Who can deny what an intellectual powerhouse Mises was. He used big words and everything !
The real thing which is the subject matter of praxeology, human action,
stems from the same source as human reasoning. Action and reason are
congeneric and homogeneous; they may even be called two different
aspects of the same thing. That reason has the power to make clear
through pure ratiocination the essential features of action is a consequence
of the fact that action is an offshoot of reason. The theorems
attained by correct praxeological reasoning are not only perfectly certain
and incontestable, like the correct mathematical theorems. They refer,
moreover, with the full rigidity of their apodictic certainty and incontestability
to the reality of action as it appears in life and history. Praxeology conveys
exact and precise knowledge of real things. (Mises 1966, p. 39;
Your definition of carefully researched and documented always comes down to it's true because I believe it should be true.
But you have to admit his lack of evidence and inability to show much reasoning, is well offset by his use of terms such as "a priori" and "praxeology."
And apparently for some reason, people who do have reasoning skill are known as "mutts."
Obamacare is welfare for doctors.
That's really stupid, even for you.
Not all boomers are narcissistic and overly self involved, but after watching Dianne Sawyers interview with Jenner, that's basically my take away.
HE got a lot of attention for his athletic success, which also must have taken a lot of a certain kind of self involvement. And he was a very pretty man. A man can be pretty when he's 20, 25 or 30 . Young men often wear earings and adorn themselves with tattoos, clothing etc in an effort to make themselves more "cool," or attractive to women which with some men is a fine line from being pretty
I think most of his story is BS, and that he's just overly self involved and can't deal with the fact that middle aged men can't really compete with young men (at least with respect to being "cool" and physically attractive to young women). It's just his version of the self involved Californian who used to be one of the beautiful people, having a hard time dealing with aging.
The past 10 years of Kardashian/Jenner drama has been the longest 15 minutes I've ever heard of.
The worst part is now that Bruce has stolen the spotlight, the Kardashians are going to have to engage in frothing at the mouth hysterics and histrionics to get the public eye back on them
I don't know. I am not one that avoids TV and video all together, and yet I've managed to miss the Kardasians and Jenners Drama almost entirely. I've heard that there's speculation about Jenner becoming a woman and now confirmation. But to suggest that it even had my attention for more than a few seconds is a stretch. As for the Kardasians, I've never seen them or their show, and only recently learned one of them is married to that pompous Kanye West.
Of course I TOTALLY do not get his music either. Maybe all of this is just a sign of me getting old.
I am old enough to remember Bruce Jenner in his athletic heyday, and have to acknowledge the total bizarrness of his wanting to become fully female in his mid sixties. But this right now is the most I've thought about the whole thing. I guess I'll watch a video of his interview now to see what the fuss is about.
Scrap the cap (on social security)
Would it hit the employer too ? Social security is something like 6.2% paid by the employee and another 6.2% paid by the employer.
Maybe it would make more sense to do something like having individuals pay 6% surtax on all unearned income and capital gains over 150K per year, that would be a social security tax earmarked for the SS trust fund.
Hawking is on record saying that time travel is mathematically possible
Of course it is. I'm traveling forward in time right now.
Travelling into the future at a rate faster than normal is way more feasible than traveling back in time.
"Republicans should really put all their screwballs on ice before the election."
Why ? Smart republicans don't mind that there are dim witted religious right types that vote republican because they believe every nonsensical thing they hear from Bachman and others.
Sadly it's not like even the smart republicans are turned off all that much by this stuff. Their attitude on the crazies is, "whatever."
So A to B and thus B to A, does matter, as it's a card in the set which follows the rule, intrinsic to the card. With that in mind both A/7 and 2/7 have to work, otherwise, that number 2 card is not a part of same set of cards. It's from an alternate set so we're not pooling the stripes of tigers and zebras here.
what the ....
When a card is manufactured, the machine has no concept of front and back, north or south. It knows one thing, when you print one side of a card an odd number, on the flip side, print a consonant. And vice versa for an even number. In the end, the cards are uniform, A to B as well as B to A.
Really ? No offense, but I think we're finding out you aren't the brilliant guy you claim to be. Either that, or you're trolling Dan.
As for the death penalty, the problem with it, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the perfect punishment for an imperfect system.
This is a good point. And as we know, there have been more than a few innocent people executed in this country, even in modern times.
But then I weigh that against the harm that can come to society due to:
There are people that have adjusted to prison life, and don't find it all that much worse than having to make it out in the world. Maybe in some cases, they even find it to be better. For such a person, say who has been in prison and is now out, life in prison is simply not a severe enough penalty for murder.
AS life becomes even more difficult for the poor, and the emotionally disabled, life in prison is going to seem not so bad. IT simply is not a severe enough consequence for murder. It's not about vengeance. It's about deterrence.
zimmerman is innocent
Which incident are you referring to ?
One of the two times he was arrested for violence in July 2005, or January 2015 ?
OR were you referring to September 9, 2013, or November 18, 2013, or Tuesday September 9, 2014 all times that police were called because of violent or intimidating behavior on his part ?
Or were you referring to that time (February 26, 2012) that he needlessly killed an unarmed teenager ?
C'mon. If you're going to troll the libbies, you need to be more specific.
They didn't sell fraudulent securities. The securities were rated by an independent rating agency however anyone who cared to check could certainly inspect the actual mortgages at any time.
Actually, crap mortgages were packaged into complex securities that nobody understood and which were rated incorrectly.
As for inspecting the mortgages ? It would seem that part of the affect (maybe not the intention) of those complex CMOs containing mortgage tranches was that the individual mortgages could not easily be inspected. Part othe point was diversification, where an individual security was backed by different mortgages of varying risk. Even different parts of different mortgages.
I don't think calling it fraud is that far off, although it's not so clear that that was any individuals intent, It was more like stupidity. As long as double digit increases in R.E prices continued everything was going to be fine.
It's sort of like when people have political beliefs that are wrong (or even to some extent evil), IF they can't understand the implicit dishonesty behind their beliefs, then are they really lying ?
Perhaps some high level individuals, that should have known better should be held responsible, regardless of whether it was stupidity rather than intentionally blowing up the economy. Maybe some of them were jaded assholes who thought that if and when the whole thing imploded they could just blame the CRA, which they had political problems with anyway.
What is the definition of "is?"
Funny how the people who make fun of Clinton for this quote, are so low bandwidth, that they never even once explored the context. The illiterate fools take the quote all alone as an indication of some arcane lawyer speak technicality of Clinton parsing his words in a twisted lawyer speak lie. THe truth is much simpler.
If someone who was in an affair, and no longer is in an affair with a woman, asserts "THere is nothing going on between us." THat's not a lie. Any half way intelligent person is going to hear that as referring to the present.
Now of course it's true that if the question was about whether there WAS something going on. And the person asserts that there IS nothing going on. I blame the listener for inferring from that that there never was anything going on. THey could have asked for clarification, "what about before now, WAS there something going on ?"
In other words there's nothing there. Clinton's only mistake with that quote (maybe not his only mistake regarding Lewinski) was not realizing how stupid the audience of right wing entertainment are.
The actual quote:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship."
your a slug, school teacher, sucking off of the tit of the public, who doesn't have the skills to get a REAL job in the private sector
That was predictable.
Fact is I had many jobs in the private sector before being a teacher, which I didn't start until middle age. Also, teaching is by far and in many ways the most REAL job I've ever had.
IF you hate public school teachers so much, that says a lot more about you than you realize. Do you blame them for your incompetence and your low IQ ? Intelligent people (even intelligent republicans) almost always love teachers, with the exception of some bad ones they may have had.
That's the whole point. What incentive does the mom have to work harder and try to climb the success ladder when she is already receiving comparable benefits that the $69K person is getting... she's better off just staying where she is, thanks to "redistribution of wealth".
Being the liberal/socialist that you are, you won't understand that point.
I understand your view. In fact I wish that redistribution wasn't necessary. But it is. If one could live decently on 20K ($10/hr) or 30K even, then it would be a different story.
You're right that one of us doesn't see the big picture very well, or even comprehend the other persons point of view.
Your so called liberal redistribution of wealth, is just as much welfare for all the businesses that can't afford to pay their employees a living wage, as it is welfare for the recipients of the food stamps, child care, or whatever.
The ironic thing is that I know for a fact that you're a white hillbilly that is on welfare.
"As countries repatriate their gold, the Fed’s vaults get emptier."
Wow. That has to be one of the more deceptive graphics I've ever seen.
You would never know from glancing at it that the decrease it represents is let's see, approximately a whopping 3.4%.
There's no way I can give any attention to something so blatantly deceptive. There might even be an interesting story there. But not one I can pay any attention to after you (or who ever made the graphic) try to manipulate me like that.
Is that when they go from sort of empty, to really super empty ?
represents a sharply unchanged amount of gold in US reserves. 8133 metric tons.
Who was the genius that decided to develop America's bread basket in the mid west and move farm production to the dry, tax heavy, water restricted California region?
Who ? I don't know, do you believe in God ?
It turns out that the soil (and season lengths) that's good for corn and soy beans, isn't the same soil that's good for almonds, grapes, avacados, strawberries, lettuce, etc
Who knew ?
why does anyone think the jobless who are replaced by automation will receive a check every month?
Because it's good for everyone. Remember the demand side of teconomics ? And a base pay for everyone (including the rich) would not be that hard of a sell. The rich can use it to help pay their taxes, which would be higher.
But I think it has to be well planned, so that those who don't work, won't make enough to live above poverty level. And some make work jobs will be necessary too. That is jobs that don't clearly add to anyones bottom line, except with respect to the multiplier effect.
I don't know about that. I think we would need laws about who gets to reproduce or how much they can.
If suddenly, everyone can have a high standard of living, while working less, what would that do to peoples tendencies to reproduce ?
Meanwhile world population is already fast approaching 10 billion, and the resources and environment to support even that are not clearly there, And let's not even talk about what motives there would be for people to improve themselves and compete in natural selection, so that mankind continues to evolve. I know I sound like a conservative on this, but this topic is not likely to play out such a simple way as the author implies. .
People probably need to be required to do something productive with their time and be rewarded for that, even if many jobs that are not productive in the traditional sense, are defined as a productive use of one's energies. This could be doing research or art, or teaching, or countless service jobs. Maybe people get a base income that's barely enough to live on, or not quite enough. But then a minimum pay "job" on top of that makes for a reasonable standard of living.
The trend that the ice HASN'T come close to melting, based on a 75% prediction that it would.
The reference was to summer ice. And in 2012 it was almost gone. That year was an outlier aberration. But if an aberant year 5 years later gets us to almost no ice in the summer (ice breaker boats cruising through it with great ease), then yeah, the prediction was not that far off. Besides it was a quote from an expert referring to one model. Do you even know what that means ? Do you know what 25% means ?
Go play with your chart for Antarctic ice and click on the 2009 and 2015 timelines as a comparison...
What, next your going to want to tell me about how it was cold on the east coast this winter ?
Resistance is futile.
Oooh, change. So very scary!
Actually, yeah, it kind of is.
I'm liking it now. But I sometimes fear that assimilation is right on schedule (a much slower schedule than the one represented by the fictional Borg assimilation on star trek).
Playing around with this, you can see that 2012 was an aberration, but the trend is very much in tact.
So, it's 6 years later, is the Arctic ice cap anywhere near "completely ice free"?
Or, as liberals usually do, do we dismiss his statement because he said "could"? Or, are we in the 25% chance that he's full of crap?
He's quoting an expert who said there's a 75% chance that in the summer the polar ice caps could be ice free in 5 to 7 years.
That's from your quote. You're such an idiot. What If Gore had said that an expert had predicted that according to one model there was only a 25% chance that in 5 to seven years, there would still be polar ice left in the summer ? I'd bet anything you would not find that quotable or in any way justifying your dim bulb point of view.
Fact is, that prediction was not that crazy. Events with a 25% chance of happening happen all the time. Hell even events with a 1% chance of happening can happen. Such as the chance of your responding in a way that doesn't reflect poorly on you.
What if you proved Hydrocabron's point ?