No, no, no. Don't give me that now. How came 100mSv/h used to be horrible and is just good for your health. Explain that.
563 karma · joined April 11, 2013
Another thing is this - and I'm a right wing pig here if you'd like to call me that - USSR as bad as it was it took responsibility for the Charnobyl catastrophe. There was Army and the Government involvement on all levels to clear it up from day 0. In Japan years after the incident the Government is still finger pointing some CEO trying to operate that facility. I hate that because this is precisely one of these things that gives capitalism very bad name. And what is the Japanese Government there for? To come up with lies about how radiation is good for you now? How pathetic!
I remember how I was driving to work in the DC instead of taking metro. I was labeled Republican in a second.
What happened to that thing? Got old? I'll tell you what. New taxes were imposed world-wide and the problem disappeared over night.
Coldest winters in living memory and these clowns still push "global warming" propaganda. Why don't you turn off the TV and open the eyes, huh?
Dear Westerners suffering from Stockholm Syndrome: Stalin called people like you "useful idiots".
I can go to a psychiatrist and persuade him/her that I have a bipolar disorder. Or that I'm schizophrenic, or depressive. And that's because there is no way for psychiatrists to know. You can talk all day long about all types of brain imaging tests that could reveal the diseases. But if that in fact was true then psychiatry would use the tools in the diagnostic process. If nothing else then at least to shut up guys like me who laugh at that "science".
Do you think that I can't go to 3 doctors and persuade each of them that I have a psychiatric condition and that they wouldn't give me a diagnosis?
The monster that is emerging its head worldwide is neo-feudalism, not socialism or capitalism. That's why political parties, or political ideologies lost sense and touch with reality some time ago. They try to explain the world that they have no tools to explain - feudal world.
feudalism was destroyed by capitalistic revolution (French revolution) which in turn was questioned (not destroyed) by socialist revolution called Bolshevik revolution. The cycle begins from the start again, next in turn in morphed feudalism. And this system is to be addressed by the values of the French Revolution AND Capitalistic Ideology. Socialist world of politics that we live in has no good answers to the threat of neo-feudalism. The answer to neo-feudalism is in capitalism.
Just saying. Would love to see a Revolution with people reovolting against their feudal masters (the 1%).
The price of labor just like any other price in the free market economy is determined by supply & demand. So they need you for $5/hour. You know you are worth (i.e. can easily get) the same job for $10/hour. The capitalistic/free market way of this to work out is that you go working for 10usd/hour this way rewarding competent guys who can built cars with profit to pay you your rate and at the same time penalizing incompetent company that can't build cars with profit. At the end this means the incompetent company should go bankrupt and resources it was holding hostage - workers, machinery, real estate, steel that they used, etc, etc. can be bought on cheap via bankruptcy process by competent companies that will put all of that to better use.
That's actually what should happen in 2008 with the banks. The incompetent banks that were lending all this risky money to guys without checking if they can ever repay, should go bankrupt - Citi, GoldMan, you name it. Then via baknruptcy process they would free up a lot of workforce, a lot of bank branches, office space, etc. to be bought by competent banks on the cheap (it's bankruptcy after all) and put it all to better use. 3/4th bank from Ohio - its CEO - knew about the housing bubble in advance. He was cautious. If we allowed the market forces to work he - a competent banker - would be the one who would buy on cheap / take over assets of incompetent morons like Paulson ex-CEO from Goldman. That's how free market economy works. This transition period - when people loose their jobs, etc due to incompetent morons CEOs - is horrible. But the things get reassigned and after some time people find work at competent banks that make sense. Instead, we got Paulson and other incompetent loosers convince the Government that they - incompetent CEOs - should be bailed out by tax-money. They told a few fairies about the end of the world that will happen for sure if they go bankrupt. The same was repeated by politicians and TV talking heads. And here we go - competent banker is taxed to pay to incompetent bankers do they can do the same mistakes all over again. Just one thing - please don't call this motrosity capitalism. It isn't.
Bulgaria example: all satellite countries in the soviet block, and I underline again all of them, were developing more slowly and had much, much worse living conditions than their Western counter-parts at all time from 1945 forwards. Just compare Eastern to Western Germany. So, don't rewrite history, communism was one that made people sick of the poverty and revolt in Eastern Europe.
On the other hand, I agree with you, that post 1989 Eastern Europe is developing slower than we would have hoped for. However, in mu humble opinion, and that's just opinion, this is because of following still socialism. Free housing, free healthcare, free this and that. People in Eastern Europe live in socialist not capitalist states. Moreover, more often than not, the "capitalization" process done by "liberals" in Eastern Europe was just simply stealing the whole industries by ex-communistic elites together with guys who are currently in power. These are very corrupt states. I like to compare my own country - Poland - to Mexico. You know Mexico has had "capitalism" for a long time. But it is not a real capitalism. People there believe in free stuff, they vote for free stuff, and they don't like or trust free market economy. This causes corruption which in turn makes them permanently poor. I think Eastern Europe is a bit like Latin America. They don't have true capitalism but some kind of a corrupt states that just failed. Adding EU socialism on top of that kind of pushes things in the right direction in my opinion - from post-communistic mentality towards more modern, western, socialists - but it is still socialism.
Let me put it this way. For the simplicity sake let's present workforce as the pyramid. So you have 1% who enjoy 50%+ or more of the wealth. You have 80% who are doing just fine. And you have 20% who are rock bottom poor and screwed over big time. The problem I have with socialism is that it obsesses about the poorest 20% so much, that is screws it over for the rest, the 80%. And at the end of the day everyone is poor because none of these socialist policies really work well. They just make everyone poorer. Margaret Thatcher is a great example of that on works. When she was the Prime Minister the income of the poorest 20% has been growing the fastest since the end of the WW2. The problem is that the other 80% was getting richer even faster. So poor felt like they are not getting their fair share. Without understanding that if you start introducing policies wealth transfer from 80% to the poor 20%, the poor won't get richer! They'll be still poor. You are so obsessed with this one pump attendant who made it big that by introducing the laws to take some wealth from the rich attendant, you don't see that the same law makes the other 4 attendants poorer too. The problem with socialists is that they want to feel so much, they forget to think.
>There is another issue that as a civilization we've decided civilization means citizens will have police, fire, libraries, schools, national defense, unemployment, welfare of some forms, foreign aid, all that stuff (More civilized nations or more civilized people believe health care belongs on this list, and I agree).
Equaling civilization with socialism doesn't work in my book. What about equaling the amount of freedom and responsibility with being civilized. So, if you - like one of my coworkers - eat, eat, eat and eat all day. She is fat, I tell you. And then - no excercise. Zero. Nada. Nothing. And then cigarettes. And then you go there and tell me it is civilized that I'm taxed higher to pay for her doctor, so I don't have money for my kid's school supplies? Nice. Very civilized. And where is her responsibility here? And where is my freedom to spend money on what I want, not what you want, my coworker wants, or the Government wants? What happened with this in our civilization?
>Anyway it takes $X to provide those services privately or via taxes, or the govt at an overhead cost of Y*$X will provide those services by taking extra money from everyone else and redistributing from each according their ability and to each according to their need.
And we know it doesn't work. 20 years after communism failed there are still people who believe that you can run economy on a premise of Marxist "redistributing from each according their ability and to each according to their need. " Again, go back to your history books. Don't listen to me. Even hard core communists like Slavoj Zizek will tell you that economically that didn't and can't work.
>The "welfare queen" in this situation is the service station, getting labor hours at a below civilization market cost.
And what is "civilization market cost" ? 1usd/hr? 2usd/hr? 50usd/hr? 1000usd/hr ? Can you define this nonsense?
> Essentially the welfare queen service station is stealing money from me as a taxpayer rather than paying their employees a legitimate fair wage.
If there wasn't welfare state, nobody would be taking money from you.
>This is the well known "walmart effect" where poverty increases when walmart moves in, because the employees are below poverty line so the net effect is negative on .gov and the residents of that .gov who know have to pay higher taxes so Sam Walton's heirs can become richer, all while being told this is fairness, capitalism style.
Why these people work at WalMart? Because they couldn't find a better job! So WalMart is doing the a favor because without WalMart they would have ended up at even more shitty job. And shitty jobs are good. I had one - was sorting out garbage. Once you do that type of job, you'll learn how to move up, without any stupid Government program. And if you stay at that level. It's 20% of the poorest. Why would you rather screw it for the 80%, to have it better for 20%. And then the 20% would be still poor too. That's what communism taught us. Everybody became poor. They made everyone equal. In their poverty.
>Why should I as a 3rd party be impoverished to make a rich welfare queen business owner richer, because a welfare queen business owner doesn't feel like paying his employees what has been determined to be a fair minimum wage?
Nobody told you to vote for leftist welfare programs. If you voted for them, yeah, you need to pay for them. I know sucks, to have people voting for that nonsense that cost me money too bro, so we're in it together.
>I legitimately and legally and ethically earn enough income to pay enough taxes to pay my share of national defense; why should I have to chip in more than my share because some welfare queen business owner isn't competent enough to match my level of business skill and pay his fair share of taxes via paying his workers a fair wage?
What is fair wage? 5usd/hr? 10usd/hr? 50usd/hr? Is it fair when a guy cleaning WalMar makes as much as software developer? You think?
>Your more fundamental failure is not recognizing that when .gov and .com merge, as they've done globally, a marketing game of divide and conquer makes losers out of people fighting on either side. The goal is the destruction of the middle classes globally. They're winning. Some countries are trying a PR campaign where .com and .gov merge and pretend .gov is in the drivers seat of the prison wagon, and some countries have a PR campaign where .com ang .gov merge and pretend .com is in the drivers seat of the prison wagon. However, if you're the guy in the prison wagon at the start of a real world "skyrim" game do you really care about which PR campaign is superior and who's pretending to drive that prison wagon?
This what you describe, this merge, is a very fascinating topic indeed. But its proper name is fascism (or corporationism as Duce called it), not capitalism. So, I'm afraid you might be barking at a wrong tree here. Let me give you example here: it were few Republicans, Tea Party sympathizers who voted against big banks bail-outs. All Democrats and rest of the Republicans voted for the fascist state where banks and the Government are in bed together. But not people who are by the left called the 'extreme right'. Tea Party and others, who believe in capitalism, have been and will always be against bank bailouts, or special treatment to big corps. They believe in free market economy and honest competition. If banks have to go bankrupt, let them. That's what capitalist would do. And we all know how left voted on this.
So, maybe that's the point the blogger is making. Hey, I didn't understand that positing on Facebook is the same thing like releasing to the public. Now, that I thought about it, no, I don't want to release my children pictures to the whole world for the whole of eternity. Sounds reasonable to me.
They all move on. Not necessarily to become car mechanics. The other one could be helping at the cash register at times, yet another one help to put merchandise on the shelves. Yet another one hand-wash cars. The fallacy of socialism is pointed out by you exactly: you think that 80% of people (4 out of 5) are idiots who can't do better in life and need the Government protection. Then Government comes along introduces a law that makes 80% of them unemployed, hence the proof that more Government in needed!
> "It's illegal to hire him, pay him and let him grow to better position." > That's ridiculous. Managers take chances on noobs all the time, especially at the lower levels.
It gets better than that. There are free internships. You can get them for free - 0usd per hour, you can get them for 7usd/hr. But to give them employment at market price? Illegal! Genius!
>"Again, the unemployment rate among the young is the highest among all group ages" >Hello Arab Spring, coming soon to a failed state near you.
Like Spain. Or Greece. Or some other place where socialists Governed for the past 50 years. Like... failed arabian states. Learn your history. They all have been socialist. That's why failing. From Saddam to Mubarak.
>Historically a graph with a y-axis of "desperate angry unemployed young men" tends to peak around revolutions and upheavals. The future is on a path that is aimed much more toward France in the 1790s than USA in the 1950s. There are probably startup implications to this trend toward inequality for awhile, then revolution.
Well, yeah. Guess what. If you forbid people to work, and kill businesses (places where they go to work), all you will end up with is violence.
Now, think about it. A 16-year old would come to the gas station after school and pump gas for (let's say) 2usd/hour. But he would also learn other skills. At that time there were also body shops/car mechanics at the gas station. Because they could use cheap 2usd/hr labor of this kid. And the kid could learn car mechanics. After finishing school the kid could be actually pretty good mechanic. Go there on the job market nad having this real-life experience demand 7usd/hr job of a car mechanic. That was also a time that unemployment rate among the young was the lowest out of all the age groups. Soon after the minimal wage law was enacted the unemployment rate among the young started to be the highest among all ages group. Not only that, but also there is no one to help you at the gas pump today in the US. There are no car mechanics at the gas stations too. These people are permanently unemployed. Because 16 year old after school isn't worth the current minimal wage. He's worth half of it. He could be worth the minimal wage enacted by the Government after 6 months experience while he would be paid market rate as gas pump attendant. But that's illegal now. It's illegal to hire him, pay him and let him grow to better position. He is permanently unemployed now. Maybe for years. Again, the unemployment rate among the young is the highest among all group ages. Before the minimal wage law it was the lowest. But socialism isn't about letting people who want to work, work. About letting them grow and prosper in their future. It is about permanent ruin. 60% of people below the age of 30 in Spain are unemployed. The country is doomed because of socialism. And doesn't even get it.
So, I'd say, it's more like poor will be using cigarettes, alcohol, etc. to trade just to survive while wealthy will use gold and silver as the currency. Because if you're this guard in Aushwitz, how do you know if Germnay wins the war. Or the US? You don't. That's why you'll prefer currency gold to national currencies.
Alright, I can use your semantics. Espeically because calling economics science is what we all do.
But it still doesn't change the very valid point that Nobel Prize image may loose because of Economics Nobel Price.
The same way it wouldn't be good for them to have Nobel Prize in Psychology. Or Political Science.
Top experts in these - forgive me the quotes - "sciences" can't agree on even most basic and fundamental concepts in their "sciences".
You'll have keynsians who say you need to print in the crisis. And you'll have austrains claiming that's actually the worst thing you can do. One group calling other pseudo-science and the latter calling former marxist definitely doesn't help its image. Propagating this image to the Nobel Prize isn't not good for Novbel Prize. The claim is 100% valid in my book. I'm not surprised they don't want to have it. It hurts their business.
Going back to Krugman in one of his "brilliant" pieces he suggests World War 3 is needed to end the crisis. Of course with austrains claiming that this is even worse and will make the crisis worse.
For a person on a street this looks like a band of clowns arguing. It's not like Nobel Prize winners in Physics have arguments about value of number pi or there are some who think that Earth rotates the Sun and some other who believe (yep, science - believe, lol) the opposite is true. You see, all I'm saying is, that it is 100% understandable for some of the Nobel family to be disgusted with it and not wanting their Nobel Prize to suffer from that. What's so difficult about understanding that?
Expanding on that thought: just imagine we have year 1490 and we don't know any better. Let's say a Nobel Prize in Physics exists. Let's say that for whatever reason a scientist who believes that Sun goes around the Earth gets it. While guys who say that Earth goes around Sun are ridiculed and laughed at. Maybe Nobel Family members not being experts in economics just - rightly - are afraid that we'll get better, much better in Economics in the future and then the Nobel Prize image will suffer. Because they are giving it out currently to some clowns, not even knowing about it. That's their perspective and I think I agree with it. Wouldn't you?
My point is that there shouldn't be Nobel Prize in Economics for that reason. It's as much of a real science as psychology is. If you can't have all serious folks doing that science come to a table and agree that 2+2 is 4, you will end up with mistakes that will cost you Nobel Prize Prestige.
Walesa, a guy who got Peace Nobel Prize in 1980s for figthing communism in Eastern Europe wanted to give it back, once he heard Obama is getting it for "encouragement".
If people like Krugman don't stop making clowns of themselves you may and up with a situation where the Nobel Prize as a whole isn't kept in such a great regard anymore.
So for me, the claim that was made to get rid of Nobel Prize in Economics makes as much sense as not giving it for encouragement or sciences like psychology or political science. They are usually just extension of opinions masquarading as sciences. Not real sciences where you can proof something. Sorry for pooping on your party.
And yeah, having bunch of these clowns at the FED who think that their job is to go from a bubble to another bubble which one bigger than the previous one - how this isn't mad? You call this science? I beg to differ.... it's cheap politics masquarading as serious science. Laughable.
You don't do it. Period.
If: labor + energy to extract gold > gold price
we have a bubble?
;-) LOL
US Treasuries at the most expensive price point for the past 300 years. That's for you, if you're looking for bubbles.
http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs...
You really start wondering why complete idiots and morons like this are worthy of the Nobel Prize.
And then his response to this piece when asked about it in 2013 is even worse than the original piece. Krugman says in 2013 about his 2002 article: "What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."
Let me me repeat here for you this Nobel Prize Genius: "The ONLY way for the FED to get traction in 2002 was to INFLATE HOUSING BUBBLE"
Really? Like really, really? That's the ONLY way? Go to a bubble, so it bursts and destroys the US economy for years? He really, like really, really repeats that nonsene in 2013? You must be kidding me! If he can't come up with better idea to finish a crisis but with creating a bubble? Wow! Just wow!!!
And that's your Nobel Prize Winner in action. He's a moron. Yet, a professor and nobel prize winner. Economics has nothing to do with science, it is too rooted in ideologies. Left or right. But still, having prize for it is asking for trouble. And that's just one example of Krugman saying nonsense. I could go on and on.
Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Kyle Bass, Peter Schiff, list goes on and on.
Hoarding gold since 2005 and tell you one thing - just can't wait.
Last time I heard this in 1980s in Communistic Poland from Communistic Party Propaganda Minister Urban explaining to Polish people living under communistic rule why buses are better than cars. You just think you need a car, bus will do :-) Interestingly enough they (communist party) also used the argumentation of lack of private cars ownership as being beneficial to the natural environment.
I'm not confusing anything my friend. You are the one confused by marxist propaganda spread in Europe by people like its President ex-Maoist Barroso. This what I'm talking about is standard of living. I could care less about average income in Switzerland of 100k chf a year if it doesn't buy me a mortgage for a nice house and 2 new cars in the driveway. Enjoy your trains!