Some more bad news if the economy doesn't improve

Well there is some logic there.. Let's see, skirts go up, we go up so big brain thinks less hence less stress, less stress makes for happier guys, happier/hornier guys spend more time at the clubs and spend more money which goes to the ladies, the ladies then spend more money on tangible items and thus the economy gets better and as a result the stocks go up. Okay, works for me. Up with the skirts.

One of the major presidential candidates wants to increase federal spending (and therefore either increase taxes or the deficit or both); the other wants to curb federal spending a bit and not increase taxes on us. If you don't want the economy to get worse, hope the latter candidate wins.

I got a 45% raise last week, on top of a 30% raise in March... so my income has nearly doubled this year.

On top of that, my own side business is off to a good start, a grand or two extra a month to invest.

I just see this as a huge stock sale - amazing time to slam as much money into the markets as possible.

America is still on top of the world politically and militarily, populations are increasing (more customers) and plenty of people are making money - I can honestly say I don't know *anyone* myself who has actually suffered in this "bad economy".

While the elections are important, the fact of the matter is that the USA is still a juggernaut.

Things will improve, as they always have.

We'll adapt, equilibrate and eventually conquer energy security, terrorism, and climate change (whatever that is.)

And fear not, the hoeification of America will continue - skirts will shorten, sluttiness will prevail.

It's a bright future!

O.

I agree with Ozymandias' view. The US IS still a just a juggernaut, largely uncontrollable in the short-term -- I think I once read that some studies have pointed out that stock-market benefits from a given President's or Congress' policies take over 10 years to work their way through the pipeline of the economy -- but I think there are a few major things which can turn this super-tanker on a dime. The events of 9/11 were one -- "overnight" it all changed, perceptions and policies, the economy, and what people could or could not do with certain government offices. Another was (and people keep forgetting this) Katrina -- especially its impact on the oil business. Without Katrina having essentially shut down several major refineries, and the pipelines leading to America's SUVs, the oil industry would not have had half the chutzpah it has now, to tote up record profits despite record crude-oil costs. "Peak oil" was coming, and probably soon -- within the next twenty years? -- but Katrina enabled Big-Oil's alleviation of a MENTAL BLOCK which American consumers had.

Another thing which I think will be a "big tipping point" will be development of some kind of major drug campaign to "fix" many addictions that are out there right now. Our economic woes -- at least in my book, where I get to define "our" and "woe" as I see fit :-) -- can nearly all be ascribed to inner-city decay and, in large part therefore, to the crack and heroin problems we have. I'm looking into investing in companies that are looking for "anti-addiction drugs." Seems to me the next big thing.

Just some thoughts. I would also hope that there'd be a "women get horny for Book Guy" drug on the market soon, too ... but that's a different issue ...

"One of the major presidential candidates wants to increase federal spending (and therefore either increase taxes or the deficit or both); the other wants to curb federal spending a bit and not increase taxes on us."

Don't be so stupid...raising taxes on the rich (like probably oz...lol...) is different than raising taxes on you & me. The track record of the two Party's philosophies is very clear at this point. Supply-side (cutting taxes for the rich & continuing to raise spending) economics has failed under two different GOP Presidents while Congress was controlled by *either Party* & has led to massive debt & deficits...while pay-as-you-go (raising taxes on mostly the rich to pay for future or past spending) has led to balanced budgets & some of the longest & largest economic expansions in post-war history.

I have basically no idea what the heck BG is talking about with respect to Katrina...the record oil industry profits & record crude oil costs go hand-in-hand...

MG, the two major economic models are based on assumptions about human nature. Let's test the principal assumption: do you tend naturally to spend your limited resources on yourself and loved ones first, or do you tend naturally to give your limited resources away and hope for the best?
Supply side assumes most people behave as one who would answer the former, while demand side assumes the opposite.
The supply side assumption is consistent with reality, which is why that model always works and the demand side model always fails.
As for your recap of recent history, you focused on the executive branch, but the legislative branch writes the budget. In recent history, when the legislative branch has made fiscal policy based on supply side principles (notably during the "republican revolution" of the mid-nineties), the economic engine has purred the sweetest. You may recall that President Clinton said the "balanced budget" would take at least 9 years (i.e., not on my watch), but Newt's congress said they'd do it in 6, and they actually did it in 4.
And even though we still have not been in a recession in these past few years, economic times have gotten notably gloomier lately. What happened in the past couple years that has in fact had a worse impact on the economy than 9/11 and Katrina combined? (Hint: Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid)

"Altruism is a demand-side ethic, based on the view that the distribution of goods is the fundamental issue in ethics and that the needy have first claim on goods. In defending egoism, Ayn Rand did not merely defend a new standard for the beneficiary of one's actions. She completely recast the framework of debate by denying that distribution is the fundamental issue.

Rand was the first thinker, to my knowledge, who proposed a genuine supply-side ethic. She recognized that achievement, not suffering, is the central fact of human existence. She honored the act of creating value above the act of giving it away."

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--36…

The author of your quote put it far more eloquently than I, jablake. Thanks for posting that.

Rand was right. Consider: can you name a single altruist? Really?

Depends on your definition of altruist. Heck, some people consider me to be an altruist as if every action in business or otherwise *must* be for the almighty greenback.

Here is, imo, a poor definition: "someone who makes charitable donations intended to increase human well-being." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q… Under that definition President Bush might be considered an altuist; he must have donated a $1 or $2, which was intended to increase human well-being. And, to name one--- Bill Gates.

Some may argue that entire economies can be based on altruism e.g. potlatch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

BTW, my favorite book on the subject of economics that I love to recommend is "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement"
by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statem…

One major disagreement I have with Nobel Prize winning economist is his reasoning as to why the dollar has value. I was just shaking my head NO!!! If I remember correctly he stated it has value because people think it has value! :( I believe he is way too intelligent to actually believe that, but revealing the truth would potentially open a nasty can of worms assuming people aren't dumber than door knobs.

jablake, it does not "depend on your definition of altruist." Words mean what they mean, and my opinion on the matter is not relevant. Here's what altruism means: "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." I contend that any economic model based on the idea that people will naturally tend to behave this way (consistently) must fail, for that assumption is demonstrably false.

Evidence that I am correct in this contention can be found throughout history, as all socialist economies have failed or are failing.

Well, your definition in my opinion differs from the definition that I cited, to wit:

"someone who makes charitable donations intended to increase human well-being." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q… BTW, I strongly prefer your definition; correctly or incorrectly.

Furthermore, the dictionaries are hardly absolute arbiters as to what a word means at any given time or place or context. Meanings can change drastically; sometimes because people keep using it in an erroneous manner and sometimes due pronunciation variances and sometimes because a famous author decides to "stretch" its meaning.


I was accused of being a "bad" Christian because I was "judging" others. HELLO?! What does that word---judge, mean? :) The old meaning meant to punish. I really don't care for punishing people even the supposedly "evil." Judge---meaning to think good or bad of---oh yes BIG TIME. I judge usually by certain "Christian" moral standards that were drummed into me as a child---unfortunately, these Christian standards may in fact not be Christian standards even though that is what they were labelled.

jablake, you'd argue the color of the sky. I'm correct about supply-side v demand-side economics, and the authoritative definition of "altruism" has exactly zero do to with it.

I read a very interesting article in a legal newspaper (Miami Daily Business Review?) many years ago by a prominent judge or legal scholar. He was writing about a legal seminar where seasoned attorneys and judges were the vast majority of his audience.

He asked questions about three or four words: may, shall, must, will (assuming that I remember correctly). He was surprised and dismayed that these legal experts overwhelmingly thought that *must* was always a command or *may* is permissive, etc.

Well, he had plenty of controlling case law that demonstrated that merely because a law seems to use mandatory language like *must* or *shall*, that in fact the higher courts have interpreted those words to actually mean *may*. Similarly, where a law seemed to provide flexibility by using the word *may* it actually was interpreted to mean *must*.

The cattle class, and I mean that in an extremely derogatory sense, have know comprehension that you cannot rely on the plain wording in a statute to determine its meaning. Most lawyers *should* know that. Anyway, the cattle class not only doesn't know, but they strongly prefer ignorance---if I could find the article about the meanings of *may* and *must*, and it was available online they'd have NO interest in learning. NONE.

Correction:

The cattle class, and I mean that in an extremely derogatory sense, have *NO* comprehension that you cannot rely on the plain wording in a statute to determine its meaning. Most lawyers *should* know that. Anyway, the cattle class not only doesn't know, but they strongly prefer ignorance---if I could find the article about the meanings of *may* and *must*, and it was available online they'd have NO interest in learning. NONE.

cattle class?? could you clarify the term please.
AND if possible the readers digest version not a thesis.

This is the class of people who believe basically whatever they are told by the media or those in positions of authority. Worse yet, they have NO interest in thinking or researching.

Readers Digest: They're more like parrots than people.

And "these people" are placed in this "class" based on????? Race? Economic statis? or mental ability?

And aside from that article where else is this term used?

Just curious

And by readers digest I meant a shorter answer it was a attempt at humor

I was talking with a former circuit judge, the close friend of a neighbor, a few weeks ago and he seemed like a very nice intelligent man. We get on the subject of legal malpractice cases and he strongly believes legal malpractice lawsuits are winnable for real damages and should be pursued. Is this an educated opinion of his? I don't know because I didn't want to go down that road with remembering the source materials that I had on legal malpractice.

Suffice it to say the authoritative sources that I researched show that legal malpractice lawsuits are a horrible investment of litigation dollars. I *believe* this to be true and furthermore the reason it is true is because the courts are corrupt. Judges by and large, imo, overwhelming look to protect their fellow lawyers even the corrupt and incompetent.

Now, it is very possible that this seemingly nice and intelligent former judge is totally unaware of this problem/situation. How receptive would he be to education from "official" legal resources? I have NO idea. He may prefer ignorance or he may just be corrupt. It is nothing that I will pursue.

I would say based on both culture and intelligence.


You can have highly intelligent people and Jesus is God without any ifs ands or buts. But, normally that religious view is based on where they were born and what their parents believed. Or, the highly intelligent may believe in the morality of multiple wives or girlfriends----again the culture of the society and parents usually rule.


Yep, I did get the humor. :)



Now, as people get more intelligent there is, imo, a much greater chance for divergence from the "known truths." However, some highly intelligent people merely wish to have status and their intelligence is used more like that of a technician----don't rock the boat and follow the rules.

Oops have to run!

"And 'these people' are placed in this 'class' based on????? Race? Economic statis? or mental ability?"

So getting back to whatever I was typing. :) I guess maybe it is better to think of this class in question format.

The main U.S. media repeatedly refers to the attack on the Pentagon as a "terrorist" attack. The cattle class will blindly accept that label. And, if the attackers had use a truck bomb to blow up the side of Pentagon and cause equivalent damage, more likely than not the media would still label it a "terrorist" attack. The cattle class will blindly accept that label without any real questioning. Those in the class could be highly intelligent or dumber than door nails.

Take this same cattle class and raise them in a society that is hostile to the U.S. and suddenly the attacks are seen as and labelled as "divine retribution" or "freedom attacks" or some such label. Again, no real questioning will take place. The cattle class is eager to conform to the media's message and the message of those in power.

Even when those in authority are revealed to be dirty or corrupt, there is usually a very strong instinct among the cattle class to justify the evil or deny it or minimize it. The government's lies and frauds? Well, that in no way leads the cattle class to think the next goverment propaganda agenda is anything less than the absolute truth. Point out the past government lies and cattle class doesn't want to hear that---oh no, their wonderful government tells the truth or at least is better than other scum bag governments!

Just Say No to Thinking! :(

The "lack of altruism," whatever altruism actually definitively means, has slapped me in the face HARD on occasion.

A friend said she thought she could help me with a problem based on specialized knowledge that she has and that it would only take about an hour of her time. Then she says, But, you're not willing to pay me even if I'm successful. She knows me, well. :) I think she is a wonderful person and a giving person---if it doesn't involve her occupation i.e. how she customarily earns her living.

She doesn't need a dime from me and I've helped her repeatedly in the past at her request without asking for or expecting anything from her. I was in a position to help and wanted to because she is a nice and intelligent person.

Where her profession is concerned Just Say No to Altruism is her strong belief system. Maybe she is right. :) Still, it was a hard slap for me.

"the two major economic models are based on assumptions about human nature."

There are, kind of...see below.

"The supply side assumption is consistent with reality, which is why that model always works and the demand side model always fails."

LOL...try reading some history before you make the monumentally innaccurate statement that supply-side economics "always works"...for who, the rich??

"As for your recap of recent history, you focused on the executive branch, but the legislative branch writes the budget."

No, I focused on the govt. as a whole...supply-side has *failed* when either Party was in control of Congress. Nice try at re-writing history there, but the tax increases made during GHWB's term & Clinton's term (with the latter happening with exactly ZERO GOP votes) are what most assisted in balancing the federal budget.

"And even though we still have not been in a recession in these past few years, economic times have gotten notably gloomier lately. What happened in the past couple years that has in fact had a worse impact on the economy than 9/11 and Katrina combined? (Hint: Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid)"

LOL...you've been listening to Rush too much. The recent "gloomy" economy is yet another example of supply-side's failures. Exactly what has the Democratic Congress done to turn things around so badly?? What I always hear from your side is that they haven't done enough!

"can you name a single altruist?"

Mother Teresa. Thanks for confirming what I've already staed here before..."conservatives" in this country feel that the nature of man is generally bad, while liberals believe that the nature of man is generally good. We really CAN do better by pooling our resources & efforts together than we can by acting alone. Your dedication to Rand & Friedman is a blind religion, nothing more...nothing less. How else could you hold up a convicted felon like Michael Milken on a pedestal?? It's ridiculous on the face of it!

"as all socialist economies have failed or are failing."

Tell that to Sweden, Germany, the UK, India, or Australia. Sheesh...read a *real* book sometime...or travel the world...

"Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 20, 2003, at 4:04 PM ET

. . . MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/


Of course, those religious folks of the 700 Club television ministry are true blue altruistas. ;) Yes siree bob, that one modest size group of self-less individuals pretty much validates socialism for all mankind . . .

Sorry, Milton Friedman old chum. We fought the good fight, but with so many loving Christians running loose giving selflessly it sorta is inarguable that socialism rocks and capitalism not only feeds the fires of evil, but emanates evil.

I know in my heart you meant the best, but some wealthy bastards probably just pulled the wool over your eyes. Heck, I went to Sunday school sometimes twice a day as youngster and capitalism seduced me with slogans of bake a bigger pie and a rising tide lifts all boats and the rich create jobs and fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Oops, as stupid as it sounds that last one might actually be correct, dagnabbit. :)

Hitchens is not exactly known for his love of all people that are religious...lol...

Surely, he'd love the TV evangelists? Those mass saver of souls and men. President Bush could have been just a drunk and druggie, but evangelical altruistas saved his ass here on Earth and in Heaven. And, look at the Miracles he's performed since his saving. Sorta proof positive that Christ is God. :)

In "Free to Choose," Milton Friedman showed a very interesting chart showing stikes by the coal miners against the backdrop of coal stockpiles. As the stockpiles of coal became massive the miners would go on strike till the stockpiles were reduced to reasonable levels----wouldn't it be wonderful if all workers were so thoughtful???

I'd wager that as U.S. weapon stockpiles become massive then it is time to go to war to reduced the stockpiles. In a nutshell it may all be economics: Huge stockpiles of coal equals miner strikes. Huge stockpiles of weapons equals wars.

"MOTHER TERESA : WHERE ARE HER MILLIONS?
by

Walter Wuellenweber

The Angel of the poor died a year ago. Donations still flow in to her Missionaries of Charity like to no other cause. But the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize vowed to live in poverty. What then, happened to so much money?


If there is a heaven, then she is surely there: Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu from Skopje in Macedonia, better known as Mother Teresa. She came to Calcutta on the 6th of Januray 1929 as an 18 year old sister of the Order of Loreto. 68 years later luminaries from all over the world assembled in Calcutta in order to honour her with a state funeral. In these 68 years she had founded the most successful order in the history of the Catholic church, received the Nobel Peace Prize and became the most famous Catholic of our time.


Are doubts permitted, regarding this 'monument'?


In Calcutta, one meets many doubters.

For example, Samity, a man of around 30 with no teeth, who lives in the slums. He is one of the 'poorest of the poor' to whom Mother Teresa was supposed to have dedicated her life. With a plastic bag in hand, he stands in a kilometre long queue in Calcutta's Park Street. The poor wait patiently, until the helpers shovel some rice and lentils into their bags. But Samity does not get his grub from Mother Teresa's institution, but instead from the Assembly of God, an American charity, that serves 18000 meals here daily.

'Mother Teresa?' says Samity, 'We have not received anything from her here. Ask in the slums -- who has received anything from the sisters here -- you will find hardly anybody.'

Pannalal Manik also has doubts. 'I don't understand why you educated people in the West have made this woman into such a goddess!' Manik was born some 56 years ago in the Rambagan slum, which at about 300 years of age, is Calcutta's oldest. What Manik has achieved, can well be called a 'miracle'. He has built 16 apartment buildings in the midst of the slum -- living space for 4000 people. Money for the building materials -- equivalent to DM 10000 per apartment building -- was begged for by Manik from the Ramakrishna Mission [a Indian/Hindu charity], the largest assistance-organisation in India. The slum-dwellers built the buildings themselves. It has become a model for the whole of India. But what about Mother Teresa? 'I went to her place 3 times,' said Manik. 'She did not even listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But no one knows what they do with it!'


In Calcutta there are about 200 charitable organisations helping the poor. Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity are not amongst the biggest helpers: that contradicts the image of the organisation. The name 'Mother Teresa' was and is tied to the city of Calcutta. All over the world admirers and supporters of the Nobel Prize winner believe that it must be there that her organisation is particularly active in the fight against poverty. 'All lies,' says Aroup Chatterjee . The doctor who lives in London was born and brought up in Calcutta. Chatterjee who has been working for years on a book on the myth of Mother Teresa, speaks to the poor in the slums of Calcutta, or combs through the speeches of the Nobel Prize winner. 'No matter where I search, I only find lies. For example the lies about schools. Mother T has often stated that she runs a school in Calcutta for more than 5000 children. 5000 children! -- that would have to be a huge school, one of the biggest in all of India. But where is this school? I have never found it, nor do I know anybody who has seen it!' says Chatterjee."

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/





Mother Teresa may be a wonderful person who is just the greatest----I don't know and haven't researched her life to any great extent. And, even if she was the greatest I would think there are bound to be detractors. People have differences of opinion! :)