Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 30 Oct 2014 in Hillary Clinton: "Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs", tatupu70 said:

    SoftShell says

    Don't think so.

    You do not know what operational/comfort parameters would exist for such a vehicle. what if you had no control, completely automated...what if the crash rate was excessively high along with the fatalities since you would be airborne...what if you had to be strapped into a cockpit with no room for comfort due to weight restrictions....what if what if what if????

    there's no guarentee there would be any demand for such a vehicle....

    First off--guarantee. I would think the grammar Nazi would be able to spell.

    Second-- Your post is ridiculous. Sorry, next time I'll post every operational condition..

  • On 30 Oct 2014 in Hillary Clinton: "Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs", tatupu70 said:

    bob2356 says

    Why wander off into flying cars? Go back to velcro. There was a perfectly adaquate existing product that met all existing demand. Velcro just supplanted some of the demand. If never invented it wouldn't have mattered, buttons and zippers would have simply had a bigger market. So the need wasn't for velcro, it was for clothing closures. A lot of products, velcro being one, get invented by accident. No focus group involved.

    Just thought it illustrated the point easier. Same focus group--would you buy a clothing closure product that was easier and cheaper? I think most people would say yes.

    No argument that things get invented by accident. My point is only that there can and is demand for products that don't exist.

  • On 30 Oct 2014 in Hillary Clinton: "Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs", tatupu70 said:

    bob2356 says

    How an someone want something that they don't know exists because it doesn't exist?

    It's a bit of a theoretical exercise, but the demand is there even if the product isn't. Would I buy a flying car if it existed for $5K. Damn right. At that price, there would be large demand. Even though the product doesn't exist.

    Companies do focus groups all the time to get information on what demand exists for products that haven't been created yet. Often before they spend on R&D.

  • On 30 Oct 2014 in Hillary Clinton: "Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs", tatupu70 said:

    Zak says

    False. Companies do R&D all the time, with no customers, and give people new things they never knew they needed/wanted. Google. Facebook. Cellphones. Coffee Chocolate beer from my friend Tony. Demand comes because people like what the inventors made and ask for more. Jobs come because of that. No Larry Page and no Sergey Brin = far fewer jobs in the world today. This is why they are billionaires. They FOUND the demand and built a product that catered to it.

    No, that's not right. The want/need is there already, there just wasn't a product currently available to meet that want/need. If you want to nitpick, the original comment should have been:

    Companies only produce (hire) if there is expected future demand for the product which comes from the bottom up.

    Better?

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause?, tatupu70 said:

    dodgerfanjohn says

    As a stinky Euro

    huh?

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause?, tatupu70 said:

    myob says

    The wealthiest with most disposable income support the notion of "helping" via taxing wealth away, since it doesn't impact them in any meaningful way. They trust the government, so they don't see the harm done by these policies, and only think of the feel-good part of "helping", don't consider the harm this does to people at the margin.

    You have this exactly backwards. The liberal wealthy are for tax policies that directly impact them in a severely negative way--more progressive taxation, higher capital gains taxes, inheritance tax, etc. They understand that an economy simply cannot function with wealth disparity at current high levels.

    It's the selfish Republican wealthy (Ricketts, Koch Bros., etc) that are for policies that enrich themselves and screw the middle and lower classes. Conservatives are NOT for the middle class. Just look at history....

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Trying to Destroy the US Post Office - Dumb Ass Republicans, tatupu70 said:

    USPS--not UPS

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Atlas Shrugging?, tatupu70 said:

    Zak says

    and get rid of the high tax burdens on the middle class so they can afford to work at reasonable salaries again.

    Or design a system where labor is valued as much or more than capital...

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Dallas Airport Fight Caught On Video As Crowd Takes Down Angry, Ranting Homophob, tatupu70 said:

    How is Dan acknowledging what you say? He says YOU don't think felons should be allowed to vote then follows by pointing out the hypocrisy of your stand...

    Am I missing something?

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Sandy Hook Hoax Parents with Dry Eyes and No Tears!, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    Real people who lose children cry and don't laugh. Or 6 days later don't smile like someone who didn't lose a child after crying with no tears on the day she claims to have lost the child. Get real, Tatupu.

    That's ridiculous. You've obviously never lost anyone or been around anyone that has experienced such a loss. Like I said, people deal with grief in different ways...

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Sandy Hook Hoax Parents with Dry Eyes and No Tears!, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    So, cat got your tongue, Tatupu? Tell us if they were really crying or not in your opinion. Let's hear it.

    Of course they were crying. Seeing tears on still photos is not easy, and I don't care if there actually weren't any tears. People react to traumatic situations in very different manners.

    If anything, a lack of tears is more indicative of truth. Any actor worth their salt can cry on cue--it's like acting 101. So, if these were actors, for certain there would be tears...

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Permanent Damage to US Economy, tatupu70 said:

    Diva24 says

    This economy is built on 30+ years of failed neoliberal policies. The failure you speak of belongs to a do nothing obstructive congress.

    Was Reagan a neo-liberal?

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Sandy Hook Hoax Parents with Dry Eyes and No Tears!, tatupu70 said:

    You just deleted my response. Why should I respond again?

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Homeowner in rich neighborhood tired of passing out candy to poor kids, tatupu70 said:

    I got mine, F$%# you.

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Sandy Hook Hoax Parents with Dry Eyes and No Tears!, tatupu70 said:

    bgamall4 says

    People are pronounced dead at the hospital. That is correct protocol. Yet the so called deceased children at Sandy Hook were not even brought out of the building. That is because they did not exist.

    Are you kidding me? People are pronounced dead at the scene all the time. That is not unusual at all.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Dow Jones Industrials look set to resume decline again this week, tatupu70 said:

    Has the Dow ever looked set to increase in your view?

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    Rising unemployment = check, stagnating demand = check, rising inflation = check => stagflation. Oh, and Japan has rising income/wealth disparity, esp. since turning on the fiat spigot. It's the Fed.

    lol--so inflation going from 1% to 2% = stagflation in your world?

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    Japan's real wages keep falling, unemployment rising and demand stagnant => stagflation

    That's not stagflation. Japan's inflation rate hovered around 1% in 2013 and after starting the year at under 2%, it's now up to a whopping 3.5%. Nobody in their right mind would consider that stagflation.

    It's not the Fed folks.

  • On 24 Oct 2014 in QE 101 tatupu: How Quantitative Easing Contributed to the Nations Inequality, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    No they didn't - except for our resident clairvoyants. That was the whole premise of the "stimulus"

    Yes, they did. The stimulus was to create demand.

    The rest of your post is moot because you're wrong.

  • On 24 Oct 2014 in QE 101 tatupu: How Quantitative Easing Contributed to the Nations Inequality, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    Ah but they didn't. Why acquire even more assets at considerable tail risk? Once the Fed removed all the tail risk it was a no-brainer. A house is just one example of such an asset, but one of the important ones since the housing market is where a considerable amount of the fiat money that removed the tail risk went.

    Of course they did. It's easy to account for tail risk in a present value calculation and the wealthy certainly can and do. When the price is low enough, they buy.

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

Page took 315 milliseconds to create.