Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Dumb Ass Republicans Prevent Medicare From Negotiating Lower Drug Prices., bob2356 said:

    carrieon says

    The Dumb Ass Republicans wrote the healthcare bill to increase revenue, not save people money. And, the Dumber Ass Democrats think the program belongs to them as their taxes or premiums get doubled.

    That makes less sense than the captain's usual ramblings.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Supreme Court Allows Texas Voter ID Law - Liberals Go Nuts!, bob2356 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    Supreme Court Allows Texas Voter ID Law

    You are certainly clutching at straws on this one. The law is overturned. All the supreme court did was say that it's too close to the election to make the change so for this election only the voter ID must be used. After that it's history. There is no ruling from the supreme court on voter id itself.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Supreme Court Allows Texas Voter ID Law - Liberals Go Nuts!, bob2356 said:

    carrieon says

    A United States Passport should be required to vote or collect a government check.

    Why be such a pussy. A US passport should be required for getting a job. Anyone caught hiring someone without one should be executed on the spot.

  • On 21 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, bob2356 said:

    indigenous says

    The salient points

    Pity the Keynesian Fools (especially the Wogster)

    Challenge to Keynesians

    Reality Check Questions

    Either you really are a total fool or you are trolling as usual. I don't agree with keynes or austrians/libertarians. Both are ivory tower bullshit philosophies that doesn't take the real world behaviour into account. But amazingly many people including you and iwog are passionate believers.

    Inflation isn't keynesian. Deflation isn't the opposite of keynesian. Keynes was against inflation. Read (not that you are ever going to read anything but mises.org) Economic Consequences of Peace (this was painful even for me required reading in college). God the internet is great for finding quotes. I certainly wouldn't want to try this from memory.

    "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

    Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery."

    He also well understood deflation (something you have no clue about). From A Tract on Monetary Reform (which I actually also read a long long time ago):

    "“In the first place, Deflation is not desirable, because it effects, what is always harmful, a change in the existing Standard of Value, and redistributes wealth in a manner injurious, at the same time, to business and to social stability. Deflation, as we have already seen, involves a transference of wealth from the rest of the community to the rentier class and to all holders of titles to money; just as inflation involves the opposite. In particular it involves a transference from all borrowers, that is to say from traders, manufacturers, and farmers, to lenders, from the active to the inactive.

    But whilst the oppression of the taxpayer for the enrichment of the rentier is the chief lasting result, there is another, more violent, disturbance during the period of transition. The policy of gradually raising the value of a country’s money to (say) 100 per cent above its present value in terms of goods … amounts to giving notice to every merchant and every manufacturer, that for some time to come his stock and his raw materials will steadily depreciate on his hands, and to every one who finances his business with borrowed money that he will, sooner or later, lose 100 per cent on his liabilities (since he will have to pay back in terms of commodities twice as much as he has borrowed). "

    Unlike you keynes understood the real danger in deflation lies in the increase in the value of debt and the effects it would have on business. Your idiotic will people stop buying food if its cheaper argument is irrelevant. Aren't you a big fan of Mises? Here is something from a paper from mises.org (yes I do read mises.org, it's called getting a balanced viewpoint, you should try it once in your lifetime) called "Deflation—When Austrians Become Interventionists"

    Mises writes in Human Action that “it is not necessary to point out the consequences to which a continued deflationary policy must lead. Nobody advocates such a policy”

    Rothbard on the other hand pretty much embraced deflation as a sort of de facto banking reform. That's just batshit crazy.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in State of Kansas provides template for Republican win in 2016, bob2356 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    How is that any different then what's going on in DC? He's just following Obama's "Lead by Example".

    If he's just following obama then why bother to vote republican at all other than starting wars?

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in I'm so glad we can fly first class,only those in coach will spresd ebola., bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    CaptainShuddup says

    bgamall4 says

    Turns out Ebola is not that easy to catch. The girlfriend of the poor guy who died in Texas didn't even get it. So the Repubfarts have thrown Texas under the bus with their fearmongering. And Texas is a Republican state.

    BG tell you what the next time someone flys over here with Ebola why don't you go nurse them with just a dust mask.

    Fine, will quarantining the entire state of Texas make you happy?

    Getting laid with Alessandra Ambrosio and Heidi Klum wouldn't make the captain happy.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, bob2356 said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    We're in our 14th year of Keynesian economics about to be 15.

    15 years after Reaganomics the country was rebounded and running strong under Clinton.

    Not saying Reaganomics were great, but at least they were more effective than Keynesian economics.

    Reagan was the greatest borrow and spend keynesian in american history.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Here it Comes, Local Ebola Forced Quarantines in Dallas, bob2356 said:

    Vicente says

    There's a certain common element between Maine and Mississippi.

    Low teeth to tattoo ratio?

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    You have to admit that the world increased oil production because OPEC was killing the west. I am certain that the west viewed that increased production as a way to weaken the Soviets as well

    The rest of the world increased oil production to make money because the huge increase in prices made a lot of tough to reach oil fields worth drilling. Once all of those fields came on line there was a glut which drove the price into the toilet. At which point drilling pretty much stopped until the excess was sopped up.

    Everyone was trying to make money, not pursue some geopolitical ideals. I may be stupid but I can understand that simple concept.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    So, oil prices dropped due to increased world production. But Saudi Arabia which had cut production, then flooded the market with oil

    You're calling a million barrels a day or 2% flooded? I guess the concept of flood doesn't translate very well to desert dwellers. Gary you're making my day. This stuff is all too funny.

    bgamall4 says

    due to low prices did destroy the Soviet Union as this paper posits:

    http://www.hubbertpeak.com/reynolds/sovietdecline.htm

    Gee I wonder why your paper doesn't have anything to say about the political unrest and beginnings of the breakaway starting as early as 1984. Soviet oil production didn't start to decline until 1988 as per your own paper. By 1988 when the oil production started to decline, there were pretty much riots in the streets all around the eastern block. There is no doubt that oil prices were a part of the breakup, the straw that broke the camels back. But to call it the cause of the breakup is absurd even for you. The soviet union would have fallen no matter what. The agriculture crises was a much bigger factor. Thats' why they needed oil revenue in the first place. To buy food.

    bgamall4 says

    One other factor that could have helped the decline was that the Soviet Union was forced to spend too much on defense because Reagan forced it.

    Reagan didn't force it. Stockman and the budget office made what amounted to a typo. When they tried to correct later it the military threatened to scream budget cutting and reagan said leave it. It was never a plan at all. It's true look it up. Over 70% of the Soviet budget was military when reagan took office. They didn't really increase it. They folded on the cold war instead. Once the external threat was gone the backlash was terrific.

    bgamall4 says

    And Bob, I believe this effort to establish low prices was an effort by the US to defeat the Soviet Empire and it worked

    I'm still waiting to hear how the US established low oil prices. Oh yea right the us got saudi's to cut production to lower oil prices. got it.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Here it Comes, Local Ebola Forced Quarantines in Dallas, bob2356 said:

    Vicente says

    Maine is on the right track. We should also quarantine anyone who has been to Dallas.

    We should quarantine texas and maine at this point. As a matter a fact air travel should be shut down completely. Bus, train, ship, and auto also while we are at it. Why is obama being so negligent. He's the president, this is his job.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Lol a Teacher Was Given Paid Leave for Going to Texas Lol, bob2356 said:

    Funny, the small (very small) vermont town I'm staying in had near panic at the hospital this week because someone came in with a 99.5 fever that had travelled to Ethiopia in June. I'm talking doctors and nurses, not lay people. It's all the talk of the town. CIC should have been here, he would have had a blast.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    The Saudis drastically cut production in the 1980's. But then in 86 they bumped up production. That was part of the reason that oil went from 27 to 10.

    So oil prices took a 50% drop 80 to 86 because the saudi's drastically cut oil production from 10 million to 4 million about 10% of the market. Then, the saudi's (those clever devils, along with an already fuzzy ronny boy) raised production by 1 million barrels a day (this is your chart I'm looking at here) in a 55 million barrel a day market, call it 2% of the market, and it caused prices to plunge by 60% more.

    You're killing me here. Lower production to lower the price, raise production to lower the price. I so want to meet your economics professor. Are you sure aliens didn't bring down the WTC? Can you provide evidence that aliens didn't bring down the WTC? If not then it must be true because I say it's true and you can't disprove it. Just like michael reagan says it's true.

  • On 18 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    That shows how stupid you are. The chart basically shows what I have been saying. Reagan had a deal with the Saudis to force the price of oil down by cutting production. Then when it fell too far, in 1986, it worried the Saudis and they attempted to jack the price up some agai

    Now I'm laughing even harder. So the saudi's CUT production to drive prices DOWN. Then they RAISED production to make prices go UP. Yep, less oil on the market always drives prices down and more oil on the market always drives prices up. Are you sure aliens didn't bring down the WTC?

    bgamall4 says

    Bob, you do understand that Saudi production is the blue line right? Lol.

    Yep I do. Looks like the saudi's succeeded wonderfully in bring the price down by cutting production. The price fall certainly wouldn't have to do with all those huge fields coming on line in the early 80's. North sea, prudoe bay, Russia, East China sea, deep drilling in the gulf, all the domestic drilling after Carter (a infamous neocon) deregulated oil, Non opec oil went from 25m to 40m barrels per day oil from the oil crisis to mid 80's. Opec production dropped from 30m to 15m barrels per day. All while world demand for oil plummeted. Hmm wonder if that affected prices.

    The only thing the saudi's did was to keep the price from going lower. Without the saudi production cuts oil would have been $5 a barrel or less.Try to think about that. Look up the term supply and demand.

    bgamall4 says

    You haven't proven I am wrong at all.

    Don't have to, politicofact did a wonderful job for me. Thanks for posting that.

    Time for yet another clean pair of pants. Plus my stomach hurts now. You've got to cut this out.

  • On 18 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    From the horse's mouth: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/13/michael-reagan/ronald-reagans-son-says-his-father-got-saudis-pump/

    LOL so hard I'm pissing my pants. It's a politocofact article debunking michael reagans claim his father got saudi's to pump more oil to reduce prices. You really need to read past the headline sometimes. Now I've got something to laugh about all day. Thanks.

    bgamall4 says

    And unlike the 80's, when the Saudis then decided to cut supply to raise prices again,

    The same 80's where the saudi's pumped more oil to cut prices?

    bgamall4 says

    When oil went to 79 dollars it popped right back to 80

    The russians threatened nuclear war for a whole dollar of volitility in oil prices? Amazing. This gets better and better.

  • On 18 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    No, you did not use inflation adjusted prices for 1986 as you only went back to 1987. Nice insult but you are still wrong.

    Huh? I didn't use any specific year. Here's the last 50 years if it makes you happy. http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart Notice that oil bounced between 26 and 37 from 85 to 90. So what's your point?

    Shall we try again? As usual you avoided my question. How did "we" bring the oil prices down to $30 inflation adjusted/$10 nominal. Especially since US exploration and production tanked starting in 82.

    The Professor says

    bob2356 says

    aliens

    Bob Is NOT a government shill, he does lobby for the off worlders.

    Aliens are a lot more likely than bgmal's theories. I'm assuming, or at least I hope, that everything he writes is satire or comedy.

  • On 18 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Were you born stupid or did you practice? Oil went from 27 dollars a barrel in 1986 which is the last half of the decade, to 10 dollars. That crushed the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut

    I'm sorry I didn't realize you didn't understand the difference between nominal prices and inflation adjusted prices. Anyone with any shred of intellectual integrity uses inflation adjusted prices to compare across long time frames. I was working with inflation adjusted prices. As everyone who has read even one of your posts realizes intellectual integrity isn't even close to being one of your attributes.

    Low oil prices didn't crush the soviet union. The soviet union was a failing system long before. Low oil prices accelerated the inevitable, although probably not by much.

    As usual you avoided my question. How did "we" bring the oil prices down to $30 inflation adjusted/$10 nominal. Especially since US exploration and production tanked starting in 82. Even your wiki article talks about that.

    bgamall4 says

    bob2356 says

    Who be we that lowered the price of oil to $10 a barrel in the late 80's and raised it to artificial highs? America hasn't had any say in the price of oil from 1974 until fracking really took off.

    You are dreaming. When oil went to 147 dollars per barrel, the Saudis warned the US government that the investment banks were doing it. They have had the market cornered for some time.

    And guess how we learned about that. Wikileaks. Otherwise we never would have known. Although 1/2 of the CME trades are fake, and people have taken it to court. So...

    Are you just ignorant or are you a government shill?

    That's a confused mess even for you. Where did I ever say that the commodities markets weren't speculative? Why would that make me a government shill even if I did? We would have never know? It was all over the national news time and time again before wikileaks. There were congressional hearings on it for years. Does "we" mean the government, the commodities market, aliens or what? What does any of this have to do with the fall of the soviet union? WTF are you babbling about? May be time to talk to someone about the voices in your head.

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in Obama and Cheney Have Unprecedented Joint Press Conference. Is World On Brink?, bob2356 said:

    bgamall4 says

    We did do it before, Einstein. We destroyed the Soviet Union with 10 dollar oil in the late '80s. Then we raised oil to artificial highs to trap Russia into thinking oil would stay high

    Lone ranger and tonto are surrounded by 10,000 whooping indian warriors. Lone Ranger says "look at all those indians, we are in trouble" Tonto says "who be we white man".

    Who be we that lowered the price of oil to $10 a barrel in the late 80's and raised it to artificial highs? America hasn't had any say in the price of oil from 1974 until fracking really took off. Sorry to burst your neocon world conspiracy bubble (you probably had an erection about it) but oil was $30 a barrel in the late 80's through 1996. It then dropped to $15 in 98 then back up to $40 in 2000. You need to get a grip on reality.

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in A non-compete clause for sandwich-makers? Something is wrong., bob2356 said:

    Vicente says

    It would be so much easier for Job Creators, if we just went ahead and formally legalized slavery again.

    We did. You haven't heard of H1-B's? Where have you been?

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in American Housing Survey finds 1 in 3 homes is a rental, bob2356 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    It's pretty sad that with such a wonderful recovery since the recessions ended in 2009, that 1/3 of houses today are rentals...

    It's been between 60% and 64% since the late 1950's. In the booming 50's the rate was less than 60%. What does the recovery have to do with the bubble expanding and then letting the bubble deflate. OMG the rate went up 5 whole percent and dropped 4 whole percent over a 20 year period. That's an stunning amount of volatility. Not. I'd call your chart returning to the norm.

    With your steel vice grasp of the signifigance of what numbers mean it's probably better that you keep renting.

  • On 17 Oct 2014 in Lockheed claims nuclear fusion breakthrough., bob2356 said:

    Rin says

    On the other hand, the Lockhead/UW idea is to use some aspect of the plasma's own field for self-containment

    What the heck are you talking about? The UW people are denigrating the lockheed project. What little that has been released by lockheed (all theory, nothing has been really started yet) says they are working on a self managing feedback loop where the pressure of the plasma controls the strength of the magnetic containment field. Aviation week just had an article that is pretty in depth this week. http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details Here is a press release, although pretty skimpy on details about the UW project. http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/cheap-fusion-beats-fossil-fuels.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222922663&vID=1907 UW is much closer to what you are saying, but I don't see what you are talking about with a chaotic phase boundry. How would that happen?

    I'd be very curious to read the research on how the plasma could go critical. If the magnetic containment failed then the pressure would drop and reaction would stop. I'm sure there would be a hell of a big bang as the pressures and heat were released explosively, but that's non nuclear.

  • On 16 Oct 2014 in Collapse of the 10 Year Note Yield and What it Means to You, bob2356 said:

    Logan Mohtashami says

    Top 1% save 40% of their income in 2012, bottom 90% save nothing at all.

    Not much explanation of the terms,save,income and 1%. Where does capital gains and dividends fit into this? The top 1% by income and the top 1% by wealth are two different groups.

  • On 16 Oct 2014 in Lockheed claims nuclear fusion breakthrough., bob2356 said:

    The fact that they are talking about power on the back of a truck and navy reactors leads me to believe that the cost is prohibitive for commercial energy generation. Would be interesting to read more about what they are up to.

  • On 15 Oct 2014 in Sc-Sci-Science!, bob2356 said:

    indigenous says

    Be careful that kind of talk will get you kicked out of the progressive pack.

    You have to be in the progressive pack to be thrown out.

    Call it Crazy says

    bob2356 says

    I apologize to the captain.

    Thank God... It looks like you finally got your medications regulated!

    Isn't it time for you to get a warm milk and cookie then have mommy tuck you into bed?

  • On 15 Oct 2014 in Cops seize millions from people not charged with a crime, bob2356 said:

    indigenous says

    You said the last 30yr, which does not indicate correlation, about 15 does.

    In 1984, Congress amended portions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 to create the Assets Forfeiture Fund, into which the Attorney General was to deposit all net forfeiture proceeds for use by the Department of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies.

    This was the point where forfeitures stopped going to the government general fund and was directed to law enforcement. States followed suit allowing forfeiture funds to be used directly by law enforcement also. That was exactly 30 years ago.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html

    In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), amending various provisions of federal forfeiture law. CAFRA offered a number of modest reforms, but it did not change how forfeiture proceeds are distributed or otherwise ameliorate the profit incentive law enforcement agencies have in civil forfeiture.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 852 milliseconds to create.