The end is in sight

[Eeyore]

Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Unless of course you pay foreigners to do the work.

Electricite de France wants to build four new EPR 1.6GWe nuclear reactors in
the UK, to which end they bought the existing UK nuclear operator to get
access to existing licenced sites.

I doubt the UK has much in the way of capability any more to contribute much
to their construction.

Graham

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

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.

It'd certainly help if we stopped getting in their faces.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

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.

This is where they'd be better off in France, Britain, Australia, or Cuba.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Exactly. Universal healthcare works in much the same way.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Unless of course you pay foreigners to do the work.

Is that something that happens in America?

Electricite de France wants to build four new EPR 1.6GWe nuclear reactors in
the UK, to which end they bought the existing UK nuclear operator to get
access to existing licenced sites.

I doubt the UK has much in the way of capability any more to contribute much
to their construction.

Well, more fool the UK. It's not like they don't have their own experts.

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

 

[Bob Eld]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.04.30.20.53.24.971392@example.net...
Snip...

So, since your crystal ball is so accurate, what are this week's winning
lottery numbers? For crissakes, are you really incapable of grasping the
fact that it was government intervention that turned the crash of 1929
into the Great Depressinon?
Cut...

Pure republican-libertarian revisionist nonsense. Roosevelt's programs
helped ease the depression by 1937 but it was the MASSIVE GOVERNMENT
SPENDING and INTERVENTION of WWII that finally ended the depression.
Capitalism is unstable and goes from one panic to the next when unregulated
and uncontrolled. A few dates: 1869, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1929. Then the
depression era regulations and controls followed by a long 50 year period of
relative stability. Then along came Reagan and deregulation and now the
panic of 2008. What, you can't understand history??

 

[Bob Eld]

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gte5ru$o3$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

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.

The US spends 14% of GDP on health care while most countries with universal
care spend about 10% of GNP. The US system is inefficient and very wasteful
plus insurance companies rake profit right off of the top without actually
doing any of the health care.

 

[Charlie E.]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 23:20:28 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Unless of course you pay foreigners to do the work.

Is that something that happens in America?

Electricite de France wants to build four new EPR 1.6GWe nuclear reactors in
the UK, to which end they bought the existing UK nuclear operator to get
access to existing licenced sites.

I doubt the UK has much in the way of capability any more to contribute much
to their construction.

Well, more fool the UK. It's not like they don't have their own experts.

Well, a recent occurance here in town...

The beginning of last year, I was laid off, and my wife and I started
a company. I heard that our town was interested in installing
surveillance cameras, and started making inquiries. We finally found
out that the police chief was the one to ask, and were asked to submit
a proposal. We found out the budget was around $80K.

I sat down, contacted vendors, put together a proposal, and submitted
it. Got no feedback whatsoever. I asked about it a few times, and
was always put off.

Finally, in October, while I was in the midst of doing other work for
the city, I saw what proposal they had chosen - Lockheed Martin! And
it was for only $40K - to do the DESIGN for the system! They had
passed up the local guy to get the big name, and were willing to pay
the price to do it!

So, last month, they approved the design, and purchased the system,
for $1.2M! I could have done an equivalent system for about half
that, but then they wouldn't have been able to say that LockMart built
their gear. Of course, having a new company with a half Mil in sales
in town wouldn't have hurt, either...

Me bitter? HA! Now, my wife, that is another story...

Charlie

 

[Charlie E.]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:17:34 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
snip
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 Clinton left the economy in decent shape.


snip
Graham

Actually, the dot.com bubble was already breaking in 1999, which was
one of the reasons Bush was elected instead of Gore.

I saw once that the dot.com bubble burst could be traced to a single
transaction. A backbone company was going to expand service with a
huge purchase of equipment from L3, when their (government sponsored)
financing was pulled. This caused L3 to restate some expectations,
that dominoed throughout the industry to cause everyone to say "it is
now OVER" and plop! the bubble burst...

Charlie

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 17:33:14 GMT, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org>
wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 23:20:28 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Unless of course you pay foreigners to do the work.

Is that something that happens in America?

Electricite de France wants to build four new EPR 1.6GWe nuclear reactors in
the UK, to which end they bought the existing UK nuclear operator to get
access to existing licenced sites.

I doubt the UK has much in the way of capability any more to contribute much
to their construction.

Well, more fool the UK. It's not like they don't have their own experts.

Well, a recent occurance here in town...

The beginning of last year, I was laid off, and my wife and I started
a company. I heard that our town was interested in installing
surveillance cameras, and started making inquiries. We finally found
out that the police chief was the one to ask, and were asked to submit
a proposal. We found out the budget was around $80K.

I sat down, contacted vendors, put together a proposal, and submitted
it. Got no feedback whatsoever. I asked about it a few times, and
was always put off.

Finally, in October, while I was in the midst of doing other work for
the city, I saw what proposal they had chosen - Lockheed Martin! And
it was for only $40K - to do the DESIGN for the system! They had
passed up the local guy to get the big name, and were willing to pay
the price to do it!

So, last month, they approved the design, and purchased the system,
for $1.2M! I could have done an equivalent system for about half
that, but then they wouldn't have been able to say that LockMart built
their gear. Of course, having a new company with a half Mil in sales
in town wouldn't have hurt, either...

Me bitter? HA! Now, my wife, that is another story...

Charlie

Snoop around and find out which politician's bank account took a jump.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[News123]

Martin Brown wrote:

The scan is marginally faster that traditional security measures, and
considerably more thorough. It sees everything in fact (though I am told
the computer blurs faces on the viewers screen).

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2FtU5NbFoqCYHY2j5RB4Mi2xUnQ

Regards,
Martin Brown

I just miss the point about blurring the face of a person:
Just imagine some persons seeing some really 'exciting' image with a
blurred face.

They can just walk away from their screen, out to the check point and
'grin' directly in the real face of the person.

Either people have to accept being 'pseudo-naked' in front of the
security team or this new system shouldn't be installed
Blurring the face is 'just a joke'

I'd be more interested about any health risks for frequent flyers.


N

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 17:01:32 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

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.

Oh, feh! You refuse to acknowledte that this destructive oscillation is
CAUSED by government overregulation - it interferes with the natural
"invisible hand" of the Free Market, which naturally has negative feedback.

"In this passage, taken from his 1776 book "An Inquiry into the Nature
and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith set out the mechanism by
which he felt economic society operated. Each individual strives to
become wealthy "intending only his own gain" but to this end he must
exchange what he owns or produces with others who sufficiently value what
he has to offer; in this way, by division of labour and a free market,
public interest is advanced..."
---http://plus.maths.org/issue14/features/smith/

Sure, with the Free Market, some people will go broke - that's the nature
of Freedom - you make your choices and if you're wrong, you take your
knocks and try something else.

I guess this concept is incomprehensible to socialists, who want cradle-to-
grave nannying.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:59:21 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Try the World's Smallest Political Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:50:21 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:33:32 GMT, James Arthur
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

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.

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 ;-)

You're forgetting that when the economy turns to shit, /everyone/ gets
hurt, not just the people you don't like.

He'll get his:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:50:21 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

You're forgetting that when the economy turns to shit, /everyone/ gets
hurt, not just the people you don't like.

You make a lot of sense - you're not a warmingist, are you?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:14:13 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

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

Yeah - both the "People's" socialists, who want to take your earnings away
to pay the bills of the lazy, negligent, and stupid poor people, and the
"National" Socialists, who want to take your earnings away to pay the
bills of the lazy, negligent, and stupid _rich_ people.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:51:38 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Since the "smart" people hang out here, the discussions are much more
interesting. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

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...

That's odd. I thought you _loved_ socialism.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

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.

Are you saying that giving booze money to winos or gambling money to
gamblers would be equally good to society because "the money ends up
in the economy, benefiting someone"?

I submit the one is good, the other isn't. The difference matters.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

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.

a) If FDR's measures were so effective, why did the
Depression last so long?

b) Obama is not spending on the things FDR spent on.
How many car and insurance companies did FDR buy?

c) The ultimate cure was WWII, not Keynes.

d) After WWII--the ultimate Keynesian exercise--the
economy immediately fell into a doldrums that lasted
years. How could that be, if Keynes is such powerful
good medicine?

Or, more to the point, how is society helped by putting
production of things it does not need or want into
overdrive?

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.

You ask about a complex topic, already trouble-shot, traced, rooted
out, and addressed here at length, before you arrived. (Welcome, BTW).
It's a long history; you've got some catching up to do.


Cheers,
James Arthur


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<unsnip>

It was the commodification of mortgages that made it possible for
brokers to sell mortgages to people without jobs, etc. I'm not sure who
was responsible for that screwup, but it obviously wasn't Obama.

It was a series of government interventions, collectively the
"affordable housing initiatives," that gave us the mortgage
crisis. Obama wants to put those same policies into overdrive.

Obama, actually, was exactly an advocate for those policies, but
a bit-player; Rahm Emanuel was more influential; he was on
Freddie Mac's board of directors at a key point in the genesis.
He could've stopped it all, he could've shouted it to the rooftops
years. He didn't. It was a farce, a corrupt sinecure, a payoff
to a former Clintonite.

But Barney Frank and his crew, plus Clinton, and a few others get most
of the discredit. Clinton's re-tooling of the CRA marked the start,
together with securitization--which can be a good thing--also under
Clinton's watch.

Feel like reading a historical, true-to-life thriller?
Here's the setup:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

Here it is mid-plot:
How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html

This series is more comprehensive:
Setup:
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306978378974502
Series:
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/series11.aspx

Bush actually tried, tepidly, to stop it, several times, but Democrats
shouted him down as racist, so he quit.

Mind you, everyone wants housing to be affordable, and the theory
of gov't meddling (supposedly) to that effect was widely supported
by both sides once the Democrats gave birth to it. Both sides had
beneficiaries, and politicians always love handing out candy.

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?

Like I said, he had to choose between that or a 1929-style depression.
This option sucks too, but not nearly as much as a depression would.

There's no reason to think a depression was inevitable, or that Obama's
borrowing in _any_ way prevents one.

To the extent one might be, Obama was feeding it. A Depression is,
after all at bottom a panic, a loss of confidence, which Obama fed, nay,
fired. Revisit his rhetoric during the campaign, and post-election.

Words like "catastrophe," "depression," and "crisis", don't incite
confidence, don't soothe a worried crowd, nor encourage them to
engage in commerce, to spend. Quite the opposite. For that, he's
to blame.