patrick.net

By becoming more efficient and needing less workers, it'll naturally reduce the global population over time and use the earth's resources more prudently.

debyne says

By becoming more efficient and needing less workers, it'll naturally reduce
the global population over time and use the earth's resources more
prudently.

Nominated.

elvis says

Socialism is great until you run out of other people money...then you have to steal, inflate, and borrow even more, and it becomes a death spiral - oops.

Gezz, why can't the dumb-o-crats figure that out for themselves?

--------
But when you can create money out of thin air (like the fed does) you can continue stealing people's money and they don't even realize it anymore because inflation is insidious.

FortWayne says

I don't know who was involved, but my feeling is that some very wealthy and powerful people planned this. Shouldn't be too hard to find for FBI, to see who benefited. But I also feel that since they have been so busy covering it up until now, there is no reason why they'll let the truth out.

Speaking as a govt employee with access to confidential information(albeit much lower level than this stuff) I can tell you that there are only two things necessary to end a coverup decades down the road:

1. All the employees involved in the original coverup being retired or dead.

2. A conscientious current employee along with a willing and similiar minded supervisor. Particularly helpful if there's a division head near retirement willing to indulge the situation or a like minded new agency head.

While it won't be in the news, I can assure that the truth about the agency I work for's past misdeeds are out there in general form in movies, and in specific form via news articles online ranging from LA Times to salon.com to LA weekly. It's uncanny how close to the actual truth they got, cumulatively. I've heard stories about how they got so accurate, but I'm willing to bet a few people got paid.

Anywho, I'm certain the truth about the JFK stuff will eventually come out.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Mark D says

office fire cannot collapse a building.

A blatantly obvious falsehood.

No, fire could not have touched every support all at once necessary for a fall the way the building fell. You argue there is no pancake, but your argument for collapse is the penthouse. You can't play both sides of that fence cockroach. Come on Bugsy, are you having a brain spasm here?

Is that supposed to be a joke? The fire doesn't need to 'touch' every support all at once. That is your wrong-headed assertion. And my argument for the collapse isn't the penthouse. The penthouse, the other roof structures and the bowing show that there was massive internal collapse of structures BELOW them just as the official report states, and that your 'squibs' are obviously not squibs but a consequence of the progressive collapse taking place inside the building that resulted in the collapse of the building as a whole.
That isn't playing both sides of the fence. That is looking at the evidence and seeing that your claims are conspiracy bullshit.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The penthouse collapsed. Then the rest of the roof structures disappeared and the building bowed and then collapsed. This is what you flat out say isn't proof.

You are calling for a pancake. It is clear from the spacing of the floors that there was no pancake. You are saying that the penthouse, which was detonated, btw, pancaked onto the other floors causing the whole thing to fall. That is moronic and you know it. It never could have free fallen by that pancaking. And you know it.

What is moronic are the arguments you make. You've seen the video, so now according to you the penthouse was also (silently) detonated along, presumably with the rest of the roof structures. Perhaps you'd care to explain why they thought that was necessary before, in your version of events, they detonated the whole building. You're so wrapped up in your conspiracy nonsense that you've lost the ability to rationally look at the claims you are making and to see them for the risible bit of nonsense that they are. 'Detonated the penthouse first.' Ha, ha, ha.

Anyway, I'm going to try and avoid responding to you too much in the future because clearly you are lost to rational thought. No matter what you see or read, you are going to make up some additional nonsense that you think supports your claims, the 'detonation' of the penthouse being your most recent one. There really isn't any point in discussing this any further. You've made your outlandish arguments, I've given my response.

I see you've now moved on to your apparently new discovery of the LBJ conspiracy story and are already claiming it as 100% fact. Have fun with that.

Maybe we can have a sweepstakes to guess what your next conspiracy thread will be after LBJ seeing as your Yinon plan spiel failed to get any traction. One thing is for sure, tenuous arguments will, once again, lead to 100% certainty in your mind.

And just as a reminder, you really should read that psychology article I linked to.

I just posted something similar on another thread, but socialism interferes with the evolution of the human race. By artificially "taking care" of the weak, we stifle evolutionary progress of our race and don't allow ourselves to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc. with time. Drop all social programs and promote equal opportunity and individual freedom, and the strong will ultimately survive and properly perpetuate the species.

debyne says

I just posted something similar on another thread, but socialism interferes with the evolution of the human race. By artificially "taking care" of the weak, we stifle evolutionary progress of our race and don't allow ourselves to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc. with time. Drop all social programs and promote equal opportunity and individual freedom, and the strong will ultimately survive and properly perpetuate the species.

HydroCabron, are you having fun again?

Bigsby says

debyne says

I just posted something similar on another thread, but socialism interferes with the evolution of the human race. By artificially "taking care" of the weak, we stifle evolutionary progress of our race and don't allow ourselves to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc. with time. Drop all social programs and promote equal opportunity and individual freedom, and the strong will ultimately survive and properly perpetuate the species.

HydroCabron, are you having fun again?

Not sure who HydroCarbon is, but I like him already.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Anyway, I'm going to try and avoid responding to you too much in the future because clearly you are lost to rational thought

Stupid, either the penthouse pancaked the entire building or it had nothing to do with the free fall. Which do you pick Bigsby?

If you believe it pancaked the building you are a crazy loon. If you believe it had no effect on the entire building then you have to believe in detonation. Which is it loser?

This is a perfect example of why I'm not going to bother feeding your idiocy anymore.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

This is a perfect example of why I'm not going to bother feeding your idiocy anymore.

You aren't explaining your position, Bigs. You are failing.

As I've said already, I've explained my position. You now seem to need to misrepresent what I am saying in order to support your outlandish claims. I have been wasting my time responding to you as you are obviously a conspiracy nut. Have fun chatting back and forth with The Professor on this because I'm now bored rather than amused by your monotonous and irrational drivel.
Do read the psychology article though. You never know, you might have an epiphany.

The answer is all of A,B,C,D along with

E) too many foreigners that have gotten rich off the cheap labor in their country trying to find safe places to store their millions.

F) Weak US dollar making the foreigners from E that much more powerful and eager

G) 85B/mth will likely have to increase to >100-110B/mth to keep the music playing. Don't ever count out the power of the fed to float this boat

H) All the Oil and tech options/RSUs/etc. vesting and minting more and more people with incredible wealth for doing little overall.

Regarding H, hopefully the market will tank before those asswipes can cash in their bullshit Facebook, groupon, yelp or LinkedIn shares.

debyne says

I just posted something similar on another thread, but socialism interferes with the evolution of the human race. By artificially "taking care" of the weak, we stifle evolutionary progress of our race and don't allow ourselves to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc. with time. Drop all social programs and promote equal opportunity and individual freedom, and the strong will ultimately survive and properly perpetuate the species.

So Paris Hilton will be amongst the last standing?

thomaswong.1986 says

Dont need the History Channel to remind many that it was Kennedy and Democrats on the whole who were claiming the Missile Gap and where seeking higher military spending...

that doesn't disprove the theory because the fact remains: JFK wanted to get out of VN. in the documentary made with McNamara (Fog of War), there are taped conversations of him and JFK indicating that JFK desperately wanted to get out of VN and McNamara, who was against the war himself, was reluctant about pulling out so many troops in such a short amount of time.

tisk tisk tisk... No more Camelot... no more Kings !

sbh says

If an American doesn't resemble you he's a subhuman and you justify suppressing his freedom FOR HIS OWN SAKE. An Asian American can live his entire life in ethnic quarters of large American cities and speak English a small fraction of the time and immeasurably advance the virtues of this country. To you he would be a throw away piece of trash worth only the effort needed to demonize and suppress. You are shameless.

Without a common language a group of immigrants be they Latino, Asians, and Europeans would not be able to communicate, get education and growth economically... therefore their opportunities dont exist.. Only Liberals have been the barrier to a common language suppressing economic opportunity for all...

An elderly asian in a Ghetto is an open target for criminals (mafia to tong) to manipulate for their entire life.. as we have seen for century now. .. today its the Democrats who manipulate such people....

When immigrants know English, there are no barriers the any can stand on their own two feet and they can pursue their dreams for education and careers/business, and we have many examples of such be they Asians or Europeans.

Make no mistake about it.. you so called Liberals are true Slavers today ...
Your true motto is ...Keep them stupid..Keep them voting for the Democratic party..

There will be a backlash ... count on it !

bgamall4 says

Thatcher but could not have happened without Thatcherism

Since when did the Labor party start calling themselves Conservatives..

The new face of Thatcherism... elected in 1997 ... Tony Blair !

bgamall4 says

Called self certified loans,

when one does not have a w-2.. what does one have if they are
consultants or a sole proprietorship.... how would verify incomes.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0744.pdf

Carolyn C says

debyne says

I just posted something similar on another thread, but socialism interferes with the evolution of the human race. By artificially "taking care" of the weak, we stifle evolutionary progress of our race and don't allow ourselves to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc. with time. Drop all social programs and promote equal opportunity and individual freedom, and the strong will ultimately survive and properly perpetuate the species.

So Paris Hilton will be amongst the last standing?

You're being too short-sighted. Evolutionary principles take generations and generations to take force. Over time, rich idiots, such as the Paris Hiltons of the world, would eventually fail and not survive unless behavior was changed. The point is, don't mess with what nature intended in how we evolve and improve over time.

debyne says

As communism takes hold per your proposed ideals, we as a nation (and race) will
become weaker and lazier over generations; this will be to our demise. Good job.

Why can you not see any alternatives between pure capitalism and pure socialism?

Nobody in this thread is arguing for socialism.

tatupu70 says

debyne says

As communism takes hold per your proposed ideals, we as a nation (and race) will

become weaker and lazier over generations; this will be to our demise. Good job.

Why can you not see any alternatives between pure capitalism and pure socialism?

Nobody in this thread is arguing for socialism.

I'm definitely not a purist, and I actually support regulation in certain areas in order to foster equal opportunity and protecting society as a whole. For example, I'm in favor of the green agenda to force us off fossil fuels because of the pollution it produces, among other things they support to protect our planet. I'm also in favor of anti-trust laws to keep one company (or gov't) from owning an industry. I don't align purely to any political party or ideology, I just pick and choose ideas that make sense to me.

Bigsby says

I suspect you haven't read Dickens, or any history books come to that. And since when has believing in the need for welfare equated to communist ideals? Others on here seem to do the same thing for ACA, seemingly a new form of communism propagated by private insurance companies.

Not sure what you mean about not having read any history books...can you clarify?

A pure communistic society is a classless, moneyless society. Welfare is an ideal that partially promotes that concept.

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Friday, November 1, 2013 __ Level is 99.6

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

indigenous says

The trade deficit causes more dollars to be in possession of other countries than there would otherwise be this allows the US to print more dollars without as much inflation as there would be otherwise be.

Do you realize that the trade deficit is worse BECAUSE of a strong dollar?

indigenous says

One of the keys is that unmolested trade be allowed which allows the basic building block of the economy to work its magic, which it would if left on it's own.

I honestly think you don't even know why you post some of the things you post.

Wow.

You'd think they use the power of the government to put a stop to things which hurt society, such as healthcare.

tatupu70 says

Do you realize that the trade deficit is worse BECAUSE of a strong dollar?

Yes that is my point.tatupu70 says

I honestly think you don't even know why you post some of the things you post.

Thank you for sharing but I have a better command of this than most of you mutts.

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

Perhaps you'd care to list where WHO ranks US healthcare and how much you spend on it in comparison to others.

debyne says

I'm definitely not a purist, and I actually support regulation in certain areas in order to foster equal opportunity and protecting society as a whole. For example, I'm in favor of the green agenda to force us off fossil fuels because of the pollution it produces, among other things they support to protect our planet. I'm also in favor of anti-trust laws to keep one company (or gov't) from owning an industry. I don't align purely to any political party or ideology, I just pick and choose ideas that make sense to me.

Bless your heart for wanting 'to foster equal opportunity.' It's just a bit unfortunate that you want to remove any sort of social safety net for those in need in order to achieve this supposed ambition of yours.

Bigsby says

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

Perhaps you'd care to list where WHO ranks US healthcare and how much you spend on it in comparison to others.

Why bother?

Bigsby says

debyne says

I'm definitely not a purist, and I actually support regulation in certain areas in order to foster equal opportunity and protecting society as a whole. For example, I'm in favor of the green agenda to force us off fossil fuels because of the pollution it produces, among other things they support to protect our planet. I'm also in favor of anti-trust laws to keep one company (or gov't) from owning an industry. I don't align purely to any political party or ideology, I just pick and choose ideas that make sense to me.

Another idea is to have slop houses (like soup kitchens, but worse) in large cities where aged food that's still safe to eat (but grocery stores don't want it anymore) is served. The idea here is to make "welfare" a painful experience, not business as usual.

Bless your heart for wanting 'to foster equal opportunity.' It's just a bit unfortunate that you want to remove any sort of social safety net for those in need in order to achieve this supposed ambition of yours.

I think having some minimal safety net would be fine if we just wouldn't keep expanding it. It's like the old saying..."give them an inch, and they take a mile." For example, offer 3 months unemployment and that's it. Only allow food stamps for a period of 6 months if, and only if, they have a full time job.

debyne says

I think having some minimal safety net would be fine if we just wouldn't keep expanding it. It's like the old saying..."give them an inch, and they take a mile." For example, offer 3 months unemployment and that's it. Only allow food stamps for a period of 6 months if, and only if, they have a full time job.

And if that person fails to find employment during that period (through no lack of trying), then what? And food stamps only for those with a job? What?

debyne says

Bigsby says

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

Perhaps you'd care to list where WHO ranks US healthcare and how much you spend on it in comparison to others.

Why bother?

Why do you think? You seem to be raising up the American healthcare system as the best in the world. It isn't. It can't even supply basic affordable coverage to a good percentage of the population. Your country has by far the most expensive healthcare system, and even with this, has poorer outcomes in comparison to pretty much all other developed nations.

ThreeBays says

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

The "provider" can contribute to innovation, not the "payer".

Not true at all. There's opportunities to innovate on the provider side as well as the payer side...we need improvement in both.

indigenous says

Yes that is my point.

So you're arguing for more printing and a weaker dollar?

If one is a consultant and not a FTE, a bank will request a work contract and tax returns x 2 years at a minimum. They also usually require more $ as a down payment and a higher cash reserve balance not to mention excellent credit scores.

ThreeBays says

And... I'm waiting for you to give some example of innovation on the payer side (that is not single payer).

Cutting out the middle payer completely would be 100% improvement.

Bundled payments are a good example. Check out the company QLiance out of Seattle...they couldn't have developed their successful model of healthcare if single payer was in place. Plus, it's innovation as to how payers can run as lean as possible but still being able to get actuarial right based on actual claims. Anything "single payer" means they don't have to be efficient because they'll just get more gov't budget to pay for their inefficiencies, fraud, etc. On what planet do you think the gov't is efficient and able to contain cost? Oh, let's look at healthcare.gov as a good example. How much did that website cost and how much time did they have to implement it? How well did that turn out?

Cutting out the payer would mean no insurance underwriting, which isn't really an option because what happens if catastrophe strikes? And if you're advocating cutting out the middle man, that would mean no single payer, so not sure I understand the comment.

Oh, and let's not forget that single payer causes innovation to decline...look at the number of new drugs produced by the US compared to single payer nations.

This may be a clearer graph, showing a tripling since 1960. It also may need adjustment for the increase in women working. That is to make inferences about income per hour.

How about this...just from 1970

OF course rents and other investment income are included in this. I'm sure that many right wingers or austrians would argue that workers are not entitled to a piece of the rents that the rich get to collect.

Understanding this aspect of the situation is a big part of understanding how our system works.

Bigsby says

And if that person fails to find employment during that period (through no lack of trying), then what? And food stamps only for those with a job? What?

Go live with family or find a homeless shelter. There are always low-paying jobs available...people just don't want to do them.

marcus says

I'm guessing the percentage working must be at least 35% higher than in 1950.

Btw, I know some might argue this is high, because the workforce participation rate is only about 5% above where it was in 1950. But there are way more people over 68 than there were back then. still 35% may be high.