "anti-business" unionized government workers and their promises of socialist bliss under their nanny state.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
QuoteQuoteOne step closer to "Big Brother". This time on a world-wide basis.
+1
i dissagree, good regulation maintains a fair and orderly market. its why our stock markets are the world standard. i might not like the day to day hassles of everything being followed and tracked but you surprisingly settle in. As long as i believe it protects our market i dont care if people listen in on everything.
with that said, however, most problems come from unregulated securities. mortgage derivatives are a perfect example. they are to complex and unique for regulators to follow. they dont trade on exchanges but by contracts. there aren't enough people to regulate each contract so the gov't leave the onus on the participates. It failed recently and i have yet to hear how to fix it in an intelligent way.
maybe these guys are on to something. not saying they are but at least they are thinking of actually regulating as opposed to the typical BS you hear. taxes arent regulation, nor are price caps and fixed markets.
(edited to clarify point) i dont want a world regulator. sorry, if it reads that way. What i saying is the main problem is no one can figure out how to regulate the unregulated. my point is that we need to start thinking of HOW to compile this data so it can be followed. this is at least a start to a smart conversation. instead of the usual jail every BS.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante
John Frusciante
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteOne step closer to "Big Brother". This time on a world-wide basis.
+1
i dissagree, good regulation maintains a fair and orderly market. its why our stock markets are the world standard. i might not like the day to day hassles of everything being followed and tracked but you surprisingly settle in. As long as i believe it protects our market i dont care if people listen in on everything.
with that said, however, most problems come from unregulated securities. mortgage derivatives are a perfect example. they are to complex and unique for regulators to follow. they dont trade on exchanges but by contracts. there aren't enough people to regulate each contract so the gov't leave the onus on the participates. It failed recently and i have yet to hear how to fix it in an intelligent way.
maybe these guys are on to something. not saying they are but at least they are thinking of actually regulating as opposed to the typical BS you hear. taxes arent regulation, nor are price caps and fixed markets.
What is good regulation? We are seeing the affects of over regulation today IMO. Regualtions and rules are the reason this down turn will not go away.
I agree there has to be some but, one regulator world wide?
Think about it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
good regulation is what we have with stocks. trades must be reported. holders are reported. financials are reported. firms must disclose their exposure etc... non of this is new or considered a large hindrance. anyone who has traded in third world markets welcome our regulations.
we need to figure out how to regulate derivatives like stocks. i have no idea how to do it and so far neither does anyone else. we need to work on it because they are here to stay.
we need to figure out how to regulate derivatives like stocks. i have no idea how to do it and so far neither does anyone else. we need to work on it because they are here to stay.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante
John Frusciante
QuoteOne step closer to "Big Brother". This time on a world-wide basis.
Big Brother is already here! Every man, woman and child has a cell-phone with camera capabilities. They post it on youtube. Hell, law enforcement monitors youtube because idiot bad guys post video of their crimes. Everywhere you go, there are surveilance cameras. You can't change socks without being on camera! The government doesn't have to do it... we do it to ourselves. Not how we imagined it, huh? Not to mention we save the government for cameras and etc.
Chuck
An interesting, article, but an article that is dated by ohhhhh...... thirty years. Not to mention that it's denial of reality is stupid. Below is the only reality based paragraph in the article.
National regulators may only be interested in a quite narrow subset of the data for the institutions for which they have responsibility. These data could be part of, or distinct from, the global architecture.
Where will the global community find these regulatory "angels" who will be so selfless? This notion that an entity that has the influence to guide a global financial network will be effective is "pie in the sky", misty eyed liberal dream-dancing. Each country has and pursues differing interests, and goals. Brazil's goals would be, and are, immensely different, if not in opposition, to those of Holland.
Since the EU is the lab rat model, and is failing, to suggest that the concept be advanced to a planetary level is foolish. As if the Chinese actually would be willing to accommodate, to their possible temporary detriment, a non-oil producing nation in distress. Ridiculous.
National regulators may only be interested in a quite narrow subset of the data for the institutions for which they have responsibility. These data could be part of, or distinct from, the global architecture.
Where will the global community find these regulatory "angels" who will be so selfless? This notion that an entity that has the influence to guide a global financial network will be effective is "pie in the sky", misty eyed liberal dream-dancing. Each country has and pursues differing interests, and goals. Brazil's goals would be, and are, immensely different, if not in opposition, to those of Holland.
Since the EU is the lab rat model, and is failing, to suggest that the concept be advanced to a planetary level is foolish. As if the Chinese actually would be willing to accommodate, to their possible temporary detriment, a non-oil producing nation in distress. Ridiculous.
article by - Andy Haldane executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England in London
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Quotearticle by - Andy Haldane executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England in London
And..? It's still off the mark, unrealistic, and a proven fallacy.
I suggest you read up on Milton Friedman..... True, you may find it distasteful, as he was an American Nobel prize recipient.
[Reply]most problems come from unregulated securities.
Hmm. Here I thought market problems usually stem from market perceptions. Mortgage derivatives were great till people stopped paying mortgages. I guess that once you learn how to control people's minds, you control the market. Even monetarists and libertarians, however, believe in
Re: dreamdancer. Note that people have spent the past few centuries working to predict the market. There's a lot of money to be made if they can. Government won't work to predict the market but to control it. This is Keynes.
Also note that predictions are easiest to perform when you get strong signals. The problem is that we can't filter out signal from noise because of things like minimum wages that make true market conditions impossible to figure out.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
>Hmm. Here I thought market problems usually stem from market perceptions. Mortgage derivatives were great till people stopped paying mortgages. I guess that once you learn how to control people's minds, you control the market. Even monetarists and libertarians, however, believe in
i dont dissagree, if everyone payed their mortgages there wouldnot have been a problem. what im saying is that since there is little reporting on these securities you dont know you have a prolblem till its too late. all im suggesting is basic reporting and regulaton, similiar to stocks. its not big brother or world domination. pretty modest idea imo.
i dont dissagree, if everyone payed their mortgages there wouldnot have been a problem. what im saying is that since there is little reporting on these securities you dont know you have a prolblem till its too late. all im suggesting is basic reporting and regulaton, similiar to stocks. its not big brother or world domination. pretty modest idea imo.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante
John Frusciante
"Also note that predictions are easiest to perform when you get strong signals. The problem is that we can't filter out signal from noise because of things like minimum wages that make true market conditions impossible to figure out."
True.........
Those "strong signals" have to pass through too many political and National interest filters before they get to the global evaluation and/or prediction phase. Forget formulation of policy and implementation. That "tweaked" data would be long out of date and useless by that stage.
What is that phrase about people who stand in a circle and......?
True.........
Those "strong signals" have to pass through too many political and National interest filters before they get to the global evaluation and/or prediction phase. Forget formulation of policy and implementation. That "tweaked" data would be long out of date and useless by that stage.
What is that phrase about people who stand in a circle and......?
QuoteQuotearticle by - Andy Haldane executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England in London
And..? It's still off the mark, unrealistic, and a proven fallacy.
I suggest you read up on Milton Friedman..... True, you may find it distasteful, as he was an American Nobel prize recipient.
keynes has always made more economic sense to me - friedman was just a bean counter...
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
"friedman was just a bean counter..."
Milton Friedman an Actuary..? The global community is laffing at your evaluation.
OK.... Apply some Keynes to the debate.
Keynes had very a very simple idea and showed mathematically how the government plays a role in economies.
A pure capitalism has buyers and sellers. But governments take money out and put money back in. So there are three factors.
Keynes believed that control of one could lead to control of the other two, thus providing stabilization of the markets. Government, through its taxing and spending, could influence the market to go where the government wants it to go. This, of course, makes sense. On the surface.
But once we see it in actiuon, we realize that government intervention skews value. Thus, government could determine that gasoline was only worth 50 cents a gallon and make a law commanding it. Problem - gasoline was worth far more. This led to demand far in excess of supply and long lines for gasoline and shortages of it. And disruption of the economy.
It's proven time and again that Keynes could impact the economy in a meanignful way, such as stagflation and the misery index. Keynes is also seen in European countries. There is no way in hell a non-Keynesian or socialist runs up massive governmental debt like the US, Greece, Italy, etc.
And I understand why you think Keynes made sense. Because you feel a connection. It's not about thinking but "feeling." I'm trying to consider five times when you've put thought into things versus cutting and pasting another's ideas, venting with mottos, and launching homophobic insults.
Keynes said, "when the accumulatuion of wealth is no longer of high social importance there will be a great change in the code of morals." This is right up your alley. Note - "accumulation of welath" can only be fought by taking of wealth and putting it to accumulate elsewhere. Which s my problem with your statements. You don't wamt all wealth to evaporate. You just want wealth taken away from some and given to others.
Your own individual code of morals. Religions makes codes of morals. And you're a Bible thumper for yours, pointing to sinners that must be changed. And seeking the wealth of Pat Robertson.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Keynes believed that control of one could lead to control of the other two, thus providing stabilization of the markets. Government, through its taxing and spending, could influence the market to go where the government wants it to go. This, of course, makes sense. On the surface.
But once we see it in actiuon, we realize that government intervention skews value. Thus, government could determine that gasoline was only worth 50 cents a gallon and make a law commanding it. Problem - gasoline was worth far more. This led to demand far in excess of supply and long lines for gasoline and shortages of it. And disruption of the economy.
It's proven time and again that Keynes could impact the economy in a meanignful way, such as stagflation and the misery index. Keynes is also seen in European countries. There is no way in hell a non-Keynesian or socialist runs up massive governmental debt like the US, Greece, Italy, etc.
And I understand why you think Keynes made sense. Because you feel a connection. It's not about thinking but "feeling." I'm trying to consider five times when you've put thought into things versus cutting and pasting another's ideas, venting with mottos, and launching homophobic insults.
Keynes said, "when the accumulatuion of wealth is no longer of high social importance there will be a great change in the code of morals." This is right up your alley. Note - "accumulation of welath" can only be fought by taking of wealth and putting it to accumulate elsewhere. Which s my problem with your statements. You don't wamt all wealth to evaporate. You just want wealth taken away from some and given to others.
Your own individual code of morals. Religions makes codes of morals. And you're a Bible thumper for yours, pointing to sinners that must be changed. And seeking the wealth of Pat Robertson.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
keynes makes sense because he seems to understand the function of money. the monetarists just count their money...
(for example - who does money belong to?)
(for example - who does money belong to?)
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Quotekeynes makes sense because he seems to understand the function of money. the monetarists just count their money...
(for example - who does money belong to?)
Please stay on topic, and apply Keynes to the thread you started.
off topic i would say...
Quoteventing with mottos, and launching homophobic insults.
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Quoteoff topic i would say...
Quoteventing with mottos, and launching homophobic insults.
OK....... Shall we revisit your tale of raising cattle in Dartmoor swamp, near a military impact area?
Cattle, being skittish and susceptible to noise, and ground tremor might not fare well around, oh... super sonic fighter bomber jets. Armored vehicles with 120 mm smooth bore high velocity guns. Artillery. Mortars. Machine guns, and singe rifle shots.
Even Keynes would agree that your choice of pasture land and real estate in the rugged, granite hills area north of Dartmoor might need reevaluation.
From another thread you started.
Don
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites