OT: James Arthur, the perfect market and the perfect op amp

[Phil Hobbs]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:24:45 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip
I sort of miss the old paper applications books though.
snip

Not only do I miss them, but I've tried to get PDF's printed
via places like Lulu and Amazon. Problem is, they want to
see that I have a right to print them. A specific right, not
a bunch of handwaving. I tried to get ahold of TI's
attorneys to get such a document and it was like pulling
teeth, only a lot worse.

One of these days, there won't be paper books at all anymore.
This event, the shifting from paper databooks to PDF only
modes of operation, is a microcosm of a larger movement that
will likely nearly eliminate paper books as publishers decide
to save expense and trouble and end users get used to the
idea. Problem then will be, it will be very easy to change
them and deny they ever were any different. Especially if
the publishers can wireless access to your book readers
without your permission. Who knows what history we will be
told one decade a certain way and then another decade a
different way. Will be interesting times. Not unlike the
way the book 1984 suggests, perhaps.

Write-once memory like paper books has its advantages.

Jon

The UPS Store down the block from me has no such issues. If you do it a
lot, invest in a duplex laser printer.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:34:01 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:24:45 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip
I sort of miss the old paper applications books though.
snip

Not only do I miss them, but I've tried to get PDF's printed
via places like Lulu and Amazon. Problem is, they want to
see that I have a right to print them. A specific right, not
a bunch of handwaving. I tried to get ahold of TI's
attorneys to get such a document and it was like pulling
teeth, only a lot worse.

One of these days, there won't be paper books at all anymore.
This event, the shifting from paper databooks to PDF only
modes of operation, is a microcosm of a larger movement that
will likely nearly eliminate paper books as publishers decide
to save expense and trouble and end users get used to the
idea. Problem then will be, it will be very easy to change
them and deny they ever were any different. Especially if
the publishers can wireless access to your book readers
without your permission. Who knows what history we will be
told one decade a certain way and then another decade a
different way. Will be interesting times. Not unlike the
way the book 1984 suggests, perhaps.

Write-once memory like paper books has its advantages.

Jon

The UPS Store down the block from me has no such issues. If you do it a
lot, invest in a duplex laser printer.

Thanks, Phil. I have already __been__ doing duplexed
printing for many years -- starting with my HP Laserjet II
back so long ago I can't even remember when I bought it, now.
I just do NOT like being in the publishing business. I have
to make sure that literally hundreds of pages all print
properly. Perhaps I haven't spent enough money or been smart
enough to buy the perfect printer, but all of the duplexers
I've used with any regularity (and could afford to buy) had
problems -- at least one or two during a print. Two pages
will get stuck together, for example, and I'll have to thumb
through the stack and find those and replace them. Or it
will jam up and I'll go back and restart it only to find out
that some pages are missing because the printer "lost them"
in the process, or else the printer overcompensates and
reprints multiple pages again. The upshot is that it takes
babysitting time. And I do NOT want to be a print shop. I've
had enough of it, already. Yeah, I am getting good at it.
But I don't WANT to be good at it.

Finally, other stores around here refuse. Those I believed
would print these things with fair results in the end.

But if you are talking about UPS, the shipper, I wasn't aware
they also printed out documents. So I just called them and
confirmed your suggestion. Price is 4 cents per single side
page (and 8 cents for double-sided) at 1000 pages, 5 cents at
500-999 pages, 6 cents at 100-499 pages... and they do have
some very basic binding capability - the plastic, thin, flat
stuff I don't like much. I had been hoping for the bindings
I can get through Amazon and Lulu. A 450 page datasheet
would cost me over $30 ($27 for the print out and about $5
for the binding that I don't like and another $1 just to
start the process.) At Lulu or Amazon, I'd get a much better
binding and a much lower price. I could afford to print
more.

So it's an option, though not a really good one either on
price or on quality. And if I want color, as I do for
climate research papers, .... it is VERY expensive per page.
Luckily, in those cases, there are fewer pages! I don't
think I need color for many datasheets -- I don't think I've
seen many requiring color, which is a good thing.

Thanks for suggesting an option. It's not so overwhelming
I'm going to run down and get all those datasheets printed
out, though. Have you seen the size of the USB documentation
set????

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 4:19 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 2:50 pm, John Larkin







jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:44:09 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:29 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:21 am,BillBowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info
wrote:

Well , I don't know, but gold seems to be a hedge against the riots
going on in London. If they burn down all the stores, what will there
be to eat?

Under Keynes London's riots are a positive boon.

Only if the economy is in recession, and then only in terms of
generating extra economic activity.

Cool. Burn the entire country down. Rebuilding will create lots of
jobs.

Think of all the construction needed to fix the damage, all the workers
that will be needed for repairs, all the materials that will be purchased.
GDP will soar!

GDP has never been an entirely satisfactory metric. You have a better
one?

How about production of actual stuff? You can't eat or drive legal
services or brokerage fees or union pension expenses.

Excuse me for mentioning "production". Nothing personal.

On top of these Keynes adds his multiplier - each worker with a new job
will spend his money at the shopkeepers' stores, who will spend their
new income yet somewhere else.  The cycle repeats several times before
taxes at each transfer reduce the original sum into nothingness, for
net multiplier claimed of 1.89 or such.

Precisely 1.89? You appear to be summing geometric series run on to
infinity, having chosen to assume that 53% of the cash  handed over in
each transaction become available for the next one.

The multiplier effect is silly. It says that we can prosper if only we
will spend all of our income, which precludes savings and investment.

It's better than that--the best possible thing we can do is all go on
unemployment and collect food stamps.  So reasons Pelosi--she says
those pay back in spades.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/pelosi-fires-back-at-...
"For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that
$1.79 is put back into the economy."

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and
unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.

79% return!  Where can we buy foodstamp futures?

You really do enjoy confusing the job of buying the country out of
recession and the longer-term task of growing the economy.

Food stamps and unemployment insurance are particularly good ways of
injecting Keynesian pump-priming money into the economy when it is in
recession - they go to poor people who don't pay much tax and don't
have much choice about spending every penny they can, both of which
maximise the Keynesian multiplier.

When the economy is running at close to capacity there are rather
fewer people in a position to collect unemployment insurance and food
stams, and you actually want everybody to save and invest - which they
will do if the economy is growing - but in recession those same
savings aren't invested (the banks are busy building up their reserves
and don't lend much to anybody) which doesn't help the economy out of
recession.

Since you don't happen to believe that Keynesian pump-priming works -
on account of your flat earth economic beliefs and a politically
motivated desire to ignore inconvenient evidence from the real world -
you find it ethical generate these fatuous sound bites.

I rate it as misleading politcal propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 4:40 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Aug 15, 2:50 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:44:09 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:29 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:21 am,BillBowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info
wrote:

Well , I don't know, but gold seems to be a hedge against the riots
going on in London. If they burn down all the stores, what will there
be to eat?

Under Keynes London's riots are a positive boon.

Only if the economy is in recession, and then only in terms of
generating extra economic activity.

Cool. Burn the entire country down. Rebuilding will create lots of
jobs.

Think of all the construction needed to fix the damage, all the workers
that will be needed for repairs, all the materials that will be purchased.
GDP will soar!

GDP has never been an entirely satisfactory metric. You have a better
one?

How about production of actual stuff? You can't eat or drive legal
services or brokerage fees or union pension expenses.

Excuse me for mentioning "production". Nothing personal.

On top of these Keynes adds his multiplier - each worker with a new job
will spend his money at the shopkeepers' stores, who will spend their
new income yet somewhere else.  The cycle repeats several times before
taxes at each transfer reduce the original sum into nothingness, for
net multiplier claimed of 1.89 or such.

Precisely 1.89? You appear to be summing geometric series run on to
infinity, having chosen to assume that 53% of the cash  handed over in
each transaction become available for the next one.

The multiplier effect is silly. It says that we can prosper if only we
will spend all of our income, which precludes savings and investment.

It's better than that--the best possible thing we can do is all go on
unemployment and collect food stamps.  So reasons Pelosi--she says
those pay back in spades.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/pelosi-fires-back-at-...
"For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that
$1.79 is put back into the economy."

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and
unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.

79% return!  Where can we buy foodstamp futures?

New Math.

Sorry John, it is a simple sleigh-of-hand right-wing sound-bite. James
Arthur has - deliberately - confused the separate and independent
targets of getting the economy out of recession, and growing the
economy once you've got it out of recession.

In a recession pump-priming money spent on food stamps and
unemployment insurance is particularly effective because it goes to
the poor who can be relied on to spend all of it.

Once the economy is out of recession, and there are jobs to be had,
you don't have to pay out as much unemployment insurance or dish out
as many food stamps, and it's worth your while to try and get even the
less employable into some kind of job.

You failed to spot the deliberate equation of apples and pears.

This isn't New Math - just Tea Party propaganda, in the Karl Rove
style.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:39:11 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org>
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:34:01 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:24:45 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip
I sort of miss the old paper applications books though.
snip

Not only do I miss them, but I've tried to get PDF's printed
via places like Lulu and Amazon. Problem is, they want to
see that I have a right to print them. A specific right, not
a bunch of handwaving. I tried to get ahold of TI's
attorneys to get such a document and it was like pulling
teeth, only a lot worse.

One of these days, there won't be paper books at all anymore.
This event, the shifting from paper databooks to PDF only
modes of operation, is a microcosm of a larger movement that
will likely nearly eliminate paper books as publishers decide
to save expense and trouble and end users get used to the
idea. Problem then will be, it will be very easy to change
them and deny they ever were any different. Especially if
the publishers can wireless access to your book readers
without your permission. Who knows what history we will be
told one decade a certain way and then another decade a
different way. Will be interesting times. Not unlike the
way the book 1984 suggests, perhaps.

Write-once memory like paper books has its advantages.

Jon

The UPS Store down the block from me has no such issues. If you do it a
lot, invest in a duplex laser printer.

Thanks, Phil. I have already __been__ doing duplexed
printing for many years -- starting with my HP Laserjet II
back so long ago I can't even remember when I bought it, now.
I just do NOT like being in the publishing business. I have
to make sure that literally hundreds of pages all print
properly. Perhaps I haven't spent enough money or been smart
enough to buy the perfect printer, but all of the duplexers
I've used with any regularity (and could afford to buy) had
problems -- at least one or two during a print. Two pages
will get stuck together, for example, and I'll have to thumb
through the stack and find those and replace them. Or it
will jam up and I'll go back and restart it only to find out
that some pages are missing because the printer "lost them"
in the process, or else the printer overcompensates and
reprints multiple pages again. The upshot is that it takes
babysitting time. And I do NOT want to be a print shop. I've
had enough of it, already. Yeah, I am getting good at it.
But I don't WANT to be good at it.

Finally, other stores around here refuse. Those I believed
would print these things with fair results in the end.

But if you are talking about UPS, the shipper, I wasn't aware
they also printed out documents. So I just called them and
confirmed your suggestion. Price is 4 cents per single side
page (and 8 cents for double-sided) at 1000 pages, 5 cents at
500-999 pages, 6 cents at 100-499 pages... and they do have
some very basic binding capability - the plastic, thin, flat
stuff I don't like much. I had been hoping for the bindings
I can get through Amazon and Lulu. A 450 page datasheet
would cost me over $30 ($27 for the print out and about $5
for the binding that I don't like and another $1 just to
start the process.) At Lulu or Amazon, I'd get a much better
binding and a much lower price. I could afford to print
more.

So it's an option, though not a really good one either on
price or on quality. And if I want color, as I do for
climate research papers, .... it is VERY expensive per page.
Luckily, in those cases, there are fewer pages! I don't
think I need color for many datasheets -- I don't think I've
seen many requiring color, which is a good thing.

Thanks for suggesting an option. It's not so overwhelming
I'm going to run down and get all those datasheets printed
out, though. Have you seen the size of the USB documentation
set????

Jon

Whaddya mean? The USB 2.0 master specification sans collateral documents
is a mere 650 pages.

It is only going to get worse.

?-(

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 2:52 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger.  An absolute lie.  Penalty?  None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill:  if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lecture Bill, a bit of schooling.

<snipped James Arthur's partisan analysis of what "could" have
happened if his Tea Party colleagues didn't happen to go completely
psychotic at some point in the process - not a possiblity that a less
partisan rational observer would neglect>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger.  An absolute lie.  Penalty?  None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill:  if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

This is where your ignorance disserves you yet again Mr.Sloman.
That's why you're so easily gulled by the simplest, most transparent
of lies.

But not - you'll note - by James Arthur's though they are pretty
simple and transparent. 

I s'pose you get it from our media.  They're idiots.

As far as I can tell, 98% of economists are idiots, too.

Few of them share James Arthur's and John Larkin's mutual delusion
that John Maynard Keynes was a "goofy theoretician" whose insights had
no relation to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economist might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger.  An absolute lie.  Penalty?  None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill:  if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

<snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks>

This is where your ignorance disserves you yet again Mr.Sloman.
That's why you're so easily gulled by the simplest, most transparent
of lies.

But not - you'll note - by James Arthur's though they are pretty
simple and transparent. 

I s'pose you get it from our media.  They're idiots.

As far as I can tell, 98% of economists are idiots, too.

Few of them share James Arthur's and John Larkin's mutual delusion
that John Maynard Keynes was a "goofy theoretician" whose insights had
no relation to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economist might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:25:17 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

snip
Whaddya mean? The USB 2.0 master specification sans collateral documents
is a mere 650 pages.

I'm talking about __all__ of the seminal parts. Plus, I'm
thinking about 3.0.

It is only going to get worse.

Yeah. What I'd like to see is a blanket legal statement put
in the public domain by ALL of the electronics firms
regarding their datasheets providing unequivocal legal rights
to ANYONE to print their datasheets. That way I can simply
go to Lulu or Amazon and just tell them "print that bastard
for me" without getting a free argument which I don't want.

Jon

 

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 16, 11:44 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:58:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Aug 16, 7:06 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

I understand the difference of course.  It's just that once upon a
time you didn't have to worry--if it said "HP" you knew it was
excellent.

Those days are gone thanks to people who only look at the initial
purchase price and not TCO.

I want and give preference to a supplier that is trying to make
something truly excellent, something that lasts forever, and which
best serves my needs in every way.  IOW, someone who's interested in
my needs, trying to earn my loyalty, not trap or trick me.

Why do you think that something that lasts forever is cheaper than
something that will only last -lets say- 5 years? I recently replaced
my 16 year old HP Laserjet 5. The price of the new printer (HP P2055dn
business model) is ten times less than the Laserjet 5. If the new
printer lasts longer than 1.6 years it is already cheaper than the
Laserjet 5!

Who said cheaper?  Who said things can't get better?

Besides, why couldn't there be a HP P2055dn that lasted 5 or 10 years?

They sabotage their ink cartridges.  Suppose you found an auto-
destruct timer in the new printer, good for 18 months?  How is that
good for the environment, etc.?  They're free to do it of course, and
I'm free not to buy it.

The printer I got cost about the same as an ink refill.  Rather than
that, I'm also free to buy new ink jet after ink jet, and make gadgets
with the parts at their loss-leading expense.  (Hmm, I kind of like
that idea.)

I have three HP Laserjet 6Ps, refurbs from ebay. Perfectly reliable,
and each cartrige lasts me a year or so. One day, maybe I'll get some
refurb color printers.

John

I just go to FedEx to get stuff printed for maybe 10 cents a page,
double sided. But I don't do much printing. They also have the best
Sony photo printers at 39 cents a print for 4X6.

-Bill

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 17, 1:39 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger. An absolute lie. Penalty? None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill: if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

This is where your ignorance disserves you yet again Mr.Sloman.
That's why you're so easily gulled by the simplest, most transparent
of lies.

But not - you'll note - by James Arthur's though they are pretty
simple and transparent.

I s'pose you get it from our media. They're idiots.

As far as I can tell, 98% of economists are idiots, too.

Few of them share James Arthur's and John Larkin's mutual delusion
that John Maynard Keynes was a "goofy theoretician" whose insights had
no relation to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economists might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

Splendidly non-specific. Which theorists did you have in mind? And
what would count as "a real job".

The macroeconomists. And a real job is one that produces something
useful. You wouldn't understand.

I imagine the being a university professor wouldn't satisfy your
rather restricted idea of what constitutes "a real job". It isn't as
if you value what universities do for their better students, and
signally failed to do for you.

My BSEE from Tulane seems to be working a lot better for me than you
PhD from wherever.

John

 

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 15, 9:23 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 16, 1:02 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info
wrote:

On Aug 14, 9:16 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Lowering the prime rate in a recession so that it is cheaper for
everybody to borrow start-up capital, thus making it likely that more
people will expand their businesses or start new businesses is the very
antithesis of "constantly diddling from afar".

But isn't that what happened in 2003 when the housing bubble began?
The rates went so low that everybody went shopping for a house.

The Bush tax cuts also fed into the economy at that point. Reduce
everybody's taxes and they have more money to spend, and one of the
ways to spend it is on a better house. Bush's claimed motive for the
tax cuts was to stimulate the economy.

So, if Bush managed to stimulate the economy and create a bubble with
tax cuts, why can't Obama do the same? We could use another bubble
about now.

Maybe Rick Perry (another governor from Texas) will bail us out after
the next election?

-Bill

 

On Aug 16, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger.  An absolute lie.  Penalty?  None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill:  if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lecture Bill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

Addition and subtraction is partisan? I hadn't considered that.
Adding up the revenue and expenses directly off the financials -- the
Monthly Treasury Statements -- was my very first impulse, second
nature -- yet it's clearly all one giant mystery to you.

I'll walk you through it.

Here's the latest issue: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html
o The Social Security outlays are in Table 5, page 17. $50B monthly
for basics, $11B for disability.
o Debt service (the amount needed to avoid default) was $27B, Table
5, near the bottom of page 14.
o Total receipts were just $166B, a slack month. Summer vacation and
all, you know. (Table 4, bottom of pg. 6)

So, they
1. received $166B, and
2. needed only about $89B to
a) not default and
b) pay SS, and still had
3. $77B in spending / mad money left over.

Oh dear, was that partisan? Maybe you're right. I suppose I
should've let some poly sci major predigest it for me on the Daily
Kos.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 1:39 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger. An absolute lie. Penalty? None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill: if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

This is where your ignorance disserves you yet again Mr.Sloman.
That's why you're so easily gulled by the simplest, most transparent
of lies.

But not - you'll note - by James Arthur's though they are pretty
simple and transparent.

I s'pose you get it from our media. They're idiots.

As far as I can tell, 98% of economists are idiots, too.

Few of them share James Arthur's and John Larkin's mutual delusion
that John Maynard Keynes was a "goofy theoretician" whose insights had
no relation to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economists might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

Splendidly non-specific. Which theorists did you have in mind? And
what would count as "a real job".

I imagine the being a university professor wouldn't satisfy your
rather restricted idea of what constitutes "a real job". It isn't as
if you value what universities do for their better students, and
signally failed to do for you.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 2:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 16, 8:44 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger.  An absolute lie.  Penalty?  None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill:  if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

Addition and subtraction is partisan?

Your partisan habits show up in what you chose to add and subtract.

 I hadn't considered that.

You don't consider much that isn't conveniently aligned with your
political prejudices.

Adding up the revenue and expenses directly off the financials -- the
Monthly Treasury Statements -- was my very first impulse, second
nature -- yet it's clearly all one giant mystery to you.

There no mystery in it. Your implicit assumption was that your
psychotic friends in the Tea Party couldn't find a way of messing up
the neat arithmetic that ought to guarantee the the SS cheques get
paid. People who didn't share your positive opinion of the politicians
involved had no idea how far their relentless pursuit of electoral
advantage would take them - they certainly didn't hesitate to behave
badly enough to get Standard and Poor's to down-grade the US credit
rating.

I'll walk you through it.

<snipped the elementary but irrelevant arithmetic>

Oh dear, was that partisan?  Maybe you're right.  I suppose I
should've let some poly sci major predigest it for me on the Daily
Kos.

As usual, you choose to miss the point. The risk to the SS checks
should have been minmal, but the Tea Party niwits were grandstanding
in a thoroughly irresponsible manner, and Barack Obama had legitimate
anxieties about precisely how far they might go - anxieties that you
aren't likely to share, since you think that the sun shines out of the
seats of their trousers, and that's why your pontiifcations on the
subject are more than a little partisan.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 1:57 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Aug 16, 1:02 pm,BillBowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info
wrote:

On Aug 14, 9:16 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Lowering the prime rate in a recession so that it is cheaper for
everybody to borrow start-up capital, thus making it likely that more
people will expand their businesses or start new businesses is the very
antithesis of "constantly diddling from afar".

But isn't that what happened in 2003 when the housing bubble began?
The rates went so low that everybody went shopping for a house.

The Bush tax cuts also fed into the economy at that point. Reduce
everybody's taxes and they have more money to spend, and one of the
ways to spend it is on a better house. Bush's claimed motive for the
tax cuts was to stimulate the economy.

So, if Bush managed to stimulate the economy and create a bubble with
tax cuts, why can't Obama do the same? We could use another bubble
about now.

That's not what I said - as I pointed out later in my post, in the
part that you snipped without marking the snip - the bubble came
later. Bush's tax cuts may have raised house prices, but it wasn't a
dramatic rise and can't be described as a bubble. The bubble was blown
up - and burst - by the ninja bank loans which didn't get going until
a few year later.

Maybe Rick Perry (another governor from Texas) will bail us out after
the next election?

Since he is a Republican - these days - the chances are vanishingly
small. The simple rule is that Republicans screw up the economy, and
the Democrats glue it back together, usually accompagnied by a
Republican chorus that is busilyy claiming that they doing it wrong by
failing to starve enough widows and orphans.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 16, 10:39 pm, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economist might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

John

"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and
wonders if it would work in theory." --R. Reagan

James

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 17, 3:26 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:15:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:39 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger. An absolute lie. Penalty? None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill: if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

This is where your ignorance disserves you yet again Mr.Sloman.
That's why you're so easily gulled by the simplest, most transparent
of lies.

But not - you'll note - by James Arthur's though they are pretty
simple and transparent.

I s'pose you get it from our media. They're idiots.

As far as I can tell, 98% of economists are idiots, too.

Few of them share James Arthur's and John Larkin's mutual delusion
that John Maynard Keynes was a "goofy theoretician" whose insights had
no relation to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economists might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

Splendidly non-specific. Which theorists did you have in mind? And
what would count as "a real job".

The macroeconomists. And a real job is one that produces something
useful. You wouldn't understand.

I imagine the being a university professor wouldn't satisfy your
rather restricted idea of what constitutes "a real job". It isn't as
if you value what universities do for their better students, and
signally failed to do for you.

My BSEE from Tulane seems to be working a lot better for me than you
PhD from wherever.

That's what it looks like to you. Your BSEE from Tulane does seem to
have complemented your congenital enthusiasm for doing electronics,
but it doesn't seem to have educated you much about anything else.

I learned a lot in a bunch of other classes: physics, psychology,
economics, materials science, thermo, engineering drawing, and
especially beginners tumbling.

Chemistry and English were annoying wastes of time. I took advanced
math courses, ditto.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 3:40 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 16, 10:39 pm, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT),BillSlomanwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economist might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and
wonders if it would work in theory."  --R. Reagan

Was that said during his first term - when his Alzheimers was merely
incipient - or during his second term where it was definitely
perceptible?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 17, 3:26 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:15:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:39 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:01 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:02 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The President deliberately misled seniors recently into thinking their
SS checks might be in danger. An absolute lie. Penalty? None.

"Might be in danger" is rather unspecific. Calling it an "absolute"
lie is a longer stretch

A small lesson in ethics for you Mr.Bill: if you know something is
impossible, telling people it /is/ possible just to scare them for
your personal gain is a lie.

James Arthur lecturing on the ethics of presenting beliefs that aren't
universally shared has a fairly high ironic content.

It looks like you need a lectureBill, a bit of schooling.

snipped James Arthur's partisan - and very likely incomplete -
explanation of why the Tea Party idiots couldn't possibly have screwed
up the distribution of SS checks

This is where your ignorance disserves you yet again Mr.Sloman.
That's why you're so easily gulled by the simplest, most transparent
of lies.

But not - you'll note - by James Arthur's though they are pretty
simple and transparent.

I s'pose you get it from our media. They're idiots.

As far as I can tell, 98% of economists are idiots, too.

Few of them share James Arthur's and John Larkin's mutual delusion
that John Maynard Keynes was a "goofy theoretician" whose insights had
no relation to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

The objective observer might try to estimate the probablity that 98%
of economists might have got it wrong, as against the probability that
two right-wing nitwits might be allowing their political prejudices to
over-ride their - demonstrably feeble - grasp of reality.

What blather. I bet none of these theorists ever had a real job.

Splendidly non-specific. Which theorists did you have in mind? And
what would count as "a real job".

The macroeconomists. And a real job is one that produces something
useful. You wouldn't understand.

I imagine the being a university professor wouldn't satisfy your
rather restricted idea of what constitutes "a real job". It isn't as
if you value what universities do for their better students, and
signally failed to do for you.

My BSEE from Tulane seems to be working a lot better for me than you
PhD from wherever.

That's what it looks like to you. Your BSEE from Tulane does seem to
have complemented your congenital enthusiasm for doing electronics,
but it doesn't seem to have educated you much about anything else.

My Ph.D. in Chemistry didn't involve my sitting through many lectures
on electronics - though there were a couple - but it did teach me how
to mine the university library for useful information whenever I had a
problem to solve, and that let me learn enough about electronics to
allow me to subsequently make a a career in the business (despite my
lack of formal qualifications in the area). Since I've got a couple of
electronics patents - and you haven't - our skills in electronics
would seem to be of the same order (not that I've got a lot of respect
for the patent-granting process).

Your skills in finding about stuff outside of electronics are
negligible, and if Tulane had been able to get your attention and give
you some idea of what libaries were good for, your head might not now
be quite so thoroughly contaminated with the nonsense that you persist
in spreading around here.

There is the problem that you have an exaggerated idea of your own
competence, which means that once some daft idea has got into your
head, you can't really conceive that it's wrong. University teaching -
if it is done right - can instill the kind of self-critical attitude
that could have helped here.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen