This was the typical experience during the boom years.
Brian is playing Decade Later Quarterback. It's an easy game to play.
Yeah and I'm sure all this wonderful shit they're proposing in DC will completely eliminate the possibility of any of that happening ever again. I'm sure everyone learned from the experience and will never be bad again, right? I'm sure having a basic understanding of shit so you're able to go "hey i think my broker or lawyer might be fucking me over" is a terrible idea right?
Or maybe our wonderful government even as of last week is taking new action to artificially prop up the housing market instead of letting shit reflect some sort of reality and just making things worse by prolonging correction.
As far as what would be taught, I'm one of those moderate people who think that people should be presented with several viewpoints and make their mind up on their own. Nothing in economics or finance exists in a vacuum and it's important to be aware of and understand differing viewpoints. Of course that won't let you brainwash people into thinking things so I guess that's a no go.
So you admit that trickle-down economics would be (at least) a part of your proposed curriculum.
Excellent.
You "moderates" are the kind of people who think it's "just fair" that creationism be taught in science classes. You know, so the kids can "be aware of and understand differing viewpoints." Never mind that it's dumbass crackpottery with no connection to science.
I can't wait until Tinfoil Hat 101 becomes mandatory. The class where kids are taught that the moon landing was faked, that vaccinations cause autism, that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the Bush administration, and that Obama really was born in Kenya. Moderates demand that such things be presented as possibilities. Let the kids decide for themselves.
LMJ, thank you for once again making me realize that it's a waste of time discussing anything with you. I'll be sure to once again save a few minutes each time I visit this forum. If you don't see how lack of education in finance and economics has created such a deep structural problem then I don't know what to say.
Corporations have no obligations towards anyone besides their shareholders.
This may be true in Glibertarian Heaven but it's a long way from true in the real world.
Well, you yourself have said many times that the problem is deregulation. It's true that you can't protest Wall Street and expect them to change their ways on their own, but you would like to think that protesting on Wall Street might make a statement to Washington and help inspire some legislative push for a return to more strict regulation.
I don't know if you're directing that at me or Brian, but yeah, it would be nice if that happened. It's just highly unlikely to happen with the current House.
Which brings us back to the "protesting is pointless" argument, which I find cynical and sad. It's easy to make fun of protesters and there are always people, vasts amounts of them, at these things that make me cringe, no doubt. But it's actually possible to affect change in this country through protest, so I don't see why they shouldn't keep on doing what they are doing.
One big issue with the effectiveness of protest is the difference in media coverage - the Tea Party protests often would be 32 people in a town square but CNN/MSNBC/Fox would all be there doing features. So far the Wall Street thing has been a footnote on the homepage of most major news outlets and any coverage is so slanted towards ridicule that it mostly reads like Rich's initial post in this thread.
As for my initial post, what I quoted was essentially the end of an argument about the relevance of protesting on Wall Street as opposed to Washington.
Traveling carnival of trust fund anarchists, unemployed / unemployable hipsters and part-time Starbucks / Kinkos workers of the world united to stick it to the man, man.
That footage is nuts! Those cops are out of control! Seriously! They set up a netting to stand behind and then spray protestors from the other side! That is some weak shit. Seriously. That's fucked.
LMJ, thank you for once again making me realize that it's a waste of time discussing anything with you. I'll be sure to once again save a few minutes each time I visit this forum. If you don't see how lack of education in finance and economics has created such a deep structural problem then I don't know what to say.
You got it exactly right.
His desire to disagree with you has him arguing for less public education.
Remove the insults and strawmen from his posts and there would be nothing to read.
LMJ, thank you for once again making me realize that it's a waste of time discussing anything with you. I'll be sure to once again save a few minutes each time I visit this forum. If you don't see how lack of education in finance and economics has created such a deep structural problem then I don't know what to say.
Chuckles, the people who came up with trickle-down economics didn't suffer from "a lack of education in finance and economics." Their extensive education didn't seem to help them much.
Arthur Laffer is the most prominent trickler, and here's his education: "Laffer received a BA degree in economics from Yale University in 1962. He graduated from Stanford University with an MBA in 1965 and a PhD degree in economics in 1971."
But his sheer fuckuppery could all have been avoided if he'd only had a high school course in managing a checking account.
Who knew?
You seriously think the trickle-down economics didn't help the people who thought it up?
You seriously think their education led them to believe it would be good for the poor?
Your conclusion is less education so this doesn't happen again?
why do you guys even bother wasting your time and energy engaging this frankiemenltzer/moelarryjesus troll who clearly has nothing better to do with his time but argue for the sake of arguing all over the damn internet?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
crabmongerfunk said:
why do you guys even bother wasting your time and energy engaging this frankiemenltzer/moelarryjesus troll, who clearly has nothing to do with his time but argue for the sake of arguing all over the damn internet?
Better question: Why won't the mods ban his ip address?
That footage is nuts! Those cops are out of control! Seriously! They set up a netting to stand behind and then spray protestors from the other side! That is some weak shit. Seriously. That's fucked.
And it seems to be commanding officers who are doing the worst shit.
Guess that's the professionalism I've been hearing so much about.
From our Washington Insider, Jimmy Williams, here is our Constitutional Amendment:
"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."
I really want to see money taken out of politics.
I am, was, a big supporter of Arizona's Clean Elections law and Portland's Voter Owned elections.
Sadly they have both been dismantled, as has McCain Fiengold.
The effect I saw in those 2 laws, was that the money went elsewhere. In Arizona candidates were limited on how much they could spend. Parties could spend freely. So the money went to the parties, and to private campaigns. I have no doubt that if you outlaw money to parties and private campaigns the money will find some other way of influencing you. Perhaps product placement. Eat Obama O's, Perry Liver Oil for energy independence?
Any way, that money, and the system, is corrupt that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to change it, and a constitutional amendment is the way to go.
I also support the federal holiday for voting.
funny, I think making election day a holiday would decrease voting.
give people a day off and they tend to go away, leave town, or sleep in and stay home eating cheerios and watching Breaking Bad in their underwear. seems to me most people that vote do it on their way to/from work or school, because they are already out and about. can't see how keeping those people home will encourage voting.
Comments
Or maybe our wonderful government even as of last week is taking new action to artificially prop up the housing market instead of letting shit reflect some sort of reality and just making things worse by prolonging correction.
social media def playing a huge role....
whether this will grow exponentially or piddle out...im not sure
interesting to see this happening though........apparently "anonymous" has now joined in
Well, you yourself have said many times that the problem is deregulation. It's true that you can't protest Wall Street and expect them to change their ways on their own, but you would like to think that protesting on Wall Street might make a statement to Washington and help inspire some legislative push for a return to more strict regulation.
for real, if i get done what i have to this week, im going up to wall street to show support
Which brings us back to the "protesting is pointless" argument, which I find cynical and sad. It's easy to make fun of protesters and there are always people, vasts amounts of them, at these things that make me cringe, no doubt. But it's actually possible to affect change in this country through protest, so I don't see why they shouldn't keep on doing what they are doing.
One big issue with the effectiveness of protest is the difference in media coverage - the Tea Party protests often would be 32 people in a town square but CNN/MSNBC/Fox would all be there doing features. So far the Wall Street thing has been a footnote on the homepage of most major news outlets and any coverage is so slanted towards ridicule that it mostly reads like Rich's initial post in this thread.
As for my initial post, what I quoted was essentially the end of an argument about the relevance of protesting on Wall Street as opposed to Washington.
^^^Unemployable trust fund hipsters. If they were blocking the entrance to my job, I would trample them to dust with my bare Hulk feet.
You got it exactly right.
His desire to disagree with you has him arguing for less public education.
Remove the insults and strawmen from his posts and there would be nothing to read.
You seriously think the trickle-down economics didn't help the people who thought it up?
You seriously think their education led them to believe it would be good for the poor?
Your conclusion is less education so this doesn't happen again?
Better question: Why won't the mods ban his ip address?
Guess that's the professionalism I've been hearing so much about.
Police
Response
Wow... Thought I'd never see the truth being called out like such on the media.
Who rides?
I'm down, though I would be more excited if they were trying to make lobbying illegal also.
"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."
I really want to see money taken out of politics.
I am, was, a big supporter of Arizona's Clean Elections law and Portland's Voter Owned elections.
Sadly they have both been dismantled, as has McCain Fiengold.
The effect I saw in those 2 laws, was that the money went elsewhere. In Arizona candidates were limited on how much they could spend. Parties could spend freely. So the money went to the parties, and to private campaigns. I have no doubt that if you outlaw money to parties and private campaigns the money will find some other way of influencing you. Perhaps product placement. Eat Obama O's, Perry Liver Oil for energy independence?
Any way, that money, and the system, is corrupt that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to change it, and a constitutional amendment is the way to go.
I also support the federal holiday for voting.
give people a day off and they tend to go away, leave town, or sleep in and stay home eating cheerios and watching Breaking Bad in their underwear. seems to me most people that vote do it on their way to/from work or school, because they are already out and about. can't see how keeping those people home will encourage voting.