The end is in sight

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Don't bother trying to convey _fact_ to leftist weenies. Take
consolation in the fact, when the economy really shits, the leftist
weenies will be the ones who are out of work. And I'll be in orgasmic
Schadenfreude ;-)

Your left vs right views are getting very, VERY stale. Neither have ever got
anything 100% right, probably 50% each on average.

It's a pity that so few of us can resist the temptation to bring
politics into what's supposed to be a technical newsgroup.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:7s0hv45p4jg55k1oh6grjettpo5vtab3mj@4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:33:32 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:kt8fv4ds5o8tfjmmtv5fqaqek65kdnqq3r@4ax.com...
[snip]
And Clinton was pushing for bank deregulation even before he was
elected President. I wonder why.

John
I doubt that most people believe you that make it out to be
Clinton's fault. In truth Democrats are about 20% culpable and
Republicans 80% culpable. Deregulation was primarily a republican
thing you cannot spin it any other way.


You obviously haven't followed the history, or seen the several
reform attempts Democrats blocked.

Google up some of Barney Frank's 2005 YouTubes, where he
argues shrilly against restraining the lending, and calls
those in favor "racists."

Bush was the first to speak up about it, timidly, circa 2001
and then in 2003 IIRC, but he got shouted down by Barney &
crew.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Don't bother trying to convey _fact_ to leftist weenies. Take
consolation in the fact, when the economy really shits, the leftist
weenies will be the ones who are out of work. And I'll be in orgasmic
Schadenfreude ;-)

...Jim Thompson

It's just astounding how they(leftist weenies) believe the Repubs are at
fault for everything,then when it's shown that they were not,and DemocRATs
were,they refuse to believe it and then try to weasel around to support
their screwy incorrect beliefs.

Socialism is the root cause of most of the United States woes.

You think you have socialism? Check out Sweden, if you want to see
genuine socialism in a first-world nation.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:54:13 -0700, Bob Eld wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
And Clinton was pushing for bank deregulation even before he was
elected President. I wonder why.
I doubt that most people believe you that make it out to be Clinton's fault.
In truth Democrats are about 20% culpable and Republicans 80% culpable.
Deregulation was primarily a republican thing you cannot spin it any other
way.

Democrats and Republicans are essentially indistinguishable these days -
they're just the two wings of the same Statist bird.

To someone outside the USA, they both look very right-wing.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:10:37 -0700, Bob Eld wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:24:59 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:d7bev4thm46u1t8io05n85ilne48ts4mo7@4ax.com...
The end is in sight...

Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).

Pelosi promises gun control :-(
Yep, the end is in sight at least for old fools clinging to the
CONservative
past. We've had 30 years of deregulation and greed that has culminated in
the collapse of the financial system. This is because unregulated,
uncontrolled, do what you want, Laissez-Faire Capitalism is inherently
unstable. It goes from boom to bust in chaotic cycles. For approximately
50
years since the depression it has been more or less controlled with a
modicum of rules and regulation that kept it reasonably on track. Then
along
came Reagan and the Conservatives who over time took many of the
regulations
off under the idea that government is not the solution, government is the
problem.
Quiz time: which President negotiated and signed the bill eliminating
the Glass-Steagall regulations?

OK, OK, that's too hard a question. Sorry. The answer is "Clinton."

Next question: which reps followed up by forcing banks to make bad
mortgages?
You're quite right Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act repealing the
1933 Glass-Steagall act. It was a bad move and Clinton shares the blame, no
doubt about it. However, all there of those guys, Gramm, Leach and Bliley
were Republicans, right? The fact is that most deregulation comes from
republicans starting with Reagan and Phil (a nation of whiners) Gramm was a
major player pushing deregulation as recently as last summer as things were
collapsing. He worked for McCain.

Why are you so addicted to regulation? What makes you think that some
Washington bureaucrat can manage _your_ money better than you can?

Without negative feedback in the form of regulation, the amplifier of
capitalism tends to oscillate destructively.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

I favor Bastiat's formulation: if one man steals from another, even
though he uses the government to do it for him, it's still theft.

Who builds the roads and bridges etc in this world ?

Graham


There's a difference between a common good, and taking one man's
money to give to another.

When a government builds a road, it's taking the taxpayers' money &
giving to the guy who own the construction company. Either way,
somebody is having their money taken away from them & given to someone
else.

But one way a road was built, for all to use.

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote

The end is in sight...
Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).
I don't think the democrats are necessarily all that much more
attractive than
they've been in say, the past decade... it's more than the
republicans have
kinda imploded and Specter is running for cover.

Yep. But now that they have total power the Democrats are into rape
and plunder.
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama
ends
up being justified.

It will indeed. He's been left a heck of a mess to sort out.

Graham


Some, but not much different from what Bush inherited from Clinton.

I thought that the Budget was in surplus at the end of Clinton's final
term?

For a nanosecond, with irrational-exuberance tax revenue. Clinton rode
the internet bubble, benefiting at the end from an 11%(!) growth rate.

Clinton did cut military spending--his one significant cut.

Bush inherited a catastrophic economic collapse, declining revenues,
a stripped military, and then he was attacked.


(Deficit)/
Year Revenue d$/dt Spending Surplus
---- ------- ----- -------- ---------
1998 1,722 9.0% 1,653 (30)
1999 1,828 6.1% 1,702 2
2000 2,025 10.8% 1,789 86

2001 1,991 -1.7% 1,863 (33)
2002 1,853 -6.9% 2,011 (318)

(billions, from CBO figures)

Iraq's trajectory is already laid out, and the banking thing
would fix itself, if he'd only let it.

If you stipulate that Depression-level unemployment is acceptable, sure.

The porkulus has yet to kick in, and the economy's considerably
better. Dow 9000->7000 was from Obama's scaring people to cram
his package in.

Obama wants to go a-conquering in Afghanistan--I'm not sure why.

You don't want to go after Bin Laden, et al?

He's impotent and incompetent. He's still dangerous, but I don't
see how 40,000 troops will help. Track him, and take him out.

ISTM the real concern may be the potentially imminent collapse of
Pakistan, and the Taliban getting their nukes. That would be bad.

James Arthur

 

[Martin Brown]

Eeyore wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:10:30 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

Might that help catch criminals and prevent crime?
The only thing the state can do is respond to crime scenes and clean
up the mess, and hope they'll catch the perp sometime.
CCTV in UK town centres has already shown that to be false. At last the
police here can and do now act proactively.
The ones in Middlesbrough can actually shout at offenders to pick up
litter or stop brawlign in the street. The initial effect was highly
amusing as the perps stared up at the camera incredulously. It made
local and national TV when launched.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5353538.stm
You don't need CCTV at the end of your leafy lane though.
The CCTVs on the major trunk roads and motorways are now publically
accessible online (except when there is an accident in the segment). You
have to click on show traffic cameras to get the realtime views - they
are not enabled by default. M25 is usually suitably congested.

http://www.trafficengland.com/motorwayflow.aspx

The mean speeds on segments are pretty accurately determined.

Does that mean they're SPECS cameras ?

I don't think so. I think they get the traffic speed independently from
the inductive loops that are buried in the road with the solar powered
boxes at the roadside. There are a few fixed installation ANPRs though.
There is a set on the A19 near the Tontine (they are now very small).

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:59:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:10:30 +0000, James Arthur wrote:
Might that help catch criminals and prevent crime?
The only thing the state can do is respond to crime scenes and clean
up the mess, and hope they'll catch the perp sometime.
CCTV in UK town centres has already shown that to be false. At last the
police here can and do now act proactively.

So, when you're being mugged, do you ask the mugger to wait a sec while
you call the cops? Or turn over your cash, while you're waiting for
somebody to observe the crime remotely and dispatch your "protector"?

It happens so rarely that I wouldn't know. Unless you are sure you can
win the advice is generally to give the attacker what they ask for.
Insurance can replace material goods - life is more important.

The only person I know who has been mugged was a victim in a very dodgy
part of Brussels. He was ex-military and took both his assailants down,
but suffered a punctured lung in the process. He was off work for 2 months.

You don't need CCTV at the end of your leafy lane though.

I see nothing wrong with a person installing security cams on their own
property, at their own expense.

So long as they do not point it at the public road.

But massive Big Brotherism is inimical to Liberty.

Although I am inclined to agree in principle... When you have IRA
terrorists blowing up your city centres for a few decades you accept
that having CCTV surveillance on the likely targets will increase the
chances of catching the bastards. The first ANPR cameras were part of
that fight against terrorism. But the UK has gone from that limited
scope to having the largest number of cameras per capita.

These days if someone goes missing it is routine for police to trawl all
the CCTV cameras along their route. And they often get multiple
sightings. In London you are often on multiple cameras most of the time.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:56 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama
ends up being justified.

What, haven't you been paying attention?
He whines about the deficit he's "inherited", then proceeds to triple it?

He had to do that to fend off a depression.

He said that, but he's clueless.

If a depression were in the cards, he's not averted it.
The ultimate juggernauts are the federal entitlements,
which he's ballooning.

But handing out borrowed money's always popular...

James Arthur

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

I favor Bastiat's formulation: if one man steals from another, even
though he uses the government to do it for him, it's still theft.

Who builds the roads and bridges etc in this world ?

Graham


There's a difference between a common good, and taking one man's
money to give to another.

When a government builds a road, it's taking the taxpayers' money &
giving to the guy who own the construction company. Either way,
somebody is having their money taken away from them & given to someone
else.

But one way a road was built, for all to use.

Absolutely. That's the upside to taxation. But either way, the money
ends up in the economy, benefiting someone.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:56 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama
ends up being justified.

What, haven't you been paying attention?
He whines about the deficit he's "inherited", then proceeds to triple
it?

He had to do that to fend off a depression.

He said that, but he's clueless.

Historically speaking, it makes perfect sense.

If a depression were in the cards, he's not averted it.
The ultimate juggernauts are the federal entitlements,
which he's ballooning.

But handing out borrowed money's always popular...

Well, we shall see. And I notice that you snipped out my other points.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

On Apr 30, 5:25 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Apr 30, 1:39 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
At the moment, when compared with what the gasoline-powereed car
offers in the way of convenience and performance. The electric-powered
car is already "good enough" but you wouldn't choose it on the basis
of performance or economy.

Now compare EVs with diesel powered cars or diesel engined PHEVs.

Hybrid cars - burning hydrocarbon fuel in a small motor which always
runs close to its performance optimum - have about half the carbon
footprint of conventional cars.

Opel's Flextreme a.k.a. Ampera is touted as delivering only 40g CO2 / km which
is much much better than half.

Still not good enough to keep George Monbiot happy. If you drove 10km
per year you'd emit 400kgm of CO2 which is almost your half ton of CO2
just from your driving.

Of course that doesn't count the CO2 generating
the electricity it uses but then I'm not afraid of CO2 either.

Foolhardy. But ignorance is bliss.

--
Bill Sloman, nijmegen

 

On May 1, 9:55 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote

<snip>

Iraq's trajectory is already laid out, and the banking thing
would fix itself, if he'd only let it.

If you stipulate that Depression-level unemployment is acceptable, sure..

The porkulus has yet to kick in, and the economy's considerably
better.  Dow 9000->7000 was from Obama's scaring people to cram
his package in.

Obama wants to go a-conquering in Afghanistan--I'm not sure why.

You don't want to go after Bin Laden, et al?

He's impotent and incompetent.  He's still dangerous, but I don't
see how 40,000 troops will help.  Track him, and take him out.

You've been trying to do that for seven years now - at least in
theory. It could be that you weren't tryiing too hard - Bin Laden was
a convenient bogey-man for Dubbya to wave at the electorate - but what
you claim to have been doing doesn't look as if it is ever going to
work.

ISTM the real concern may be the potentially imminent collapse of
Pakistan, and the Taliban getting their nukes.  That would be bad.

Iran all over again, where you supported the Shah way past his sell-by
date, allowing him to get rid of all his potential moderate
replacements, leaving the field clear for the Ayatollahs. Mushareff
similarly hung on too long, weakening the moderate opposition vis-a-
vis the Taliban.

We all know why you don't pay any attention to Noam Chomsky and other
ratioanl commentators, but it is a bit sad that you keep on making the
same old mistakes because you can't shed your political blinkers.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Eeyore]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Obama wants to go a-conquering in Afghanistan--I'm not sure why.

You don't want to go after Bin Laden, et al?

He could be almost anywhere or even dead. Can we ever stop the Jihadist terror
training camps etc whilst we give them a good reason to hate us ( mostly
invading their 'holy soil' and killing locals ). Don't expect them to be
rational.

Graham

 

On Apr 30, 9:57 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Richard the Poet Laureate of Freedom wrote:





On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:56 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama ends
up being justified.

What, haven't you been paying attention?

He whines about the deficit he's "inherited", then proceeds to triple it?
He bails out the companies that were driven into bankruptcy by cowtowing
to the unions, and the banks that wrote mortgages that were _guaranteed_
to fail? He's presiding over the biggest redistribution of money from the
productive to the unproductive in the entire history of the known
Universe, and you can't see that?

Sheesh - how long have you had your head in the sand?

Thanks,
Rich

"kowtow", i.e., (v.i.) to exhibit servile deference; fawn; (n.)
an obsequious act.

The rest is pure gold.

Pure iron pyrite.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Eeyore]

Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:56 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama ends
up being justified.

What, haven't you been paying attention?

He whines about the deficit he's "inherited", then proceeds to triple it?

He had to do that to fend off a depression.

He bails out the companies that were driven into bankruptcy by cowtowing
to the unions,

Personally, I agree that America would be better off in the long run, if
it let GM & the like collapse, but it'd be a vote-loser in the meantime.

Well... he's got a few yrs to make it up. I read the other day Chrysler was
about to file for bankruptcy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_bi_ge/us_chrysler

They have.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bob Larter wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:43 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

"Progressive" Great Society programs drove the financial bubble,
which frankly pales compared to the Social Security and Medicare
fiascoes.

The US social security and medicare systems are fiascos - not because
the ideas are impracticable, since they work fine in other countries -
because American politicians don't understand the social contract
underlying the ideas, and won't implement them in a way that benefits
society as a whole.

Well said. That's exactly the problem. In the real world, it actually
costs more to make sure that the 'undeserving' are excluded than it does
to just pay out & accept that there's going to be some wastage. Per
capita, the USA spends more money on health care than countries with
free universal health care that excludes nobody. I suspect that the same
is also true of the Social Security system.

One big problem AIUI is that US health care tends to be 'deluxe', there no
real economy option.

Graham

 

On May 1, 10:24 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:56 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama
ends up being justified.

What, haven't you been paying attention?
He whines about the deficit he's "inherited", then proceeds to triple it?

He had to do that to fend off a depression.

He said that, but he's clueless.

Far from it, but he's taking advice from neo-Keynesian economists,
whom you'd like to burn at the stake.

If a depression were in the cards, he's not averted it.

If we are to rely on your crystal ball, which runs on an economoc
theory which is rather better at telling the rich what they want to
hear than predicting where the economy is going to go next.

The ultimate juggernauts are the federal entitlements,
which he's ballooning.

Your claim that America's social security payouts are large depends on
creative accounting that would have made Margaret Thatcher blush. In
fact a major weakness of your economy is that you don't spend enough
on the children of the poorest families, so they grow up ill-educated
and unemployable, and end up being expensively fed and housed in state-
funded prisons.

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

That is one of the your expenditures that really is ballooning.

But handing out borrowed money's always popular...

As opposed to using it to fight a pontless and unprofitable war in
Irak, and fund the consequent - equally unprofitable (for everybody
except Haliburton) - occupation of the country.

As least Obama is spending money or bread rather than circuses.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

I favor Bastiat's formulation: if one man steals from another, even
though he uses the government to do it for him, it's still theft.

Who builds the roads and bridges etc in this world ?

Graham


There's a difference between a common good, and taking one man's
money to give to another.

When a government builds a road, it's taking the taxpayers' money &
giving to the guy who own the construction company. Either way,
somebody is having their money taken away from them & given to someone
else.

But one way a road was built, for all to use.

By pooling resources which is what councils and government can do.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
At the moment, when compared with what the gasoline-powereed car
offers in the way of convenience and performance. The electric-powered
car is already "good enough" but you wouldn't choose it on the basis
of performance or economy.

Now compare EVs with diesel powered cars or diesel engined PHEVs.

Hybrid cars - burning hydrocarbon fuel in a small motor which always
runs close to its performance optimum - have about half the carbon
footprint of conventional cars.

Opel's Flextreme a.k.a. Ampera is touted as delivering only 40g CO2 / km which
is much much better than half.

Still not good enough to keep George Monbiot happy. If you drove 10km
per year you'd emit 400kgm of CO2 which is almost your half ton of CO2
just from your driving.

Of course that doesn't count the CO2 generating
the electricity it uses but then I'm not afraid of CO2 either.

Foolhardy. But ignorance is bliss.

He said as the Arctic Ice increases and temperatures fall along with sea level.

Graham