Funny, because we are winning militarily.cam wrote:I wonder what criddic's answer to the radio commentator I heard yesterday would be when he told us that " the US, not able to win the war militarily, will lose it on the home front as Middle-Eastern countries sqeeze it dry with high oil prices."
New Developments III
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Newt Gingrich has been caught on video saying it's too bad that Dubya didn't allow a few terrorist attacks to take place.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4lLLxbbOf0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4lLLxbbOf0
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Ah, recession! 'Tis the season when a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of gas prices.
The declining value of the dollar increases the price of goods and services. It does not, however, increase the production of goods and services (which is what GDP is supposed to measure). Furthermore, a declining dollar inflates the price of goods and services purchased from foreign nations. In order to trust the BLS numbers, we have to believe they have not been inflated by the declining value of America’s currency.
Is that a good assumption?
Ok. For the sake of argument, let us assume the BEA made suitable adjustments for currency anomalies. Can we make the same concession for the inflation data published by the BLS?
No. People are not buying more. They are just paying more for what they buy. As I pointed out in my essay “CPI: Sophisticated Economic Theory, Terrible Ethics” (www.tce.name), the BLS understates both the percentage of disposable income an “average” family spends on fuel and food, and the average prices for the fuel and food they buy. This has the effect of reducing the reported rate of inflation. Apparently the BLS believes high fuel and food prices are “temporary” and thus do not reflect the real world.
Tell that to a mother struggling to find enough money to buy food for her family and suddenly realizing she also has to buy gas with the little bit of cash that’s left in her purse.
(Via)
People aren't just no longer buying homes, they're leaving the ones they have. And other people are squatting in them--not old flophouses, but McMansions.
Wages are not going up at the same rate that inflation is. Dow will increase its prices by three cents a pound. (Not much, right? That's a 20% increase! These chemicals are used in everything in industrial, consumer society! You planning on getting a 20% raise anytime soon?) And oil is the thing which lubricates our global economic system--we cannot run at the same rate, to the same extent, without it! If supply is dwindling (it's a finite resource mostly located to a handful of geographic areas which just "happen" to be geopolitically contentious), demand skyrocketing (India & China), prices skyrocket too. And businesses raise their own prices and cut costs to compete. So people pay more but get less, in terms of both wages and consumer goods.
We did have billions and billions of dollars we've spent over the past years on ... the private sector of war profiteers. That business has done very well for itself.
(Criddic, do you support yourself financially? Are you independent? Do you have to pay for rent, transportation, groceries, utilities on your own?)
Edited By Johnny Guitar on 1212148683
The declining value of the dollar increases the price of goods and services. It does not, however, increase the production of goods and services (which is what GDP is supposed to measure). Furthermore, a declining dollar inflates the price of goods and services purchased from foreign nations. In order to trust the BLS numbers, we have to believe they have not been inflated by the declining value of America’s currency.
Is that a good assumption?
Ok. For the sake of argument, let us assume the BEA made suitable adjustments for currency anomalies. Can we make the same concession for the inflation data published by the BLS?
No. People are not buying more. They are just paying more for what they buy. As I pointed out in my essay “CPI: Sophisticated Economic Theory, Terrible Ethics” (www.tce.name), the BLS understates both the percentage of disposable income an “average” family spends on fuel and food, and the average prices for the fuel and food they buy. This has the effect of reducing the reported rate of inflation. Apparently the BLS believes high fuel and food prices are “temporary” and thus do not reflect the real world.
Tell that to a mother struggling to find enough money to buy food for her family and suddenly realizing she also has to buy gas with the little bit of cash that’s left in her purse.
(Via)
People aren't just no longer buying homes, they're leaving the ones they have. And other people are squatting in them--not old flophouses, but McMansions.
Wages are not going up at the same rate that inflation is. Dow will increase its prices by three cents a pound. (Not much, right? That's a 20% increase! These chemicals are used in everything in industrial, consumer society! You planning on getting a 20% raise anytime soon?) And oil is the thing which lubricates our global economic system--we cannot run at the same rate, to the same extent, without it! If supply is dwindling (it's a finite resource mostly located to a handful of geographic areas which just "happen" to be geopolitically contentious), demand skyrocketing (India & China), prices skyrocket too. And businesses raise their own prices and cut costs to compete. So people pay more but get less, in terms of both wages and consumer goods.
We did have billions and billions of dollars we've spent over the past years on ... the private sector of war profiteers. That business has done very well for itself.
(Criddic, do you support yourself financially? Are you independent? Do you have to pay for rent, transportation, groceries, utilities on your own?)
Edited By Johnny Guitar on 1212148683
The Strangest Recession in Economic History
May 29, 2008 03:22 PM ET | James Pethokoukis
What do you call a recession where the economy keeps going up and up, even if a bit sluggishly? Well, my friends, you call that an expansion. And that is what we seem to have right now, despite all the economic doomsaying about a recession or even a Great Depression 2.0. Today, the Commerce Department revised its first-quarter estimate of gross domestic product upward to 0.9 percent from 0.6 percent. That follows 0.6 percent GDP growth in the final quarter of 2007. The revision also makes it more likely that the second quarter will be positive, maybe 1.5 percent, maybe even higher.
Now I went back and checked the numbers for the past 50 years and didn't find a single case of a recession—as calculated by the National Bureau of Economic Research—that started with or contained two straight quarters of positive GDP growth, much less three quarters. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan admitted he was puzzled that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff, given the housing crisis, credit crunch, and oil price surge. He told the FT: "A recession is characterized by significant discontinuities in the data.... It started off that way—there was a period of sharp discontinuity from December to March. But then it stopped.... No one knows how this tug of war will end—specifically, whether the financial crisis will end before it drags down the real economy."
No one is saying the economy is booming. Clearly, we are in the midst of dramatic slowdown. But even the most ursine of bears has to be amazed by the resilience of the Amazing American Growth Machine. The question now is what to do going forward to allow the AAGM to shift back into high gear. The 2009 election is likely to have a great impact on that, so much so that we may see the effects in 2008. Fears of higher taxes and regulation down the road may cause the stock market to sell off in anticipation of the economy's lower growth potential. Then there's this to worry about, courtesy of the guys over at Strategas Research (bold is mine):
Seven of the ten post World War II recessions occurred in the year following a presidential election. Although many factors can play into a recession, policymakers seek to inject stimulus into the economy in the year of the election. However, this pulling forward of economic activity may reduce growth the following year. With a number of imbalances currently impacting the economy, the $152bn stimulus package may work to minimize a recession in '08, but the effect will be reduced growth in '09 and a significant increase in the deficit with a new Administration entering office. This raises the risk for tax increases in '09 and savvy investors may pull forward economic activity into '08 to get ahead of potential tax/regulatory changes. This further pulls activity out of '09
May 29, 2008 03:22 PM ET | James Pethokoukis
What do you call a recession where the economy keeps going up and up, even if a bit sluggishly? Well, my friends, you call that an expansion. And that is what we seem to have right now, despite all the economic doomsaying about a recession or even a Great Depression 2.0. Today, the Commerce Department revised its first-quarter estimate of gross domestic product upward to 0.9 percent from 0.6 percent. That follows 0.6 percent GDP growth in the final quarter of 2007. The revision also makes it more likely that the second quarter will be positive, maybe 1.5 percent, maybe even higher.
Now I went back and checked the numbers for the past 50 years and didn't find a single case of a recession—as calculated by the National Bureau of Economic Research—that started with or contained two straight quarters of positive GDP growth, much less three quarters. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan admitted he was puzzled that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff, given the housing crisis, credit crunch, and oil price surge. He told the FT: "A recession is characterized by significant discontinuities in the data.... It started off that way—there was a period of sharp discontinuity from December to March. But then it stopped.... No one knows how this tug of war will end—specifically, whether the financial crisis will end before it drags down the real economy."
No one is saying the economy is booming. Clearly, we are in the midst of dramatic slowdown. But even the most ursine of bears has to be amazed by the resilience of the Amazing American Growth Machine. The question now is what to do going forward to allow the AAGM to shift back into high gear. The 2009 election is likely to have a great impact on that, so much so that we may see the effects in 2008. Fears of higher taxes and regulation down the road may cause the stock market to sell off in anticipation of the economy's lower growth potential. Then there's this to worry about, courtesy of the guys over at Strategas Research (bold is mine):
Seven of the ten post World War II recessions occurred in the year following a presidential election. Although many factors can play into a recession, policymakers seek to inject stimulus into the economy in the year of the election. However, this pulling forward of economic activity may reduce growth the following year. With a number of imbalances currently impacting the economy, the $152bn stimulus package may work to minimize a recession in '08, but the effect will be reduced growth in '09 and a significant increase in the deficit with a new Administration entering office. This raises the risk for tax increases in '09 and savvy investors may pull forward economic activity into '08 to get ahead of potential tax/regulatory changes. This further pulls activity out of '09
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
In Thailand some of the bills are of a different size, and others are made of a different material. Some countries use laminated stripes of different sizes and shapes (there's probably a more technically correct way of putting it, but I'm feeling too lazy to google it right now).Heksagon wrote:Concerning the monetary system, except for the U.S., almost all countries in the world print different denominations on different sizes of paper.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Why these evangelical nuts continue to enjoy tax exempt status despite their engaging in partisan politics is beyond me.
Catholics United, a more legitimate Catholic lay organization than the so-called Catholic League has this to say about its nemesis:
Today, Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a 501c3 tax exempt organization, issued a press release labeling Obama's Catholic advisors as Catholic dissidents. By issuing this statement, Donohue not only jeopardizes his tax exempt status but also raises larger concerns over the use of his organization for a partisan agenda.
According to the book Onward Christian Soldiers by the Republican operative Deal Hudson, Karl Rove recruited Bill Donohue to participate in Republican organized efforts to court Catholic voters. By attacking the Catholic advisors of a presidential campaign at this moment, Bill Donohue is again engaging in partisan politics.
Catholics United, a more legitimate Catholic lay organization than the so-called Catholic League has this to say about its nemesis:
Today, Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a 501c3 tax exempt organization, issued a press release labeling Obama's Catholic advisors as Catholic dissidents. By issuing this statement, Donohue not only jeopardizes his tax exempt status but also raises larger concerns over the use of his organization for a partisan agenda.
According to the book Onward Christian Soldiers by the Republican operative Deal Hudson, Karl Rove recruited Bill Donohue to participate in Republican organized efforts to court Catholic voters. By attacking the Catholic advisors of a presidential campaign at this moment, Bill Donohue is again engaging in partisan politics.
Still, it sounds very tough. I don't know what the "drug trafficking" charges include, but I doubt the guy we're talking about is Pablo Escobar. Two burglaries + three drug trafficking charges + gun possession. I don't think it warrants 92 months, 15 years sounds totally out of proportion to the damage done.OscarGuy wrote:Heksagon wrote:Jail sentences in U.S. seem to be ridiculously long. Even the "shorter" sentence, 92 months, sounds absurd for just possessing a gun.
It's not possessing a gun, it's parole violation. The guy served time for burglary twice and drug trafficking three times. It's the drug trafficking that makes the gun possession a major issue. Drug traffickers tend to shoot other people. So, after five convictions, a parole violation deserves to have the guy going back to prison. It's the pattern of illegal activity that merits the longer sentence. So, possessing a gun is not necessarily a punishable offense, but parole violation is.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Excuse the pun, but isn't this a bit short-sighted?
Since most monies are tansferred electronically today, shoudln't all blind people be equiped with talkign computers and headphoens that block what's being said from others so they can move money between their bank accounts, and shouldn't ATMs be equiped with similar options?
I mean, yes, it's disciminatory on the face of it, but changign teh whole monetary system to accommodate a small percentage of citizens doesn't make a lot sense either.
Since most monies are tansferred electronically today, shoudln't all blind people be equiped with talkign computers and headphoens that block what's being said from others so they can move money between their bank accounts, and shouldn't ATMs be equiped with similar options?
I mean, yes, it's disciminatory on the face of it, but changign teh whole monetary system to accommodate a small percentage of citizens doesn't make a lot sense either.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I'm not exactly sure what to make of this.
Court says money discriminates against blind people 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish among the bills' varying values, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling upholds a decision by a lower court in 2006. It could force the Treasury Department to redesign its money. Suggested changes have ranged from making bills different sizes to printing them with raised markings.
The American Council for the Blind sued for such changes but the Treasury Department has been fighting the case for about six years.
"I don't think we should have to rely on people to tell us what our money is," said Mitch Pomerantz, the council's president.
The U.S. acknowledges the design hinders blind people but it argued that blind people have adapted. Some relied on store clerks to help them, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish between bills.
The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.
Courts can't decide how to design the currency, since that's up to the Treasury Department. But the ruling forces the department to address what the court called a discriminatory problem.
Pomerantz says it could take years to change the look of money and until then, he expects that similar-looking money will continue to get printed and spent. But since blindness becomes more common with age, people in the 30s and 40s should know that, when they get older, "they will be able to identify their $1 bills from their fives, tens and twenties," he said.
Officials at the Treasury Department and the department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which prints the nation's currency, had no immediate comment on the ruling. The government could appeal to the Supreme Court.
While the government has been fighting to overturn the lower court ruling, it has been taking some steps toward modifying U.S. currency for the visually impaired.
The most recent currency redesign of the $5 bill introduced in March features a giant "5" printed in purple on one side of the bill to help those with vision problems distinguish the bill.
The appeals court also ruled that the U.S. failed to explain why changing the money would be an undue burden. The Treasury Department has redesigned its currency several times in recent years, and adding features to aid the blind would come at a relatively small cost, the court said.
Other countries have added such features, the court said, and the U.S. never explained what made its situation so unique.
Court says money discriminates against blind people 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish among the bills' varying values, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling upholds a decision by a lower court in 2006. It could force the Treasury Department to redesign its money. Suggested changes have ranged from making bills different sizes to printing them with raised markings.
The American Council for the Blind sued for such changes but the Treasury Department has been fighting the case for about six years.
"I don't think we should have to rely on people to tell us what our money is," said Mitch Pomerantz, the council's president.
The U.S. acknowledges the design hinders blind people but it argued that blind people have adapted. Some relied on store clerks to help them, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish between bills.
The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.
Courts can't decide how to design the currency, since that's up to the Treasury Department. But the ruling forces the department to address what the court called a discriminatory problem.
Pomerantz says it could take years to change the look of money and until then, he expects that similar-looking money will continue to get printed and spent. But since blindness becomes more common with age, people in the 30s and 40s should know that, when they get older, "they will be able to identify their $1 bills from their fives, tens and twenties," he said.
Officials at the Treasury Department and the department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which prints the nation's currency, had no immediate comment on the ruling. The government could appeal to the Supreme Court.
While the government has been fighting to overturn the lower court ruling, it has been taking some steps toward modifying U.S. currency for the visually impaired.
The most recent currency redesign of the $5 bill introduced in March features a giant "5" printed in purple on one side of the bill to help those with vision problems distinguish the bill.
The appeals court also ruled that the U.S. failed to explain why changing the money would be an undue burden. The Treasury Department has redesigned its currency several times in recent years, and adding features to aid the blind would come at a relatively small cost, the court said.
Other countries have added such features, the court said, and the U.S. never explained what made its situation so unique.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
It's not possessing a gun, it's parole violation. The guy served time for burglary twice and drug trafficking three times. It's the drug trafficking that makes the gun possession a major issue. Drug traffickers tend to shoot other people. So, after five convictions, a parole violation deserves to have the guy going back to prison. It's the pattern of illegal activity that merits the longer sentence. So, possessing a gun is not necessarily a punishable offense, but parole violation is.Heksagon wrote:Jail sentences in U.S. seem to be ridiculously long. Even the "shorter" sentence, 92 months, sounds absurd for just possessing a gun.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin