IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I agree with the concepts, but not the methods used by Moore
Moore edited out the Congressmen's comments when he interviewed them, a few said they had children in the military at Iraq, but those comments ended up on the cutting room floor because it did not fit Moore's message. Better for Moore to spread the lie that only 1 of them had children in Iraq.

The Bush vacation failed to mention that Cheney was in charge, and Bush made decisions while on vacation, and that other presidents have done this as well. Also the 42% included weekends as well as weekdays.

You can read more about the lies here:
[link|http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723?GT1=3584|http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723?GT1=3584]

I also noticed Moore did not show the cheering done by Iraqi citizens after the 911 attacks. Moore did not show the people Saddam had thrown into tree-shreaders, or forced into torture and rape cells, or gassed by nerve gas. Also the fact that no Iraqi ever killed a US Citizen is false, what about The Gulf War? What about Saddam giving money payments to families of suicide bombers. What about the suicide bomb vest found on Saddam's buildings? What about the memo that linked Saddam to Bin Laden? What about the Sarin Warheads found in Iraq after the war was over? [link|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html|http://www.foxnews.c...33,120137,00.html]

Some Interesting web sites:

[link|http://www.moorewatch.com/|http://www.moorewatch.com/]

[link|http://www.mooreexposed.com/|http://www.mooreexposed.com/]

Hey I'm all for voting Bush out of office, but doing something like this and misrepresenting facts, will only help Bush get re-elected.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Norman, Norman
Is there no topic beyond your expectation that you can encapsulate it via a few third-hand "unbiased interpretations"? Like God, say..

The daily background noise on virtually *all* AM radio and most of Tee Vee / other-media calyumnists, now for about a Generation.. consists of variants of the scurrilous ad-hominem attacks honed to fever-pitch on just-plain-Bill. (Even you cannot fail to have noticed what a few hundred of those were like. Well.. OK it's a toss-up.)

A very Foundation of this agit-prop [agitation propaganda, for the terminally isolated] was penned officialy by one Newt Gingrich [look him up] in his now infamous little tract -- essentially about: how to intrude bafflegab into *any* effort at serious debate, thus rendering it useless.

[You'll have to do your own nonGoogling-foo to find this gem; I can sell you shorts, but not wipe your ass for you.]

Being ignorant as you demonstrably Are - of the long, 'rich' tradition of Murican political satire, frequently of the scabrous kind we see today almost exclusively - you are constitutionally [and especially are you, Constitution-ally] incapable of appreciating some significant Differences within this movie, one as uses for source material [shown on screen] a very high percentage of Public Domain actual 'events'. This, interspersed with 'authentic' [as in, veritably recorded sans rehearsal] interviews with ordinary Murican nonentities such as ourselves.

[PS - you may Not 'judge' such a work via yours or anyone's Superior-Idea\ufffd of "what should not have been left out". Why? Well, see if you can rewrite Hamlet's soliloquy [look it up] for brevity and efficiency, via on-message TLAs.]

You would also remain entirely oblivious to another phenom: that the [more-Rabid] 'Right', those of the daily Rush-mouth style fulminations: are ever the FIRST to plead foul ... should anyone of different persuasion employ a facsimile of the Newt Program - in rebutting their slogans. But this 'movie' needs-not that quality of dissembling: the regular employment of not-even-factual material -- but then, you haven't even seen it, just collected some re-reviews. From FOX-news, yet! [You can't even be ashamed; Who they?]

"If You aren't With This Admin You Are A Terror-errorist" cha cha cha + 12,666 other familiar ones [though maybe not familiar to you]: those are what this movie works against, in its Own style.

Best for You: Don't See this film. Go back to sleep. Do Not under any circumstances apply for an opening as a critic, in any known field. Learn how to Grow The Enterprise, via Doing Excellence Every Day; sell Solutions not Software.

They'll luv ya in the office. You will speak Their Language, verbatim. (No one Will Ever Know what mental acuity lies behind your lofty pronouncements as Build The Team cha cha cha. You must count on this.)

HTH

moi
New Thus I say to you
what source is unbiased? All I did was present another side of the story, that apparently you've turned a blind eye towards. The bias is in the eye of the perciever.

Let me show you something I learned from economics, do you know know to calculate the GDP (Gross Domestic Product)? GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

Now then C is consumer spending (goods and services), I is investments, G is government spending (not welfare or social programs, but payment for goods and services), and X is Exports and M is Imports.

Now what Moore said would flunk him in economics. Let me explain.

The Saudis sell oil and gasoline to the US, so that is Imports (part of M), to be honest the US imports value is higher than the US exports value because we've used up most of our natrual resources and imported goods are cheaper than our own goods. Ok now, see that M, if M is bigger than X, what happens to our GDP? It goes down in value. Now in order to counter that, we try to get Foreign Investors to invest money made off of imports to the US in the form of investments in US companies. Hence the money spent for oil, and gasoline, is sent back in investments from the Saudis, and other countries. What this means is that they have a stake in the economy of the US. Since the US has a limited number of gas refineries, the Saudis help out by refining some of the gas for us. Got the connection yet?

Now would it make economic sense to launch an attack on the US, thereby having the effect of driving down the GDP, and backstabbing the alliance with the USA? Doing so decreases C, I, X and M, and the government cuts back on programs to strike back with war and decreases G. What point is there investing in US companies and the US Economy (one of your best customers for Oil) if you backstab them and drive the GDP and the economy down? It makes no sense.

What Moore is implying makes no economic sense. The Saudis lost money in the deal, the same as us.

Do you disagree with the way the GDP is calcuated? Do you disagree with the way the economy works? Does Moore's uneconomic statement make sense to you?

Osama lead the attacks, but he isn't in Saudi Arabia anymore. He had men in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is apparently no connection between Osama and the Saudis, he broke off with them log ago.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
Expand Edited by orion July 9, 2004, 07:34:37 PM EDT
New Oh, I do so wish to smack you, Norm
I haven't seen the movie, but from the reviews and conversations here, it seems that Noore took the methods used in tearjerkers and horror pictures and applied them to political propaganda. Very well calculated to evoke certain reaction, and very successful, too. I don't watch tearjerkers or horrors, and I am not going to see Moore's version either.

That being said, there is no connection between Iraq and bin Laden, no matter what BushCo implies. Those goddamn liars are very careful not to say it straight out - plausible deniability is always achieved. But Norms of the US swallowed the whole thing raw.

There is very, very clear connection between Osama and Saudis. What Saudis call "philantropy" should properly be called financing of terror. It's like giving money to KKK.

Norm, please don't spoil a good cause by your clumsy advocacy.

To finish on the right note, here is an argument for connection between Moore and Saudis, at least as plausible as the one Moore offers for connections between Bush and Saudis.

[link|http://www.mooreexposed.com/paranoia.html|http://www.mooreexpo...com/paranoia.html]

And, in case you wondered about Disney dropping Moore's movie at the last moment, here is another one:

[link|http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world|http://www.nzherald....esubsection=world]
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New Did you ever see Good Will Hunting?
Remember the scene in the bar, where some asshole student is showing off his new found knowledge, attempting to impress the girls and belittle the blue collar guys?

And then Will shows up, leading him through each step that he's learned so far, but then crossing into the areas he didn't which quickly confuses him.
New Re: Did you ever see Good Will Hunting?
It was bullshit. GWH is the other side of stupid-till-4 spastic Einstein.

No one with a real idea would choose such a pissy girly way to get it across.

-drl
New Not really
but what part of the Economics I cited were wrong? You've obviously made a reference to a fictational movie, while I am citing what one learns with a college education. So which one wins, the fact or the fiction?

I ask you to stick to the issues, if I am wrong, show me why I am wrong and please provide details. Don't go off and hodgepoge me with illrelavant things, please.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New It is a matter of tunnel vision
You proved again and again that to are very good at absorbing and regurgitating facts and points of view. While I may consider you crazy, I've never doubted your intellect.

But you tend to apply a fixed point of view without allowing for alternative reasoning. So you will hammer on it, but it is meaningless in the context of the discussion.

In this one, I agree with Ben. There are alternative motivations that have nothing to do with economics of the Saudis as a whole, no NO economic theory, even if it is correct, can explain their actions.
New Ironically, I disagree with you...
There are alternative motivations that have nothing to do with economics of the Saudis as a whole, no NO economic theory, even if it is correct, can explain their actions.

Economics has well-established ways to model non-financial incentives that people value. A simplistic one is to assign a dollar-equivalent.

For instance one could assign a dollar value based on the current value of Saudi investments, an estimated value of managing to remain in power, and an extremely large estimated value of remaining alive. Now the economic model that we have for the Saudis will show a desire to walk the tightrope until their lives come under serious risk, at which point they'll bail.

The example may seem silly, but similar types of analysis are frequently done by economists who are trying to apply economics to public policy questions about things like the environment.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Figures
But assigning numbers just to force fit a model is the height of bullshit.
It's no longer an "economic" model.
New Depends how you define economics
Generally the professionals define it more broadly than the general public would. You can get a sample of different alternatives from [link|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:economics|http://www.google.co...=define:economics]

Of those the one that is closest to what I was taught when I took economics is, Economics is the study of how men and society end up choosing, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resources that could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities and distribute them for consumption, now or in the future, among various people and groups in society. It analyzes the costs and benefits of improving patterns of resource allocation.

Accounting for non-monetary considerations by assigning monetary equivalents is just an accounting trick. With this definition, doing so doesn't take you out of the realm of economic theory.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New The economic/philosophy term of "Utility" comes to mind.
Money is but one way to measure utility. Many economists (especially the Monetarists) think it's the only reliable gauge. Of course, the concept of money is also very fluid: M1, M2, M3, .... in banking terms, but then there's soft money like stocks, bonds, loans of various sorts... and failing that there's always barter (an ineffecient form of money).
New Exactly
It's often ridiculous to think that way, but economists really try to when they tackle complex issues.

Sadly enough, when things are complex enough that regular intuition fails, the ridiculous way is sometimes also the best way that we have to think about things. :-/

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Sadly, I find your disagreement implicitly supports
-the notion that- there is ANY SENSE what-so-ever! to a materialistic culture's manic efforts to PUT NUMBERS on.. Everything willy-nilly, including the fucking ineffable

1) Believe in 'god'? 47 points
2) Believe in God? 53 points
3) Believe in a 'personal'-'god'? 56 points
4) Believe not in {yada}? -37 points per each variation
5) Believe in belief? ..
6) Believe in stupid multiple-choice questions? ..

Do I gots ta quote Einstein re math/reality One More Time?
[Or variants from the Prose Masters?]

(That Econ carries this farce right into its spreadsheets is - perhaps all one needs to Know, in order to rank Econ a tad below 20th century newspaper 'astrologer' readouts.)



Fie on thee, who hast not the excuse of even Disc-world special-ignorance.

-66.63 points. (We at ETS measure our IQs to 4 significant figures, thankyouverymuch cha cha)
New All I ever asked
was for real proof that the alternative reasoning was true. Show me the facts, the hard evidence, the proof of the alternative reasoning.

All I've seen so far are unconvincing conspiracy theories, in fact that is all F911 really is, a conspiracy theory.

Let us use some logic here.

If George W. Bush is guilty of what the other posters are saying here, and what Moore said in F911, he would be impeached, correct? There would be credible evidence that Bush did wrong, and thus should be removed from power. Yet this never happened. Logically since it never happened, there cannot be any credible evidence to back up the claims.

Hence, those other posters are guilty of what I have been accused of. Lying, manipulating, story telling, etc. To paraphrase Ashton's words Your lies are of the Microsofian level and boring to boot, you all suffer from an inferiority complex.

I hold it in my views that the posts made here against Bush are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, to put it bluntly, bullshit. History repeats itself, Salem Witch-hunts, McCarthyism, now Moorism which some call Hatriotism. You can all speculate, assume, and gossip as much as you want, but until you can produce any credible evidence that leads to the impeachment of George W. Bush, I ask you nicely to STFU.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Hehe. Impeach Bush?
With a Republican Congress?

Here is a another area where your blinders won't let you see anything other than the silly little argument such as:


If George W. Bush is guilty of what the other posters are saying here, and what Moore said in F911, he would be impeached, correct?


I accept that Moore's film is filled with hyperbole. It is a propaganda film. So what?

The man hears God tell him what to do and he does it. He has stated this publicly several times.

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer|http://www.washingto...?language=printer]


President Bush had told him this: " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


HE IS INSANE.

If someone with a lot less money and connections said the same thing, they would be locked up for the protection of themselves and others. Instead, this guy orders the armed forces to go kill people and to die for his beliefs.

But no, he will never be impeached. Political reality won't allow for that. So you setup a straw man. It is a bullshit argument.

As least right now you seem lucid enought that I'm not worried about sending you off to kill yourself. Welcome back to the world of semi-competency.
New Logic is the path from assumptions to conclusion
Your basic assumption is that a President who acts badly will be impeached. I firmly disagree with this assumption.

In a point in time where you have hard-line Republicans in control (even if by small margins) of Congress, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, it would take truly extraordinary evidence to start impeachment proceedings against the President. Furthermore it is not at all clear that it is an impeachable offence to have a President who is motivated by a desire to maintain a relationship that historically has been of great benefit to the USA.

As for your requested facts and hard evidence, you're setting a double standard. Your theories, even when they contradict available evidence, do not require facts. Anyone else's theories must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As I pointed out in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164279|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=164279], your theory has yet to be reconciled to the fact that the man who arranged for 9/11 to happen was funded by Saudi oil money, and the majority of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.

Explaining that is easy - but you need to have a model of Saudi Arabian behaviour that is more complex than their being a rational actor out for their own economic best interest. Of course that simplistic model is exactly what your theory is based on.

And right now you're rejecting the complication that I offered, which is that the leaders of Saudi Arabia are trying to balance the internal forces that they need to satisfy to remain in charge of Saudi Arabia, and thereby continue generating oil profit, and the value of investments that are external to Saudi Arabia. This is a fairly reasonable complication. It doesn't even contradict your theory of human behavior - they are still motivated by their own economic self-interest. However by being put in a more complex situation, they are forced to play a balancing act where, though they wouldn't intentionally destroy the US economy, could make a serious mistake.

You haven't offered any evidence against this hypothesis. You have igored evidence for it. As far as I can tell, you haven't shown enough interest to read up on the Wahabi faith. You haven't seen it important to comment on how extreme the religious laws in Saudi Arabia are. These are signs of the internal forces that I mentioned. People who believe in beheading a girl for flirting with a guy are unlikely to have warm fuzzies for the USA. People like that who're given money could well act against US interests. Yet Saudi Arabia gives money to people who're exactly like that - in fact they run the state religion!

If you wish to reject my hypothesis that these religious extremists have political influence in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi leaders need to placate them to continue profiting from oil, then I'd like an alternate explanation of why the Saudi government gives them substantial sums of money. A fact that is easy to verify if you wish to.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Verily I say, thou hast the Patience of Job.. or was that
Steve Jobs, when remonstrating with The Beast (about what 'intellectual property theft' might mean, in practice). Surely a similar chasm?


New I consider that a cmplement in a way
I also consider myself crazy, and I am working with my Doctor and Social Worker to see what I can do about that. I found, as far as college goes, that I have a John Nash complex working for me. My memory and concentration problems make it hard to understand the material, but my schitzoaffective disorder kicks in and my alter ego "Orion" helps me out. I start having racing thoughts that give me the answers to the questions thrown at me. Vary rarely is a case like this a good thing. So far it has earned me a 3.9 GPA, and my instructors tell me if I can improve my grammar and English I might be able to get some papers published.

I found I am a nonmainstream economist, perhaps a neoclassical. I am alreading coming up with theories, like one that shows a relationship to outsourcing and the price of gas and oil. As we grow the economies of China, Russia, India, etc, they consume more oil and gas, hence driving up prices slightly. Apparently outsourcing is a factor, not the only one mind you, but can account for a small price raise of the gas and oil increases. Hence I found a downside to outsourcing.

Economics was not meant as a true science, nor do I claim it to be so. Adam Smith was a philosopher, to me, economics is more of a social science. I suppose one could call it a pseduo-science. Economics is more than about money values, it is about resources, government involvement in the economy, supply and demand, unemployment (which is a social problem, by the way), human behavior, it even has a pollitical aspect to it, and more. Models are used, and in a way, this is how science enters the economics study I quote J. M. Keys, "Economics is the science of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of chosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world." Perhaps if Mr. Keys is correct, economics is part science and part art.

I had asked for a scientific alternative to economics, yet I do not believe one was given. Until we invent one, we shall continue to use economics in our world.

I never claimed to be an expert at economics, in fact I said I was talking from a college level course in economics. So far I have only earned a 96%, but the economics class is half over.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Enjoy
[link|http://www.un-official.com/GWH/GoodWillS.html|http://www.un-offici...WH/GoodWillS.html]

Search for this string:
"Hey, I'm the last guy to want to talk"
New BTW
"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Leelu said that line, not Corbin Dallas.
New That analysis assumes that Saudis are...
a rational group motivated only by economics. Which doesn't seem like an accurate description of people who'd fly a plane into a building.

Let's do an alternate analysis. Let's assume that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are a group that want to maintain power as long as they plausibly can and get what they can while the getting is good. Now suppose that they have a significant number of radical Muslims in their country that they need to placate. Extremists who wouldn't blink twice about executing a couple of the rulers if they got some motivation and a good chance.

Then the Saudi rulers would logically attempt to create close relationships with the powers that be elsewhere in the world, would accumulate investments, but would also be inclined to placate their own extremists, even where that might come into direct conflict with their natural desire to protect existing investments.

This theory explains a great many aspects of Saudi behaviour, including why they pursue a close relationship with the Bush family, why they own so much of the USA - and why they give money to people who do things like fly planes into US buildings. And would work to try to avoid having this combination become too publically questioned, and therefore become more inconvenient than it already is.

This theory also has the great virtue of being true.

Remember - if someone's behaviour seems contradictory to you, you probably don't understand that person's motivations deeply enough. And it is clear that theoretical economics alone does not explain Saudi behaviour.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Expand Edited by ben_tilly July 10, 2004, 12:27:16 AM EDT
New Very well said
-drl
New Nothing economics can't explain
So I'm browsing the new books at the library today and come across [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393971759/104-4807357-6162308|Philosophy of Science]. Not the kind of book I'd probably buy, but being the library it's free to check out. Just finished the first chapter that has the classic paper by Karl Popper about the distinction between Science and Pseudo-Science, revolving around the idea of the theory of falsifiability. As many of these forums as you've participated in, I figure it's a given that you're familiar with Popper, or at the very least the arguments involved.

Much of Economics, (and generally sociology) don't qualify as scientific disciplines because every time a new piece of evidence pops up, the theories aren't proven false or true, rather the the data is reinterpreted in terms of the original theory. When it comes to MicroEconomics, it is possible to form testable hypothesis and to formulate the behaviors in very precise mathematical terms. When it comes to MacroEconomics, we enter into a different realm of conjecture. We really don't know how all the individual parts come together to form the basis for predicting large scale economic activity. It becomes as much a study in politics as anything else.

Anyhow, one could easily reason why the behavior of the Saudi elite does makes sense from an economic perspective. You'd either have to hold that the monopolistic practices of the Saudi monarchy may be motivated more by self-interest (and self-preservation) than their role as stewards for the entire populace. Or you could just as easily explain it in terms of a risk that was taken that didn't pan out (i.e. misjudgement on their part - errors in a competitive market/society are smaller in scale than in a controlled economy).

Probably other ways to map the data into the theory. But you still end up with the problem that the data is made to fit the theory, rather than being able to prove or disprove the macroeconomic models.
New For some value of "explain"
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Not to belittle economics too much...
...since that's what my degree is in. (Wonder if it's appropriate that it was a degree with the title of B.S.?). IIRC, there's a couple of economics majors in the IWETHEY populace.

Anyhow, that's not to say that economics is not a useful tool. It's just that it's more of a reactive practice, with some guiding principles. It does have same explanatory power to help make sense of behavior in the world of commerce, just like many of the social sciences.
New ie.. it Is hard to belittle Econ____too much :-j
New Yet ironically
economics is widely used in our government and applied. Both the Democratic and Republican parties use it, in different ways, to show that they can improve the economy and create jobs, and many other things promised to the voting public.

Yet, you claim, based on this "Philosophy of Science" book, that economics (and sociology) don't qualify as scientific discilines, because, as I understand it from you, when new evidence pops up that disproves something, like the Phillips Curve and the 1970's, economists try to explain it in terms of the original theory. Assuming of course that you are talking about mainstream economists and not non-mainstream economists. I refer to the two mainstream economoists the Classics and the Keynesians. Not the Austrian economists, nor the Institutional economists, nor the Radical economists or any other of the non-mainstream economists that could explain the changes in a brand new way using new theories, oh no, for that would ruin the effect the book is trying to capture. Instead, you chose to find a book that disproves economics, all of its functions, scientific research, theories, and what have you as not being of science.

The reason for such a thing, was that you could not argue with me on the level I learned of economics, and thus you found something that calls it unscientific. To obviously invalidate what I posted.

Rather that try and prove or disprove economics, if you are correct, then all of the politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties are unscientific when they use economic theories to try and help along the economy. Logically, then, we should not vote any of them into office, unless they use a scientific method. So I ask you, what is a scientific alternative to Economics? Perhaps our country is headed in the wrong direction?

Amazing when I did a "The philosophy of science" search on Wikipedia, it matched it up with "Anarchism" as a text article result, facinating!

Yet there was an article match as well:
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science|http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_science]

Sorry that I did not read the book, I am but a poor and disabled college student and Amazon was unreachable for me today.

Apparently I found something interesting "Occam's Razor is often abused and cited where it is inapplicable." I seem to recall someone using that on me before, and after reading the definition, it did not seem to apply to what they said. Not that I fully understand it yet, but what little I do understand seems to tell me that the qouted line is true. Yet let me quote this line " William of Occam (or Ockhegm or several other spellings) suggested that the simplest account which 'explains' the phenomenon is to be preferred. He did not suggest that it would be true, or even more likely to be true, though 'simpler' has very often turned out to be more likely to be right (in hindsight) than 'more complex'." the person using it on me claimed it was true, or at least suggested it. Yet I cannot help but feel that you are using it, and thus also abusing or citing it where it is inapplicable. Thus I can logically conclude that what you have said about the Saudis, using the simpler account, could possible be false or wrong in some way.

In conclusion, I ask you to please cite your facts that support your assumption. They would be most helpful to me understanding your point of view.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Twitterpatted
Rather that try and prove or disprove economics,
I don't dispute that economics is a valuable discipline. What I take issue with is that it's not a Scientific Discipline.

when new evidence pops up that disproves something, like the Phillips Curve and the 1970's, economists try to explain it in terms of the original theory.
Friedman (and the Chicago Classic School) explains everything in terms of Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve. The Keynesians explain everything in terms of government surpluses and deficits (pump-priming). The Supply Siders explian everything in terms of Tax Cuts. The Marxists explain everything in terms of Capital and Labour classes. The Phillips curve explains everything in terms of Supply and Demand (which by the way assumes perfect competition).

Now if you want to argue the strengths and weaknesses of these economic theories, I'd be happy to oblige. But don't try to pass the theories off as scientific. Each contains valuable information and is useful within certain limits, but using any of them to try to disprove possible Saudi complicity in the events surrounding 9/11 are a stretch.

Rather that try and prove or disprove economics, if you are correct, then all of the politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties are unscientific when they use economic theories to try and help along the economy.
Here comes the science? I should think that your rhetorical statement not only goes without saying, it's self-evident to anyone who knows anything about either (a) Politics; or (b) Economics.

Or let's put it in understandable terms. Let's say that the Republicrates and Democans are being scientific about their economic planks. How do you come up with the fact that an objective discipline like economics can come to opposite conclusions? Science proposes objectivity, yet subjectivity in the interpretation of the data is exactly why two seemingly paradoxical results can arise from economics.

Or to throw in the economic jokes: If you put three economists in a room, you'll wind up with four opinions.

Or was it the one where the best economists only have one arm? That way that can't be constantly waffling about On The Other Hand.


Amazing when I did a "The philosophy of science" search on Wikipedia,
And why is that an amazing fact? Does every graduate or undergraduate text automatically show up with an opinion on Wikipedia. I gave the link on Amazon, that's where you should start your investigation.

Actually the fact that it was in this particular book was incidental. The thing was that the book is merely a collection of famous and not so famous papers that deal with the Philosophy of Science. The one particular that I was dealing with was one by British scholar [link|http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/|Karl Popper]. The particular paper I cited was one of the most influential papers in the study of philosophy over the last 100 years. Special Note for the dense - Philosophy itself is not a Science, and in particular philosophies of science is not Science.

At any rate, whether you happen to stumble across Philosphy of Science, or not, the argument should on the surface (tabula rosa, so to speak), carry the day. Economists are in the business of taking various facts and using them to support their theories. Perhaps your problem is with the word "Pseudo"? Perhaps you think that I equate economics with Alchemy, Astrology, ESP, UFO's and all the sordid affairs. I'd note that each of these has some subjective value (at some level). Alchemy resulted in some discoveries (though none of them involved gold in the end).

But that's not really the level we are talking about "Pseudo". Popper's main concern was with the Freudians and the Marxians of the world (Psychology and Economics if you prefer). Present any sort of human behavior to one of these two types and they'll be more than happy to diagnose it (some sort of anal thing, or class type thing). If the facts don't fit their interpretation, then they simply meta level the fact, and explain it away. Sooner or later, the theories become irrefutable because they are proposed in such terms as refutation is not possible.

Yet I cannot help but feel that you are using it, and thus also abusing or citing it where it is inapplicable. Thus I can logically conclude that what you have said about the Saudis, using the simpler account, could possible be false or wrong in some way.
Weird convoluted logic if you ask me. Yes, what you are saying about the Saudi's could be correct. But it is not a scientific or mathematical formula. It enters into that dirty little world of things we like to call Politics, self-preservation, and yes even the economic motivation of greed.

But simply saying that the Saudis have a vested interest in the American economy (a point that I would cede), does not mean that they are not capable of performing actions which on the surface seem to be at odds with this economic motivation.

Indeed, if you want to be explicit about economics, you'd state it in terms of Profit (the great motivator). Profit as a microeconomic stimulus is much more well understood than the macroeconomic idea's of GNP. For one thing, GNP is an immeasurable concept as what constitutes Income, Imports, and Exports is purely an idea (an estimate per se). But the idea of profit is very measurable in the small.

Now, ask yourself, how does the Arab monarchy make and maintain profit for itself?
New ObPedanticSpellingFlame: twitterpated, twitterpate!
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Rediculous!!!
New Easy
It's gauge invariant.

You can change the basis of the economy without affecting anything. Just re-evaluate all the money. Local shock as the gauge propagates. Eventually everything settles back down to local trading.

So, just give everyone a one-time stake of 1 million disposable dollars.
-drl
New Either that, or make the leaf the new form of currency
And then engage in a campaign of deforestation to maintain it's value.
New No
A one-time massive pump of imaginary wealth. When people have imaginary wealth, they work like hell to increase it. Pumping a sudden shot of value into everyone's pocket would instantly stimulate the economy to do things of real worth - to make expensive things efficiently, for all the new millionaires to buy.

At the same time, completely scrap the current system of taxes - all of them, state local federal and sin. One tax for One People.

Rewrite the bottom line, change the mode of taxation.
-drl
New Bzzzz, sorry. You don't know jack about the Phillips curve. (new thread)
Created as new thread #164824 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164824|Bzzzz, sorry. You don't know jack about the Phillips curve.]



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Norm throw all that crap out the window
go to where the drug dealers live. Observe how the neighborhood works, supply demand and the effects of the trade on the folks not involved. That is Micro economics. Go to vegas for the weekend, observe all the games, costs and merchants, thats macroeconomics. Spend a weekend in jail, that is state run economics. 3 weeks yer educated.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Sorry I'd rather earn a college degree
I've seen all that other crap and I am not impressed. While I have never been in jail, I talked to those who have. I used to live in St. Louis City, and saw the drug dealers and how they operated. I also saw them arrested or killed by rivals, not the type of life I'd want to lead. I went for a Honeymoon in Las Vegas and I saw how it operated. Now I am learning how the rest of the word operates.

Thanx
Norman/Orion



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Explain this behavior then
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/13/binladen.aide/index.html|http://www.cnn.com/2...n.aide/index.html]

Apparently they just captured a "Big Fish" for us, who surrendered to the Saudis. If they were against the US, they might have just let him go or killed him to shut him up. Does this validate your theory, half-arsed as it is? You seem to suffer from a far-fetched fallacy, got any facts to back that up or are you just making it up as you go? If there is a Bin Laden connection, it apparently is a weak one, if it does indeed exist. Information on Bin Laden is far more valueable than anything we can spend money on. This "Big Fish" may be able to help us out.

The damage that they could potentially do is unbelievable, what would happen to our economy if they pulled their mega-billions out of their investments. I ask you, when 500 billion or more is sold in stock in the market, what happens to the market? The potential for chaos is there, and they didn't use it. Also they could refuse to sell oil to us, and live off of all the sales they make to the other parts of the world. Care to explain to my why they aren't doing those things?



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New The explanation is simple...
...that Saudi monarchy is performing a balancing act. They'd rather not have to deal with pissed off American's or with pissed off Wahabi's. Both are a danger to their lifestyle. If you understand that they are into appeasement, you'd quickly figure out why they take actions which are seemingly paradoxical.

This same balancing act hasn't gone away, though 9/11 did require a shift in Saudi strategy. Since you point out the arrest of this "Big Fish", have you also not taken not that there was an issuance of an amnesty for those that turned themselves in? You may find out that the catch and amnesty are interrelated events. Then again, maybe not.

Maybe it's just the latest effort of the Saudi's to placate the Americans. Next turn will be to placate the fundamentalists. It's a never-ending balancing act, that may not have a happy ending, as there is no semblance of equalibrium in the equation.
New Interesting theory
please state the facts behind it. Do you have any proof of the Saudi's behavior? Or are you just speculating?



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New I see college has brought out your natural sophistry
The above statement has the appearence of a coherent thought, but all you are really saying is "prove it neener".

You've found your niche! Bullshitter!
-drl
New Of course
I learned from the best, you master bullshitter!



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Just look up the term you don't know
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi] gives a brief overview of the Wahabis. Which are the official state religion of Saudi Arabia. Note that they are Muslim fundamentalists who are extremely strict. They are also a movement that is not particularly aligned with US economic interests.

The theory that you presented would say that the Saudis should not support the Wahabis since they are so clearly contrary to Saudi economic interests.

The theory that I presented says that the Saudis should be seen supporting the Wahabis, even though that is potentially detrimental to their economic interests. The theory that I presented also explains why most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

At this point your theory appears to contradict the facts. Unless you can find a way to reconcile the two, your theory should be discarded. If you can find a way to reconcile the two, but reconciliation requires a long and tortured line of assumptions to make it work, then Occam's razor says that you are probably barking up the wrong tree and need a simpler theory.

Incidentally my characterization of Saudi Arabia is drawn straight from [link|http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/israel/|http://philip.greens.../politics/israel/]. While I don't agree with everything in that article, it makes a number of points that I think are fundamentally right.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Big fish catch and release program.
Not surprising that this particular fish threw himself into the boat at [link|http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040713_976.html|an offer of amnesty]. Helps placate the fundamentalists, while keeping him under wraps (at least that's the hope within the risk they are taking).

So the Saudi monarchy looks good to the fundamentalists (we took him back), while getting the American's good will (catching a big fish). And it costs the Saudi's almost nothing to try to continue the status quo.
New you are missing a huge point
The damage that they could potentially do is unbelievable, what would happen to our economy if they pulled their mega-billions out of their investments. I ask you, when 500 billion or more is sold in stock in the market, what happens to the market?
what vehicle could they put it in that wouldnt tank faster than "our" stock market. They have a vested interest in the american economy, we have them trapped by their investments the same way Putin has us trapped by the outstanding debts owed the west.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New The same way we trapped the French in the 1930's then?
When they pulled their gold reserve notes out of our bank, and caused a banking panic?



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New where do you get this crap norm?
Until 1970's when Nixon allowed the dollar to go off the gold standard that crap was sitting under fort knox backing the money supply. The frogs could redeem every bar in the plant which would affect the governments ability to borrow but not impact banks in either the reserve or the street in any way at all. Only the US government could trade in gold. Banks, people or frogs could only trade with washingto and they kept the price artificially low pegged at about $30 troy.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Norm is at least half-right on this one
I have never heard anything about the French being responsible, but in 1933 the USA had a banking panic, leading to Roosevelt closing the banks from March 5-13, and imposing restrictions on trading gold.

From then until Nixon lifted the gold standard, the USA might have been nominally on the gold standard, but for many practical purposes was not.

The failure of the banking system also lead to the creation of many kinds of regulatory protection for the banking system to avoid it possibly failing again. Those protections worked but they have slowly eroded over time to what is pretty much a confidence game at this point. Unless the trend reverses, eventually things will weaken to the point where we'll have another bank collapse. I'd give good odds on this happening in our lifetimes.

This is based on the principle that people don't get motivated to act on something until they perceive a direct threat. Given that the banking system has not collapsed in most people's lifetimes, there will be no perceived threat that a collapse could occur until it does. Therefore I'd predict continued structural erosion and no significant corrections until that collapse. Given how much trouble I think that it is in now, how little protection is left, and how regularly banks used to collapse, I'm not an optimist.

I'd close with "Cheers", but Scott gets annoyed at my juxtaposing depressing thoughts like this with attempts to make people happy...

Glumly,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Been some stress through the years
Petro Dollars. S&L crisis. Third world debt crisis. Enron. Junk Bonds. 9/11. etc...

So far it's hung in there and in some odd ways these stresses on the system have helped. But it's really not been a totally smooth path.
New True, but that doesn't make me much happier
The legal constraints on behaviour that used to provide protection have been lifted. Many disasters have been rescued in a series of spectacular bail-outs. There is a moral hazard involved in repeatedly rescuing investors - it encourages them to take even bigger risks. But if the risks become too much larger, a bailout may become impossible.

Furthermore the USA as a whole has a whole series of structural economic problems, for instance the persistent large current trade deficits that add to (what I think is) the unsustainable debt levels that we'll have to pay eventually.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New banking panic had NOTHING to do with gold
it was simply consumer confidence failure due to heavy overlending by the banks with no controls. Typically a bank only holds cash reserves at the 1-3% level(talking single banks of the time not chain banks.)A panic ensued when a customer couldnt withdraw cash immediately. This ensued into panic which escalated nationwide. No froggishness involved.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New You'd be wrong on the history of that
On the tail of the banking crisis, Roosevelt issued [link|http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html|http://www.the-priva...confiscation.html]. This resolved one of the major problems that the USA was having, that people were taking advantage of the difference between the cost of gold and US dollars to convert the latter into the former and move it out of the country.

Therefore, whether or not the fundamental banking problem was caused by gold, the banking crisis had a lot to do with gold. Specifically it caused a lot f gold-related problems that the US government had to deal with. And the government took extreme actions to resolve them, see [link|http://www.the-privateer.com/gold2.html|http://www.the-privateer.com/gold2.html] for a short list.

Incidentally based on that list, I strongly suspect that Norm got his history mixed up. (Shocking, I know.) Yes, there were big problems involving the French and gold, but they related to why the USA officially went off the gold standard several decades later, and had nothing to do with the banking failures.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New try horses mouth
[link|http://www.multied.com/documents/Bankingcrisis.html|http://www.multied.c...ankingcrisis.html]
What, then, happened during the last few days of February and the first few days of March? Because of undermined confidence on the part of the public, there was a general rush by a large portion of our population to turn bank deposits into currency or gold-a rush so great that the soundest banks couldn't get enough currency to meet the demand. The reason for this was that on the spur of the moment it was, of course, impossible to sell perfectly sound assets of a bank and convert them into cash except at panic prices far below their real value.
into cash or gold, not specifically gold. They wanted money under mattresses instead of in the bank. This could happen today. The above quote is from a radio address by the president.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New And how does this contradict what I said?
I didn't say that gold-related issues caused the banking crisis. I said that the banking crisis caused the US government to run into a lot of problems around the gold standard. Which they resolved with extraordinary measures, including confiscating all of the gold that they could reasonably get.

In other words there was a big connection between gold and the banking crisis. But gold problems were an effect, not a cause.

Explanations by Roosevelt to the general public of the causes of the banking crisis cannot contradict my assertion. Furthermore Roosevelt's actions demonstrated that the gold problem was considered both present and urgent.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New thought you were promoting gold as a cause, not effect
yes, I can agree with that.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Yet again you are wrong
Does the initials FDIC mean anything to you? The government backs up bank accounts up to 100,000 US dollars. Bush wants to raise that to 300,000 US dollars.

Why would people do a bank panic now if the government will cover them up to 100,000 in their account? Unless they feel the government won't honor the FDIC insurance?

Please try learning some facts first before you post.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New ah, the educated fucktard raises his snout and brays
[link|http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:i6QWABxoBb4J:www.ots.treas.gov/docs/r.cfm%3F87069.pdf+recent+bank+run&hl=en&ie=UTF-8|http://216.239.39.10...un&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]
school aparently has enlarged your ignorance so you may spout more misinformation than ever before.
twitfiltered.
thanx,
bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518
I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Apples and Oranges
"This avoided the much higher losses that would have resulted had the FDIC been forced to sell these loans at fire-sale prices out of a receivership."

So I am talking about checking and saving accounts, and you are talking about loans. Big difference there. Nice way to change the subject.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Yeah, and who pays for it?
Taxpayers.

So, if the banks fail, and we have to compensate everybody who has up to $100,000 in the bank, it comes out of THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

Think about it.
WANTED: Precognitive Telepath for adventuring Partnership. You know where to apply.
New {{Shhhh!}} we're not sposed to know that. Bad for 'lections
New I know that
also Reagan put in the federal budget some billions to try and save the Savings and Loan companies that made very risky loans.

So I ask you, which is better?

A> Use taxpayer money to bail out banks and cover deposits.

B> Let the bank fail and don't use any money to cover deposits.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Perhaps Norm is all right? ;)
Read it from the Fed:

[link|http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm|http://www.federalre...03022/default.htm]

"Other countries' policies also contributed to a global monetary tightening during 1928 and 1929. For example, after France returned to the gold standard in 1928, it built up its gold reserves significantly, at the expense of other countries. The outflows of gold to France forced other countries to reduce their money supplies and to raise interest rates. Speculative attacks on currencies also became frequent as the Depression worsened, leading central banks to raise interest rates, much like the Federal Reserve did in 1931."

So France, at that time, had a habit of turning gold treasury notes into gold. France had money in the Federal bank, and guess what they did? It is debateable if this caused a panic or at least was a factor in causing a panic.



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New Thank you, I learned something from that
So France apparently did play a role in creating the monetary crisis that lead to the Great Depression. Live and learn.

However two major things do not fit the parallel that you're trying to draw betweeen France then and the Saudis now.

First of all, France had no idea that it was going to cause the effect that it would cause. Unlike the leadership of Saudi Arabia who presumably do understand what destroying the US economy would do to them. Unless you know that pulling the trigger will result in personal injury, the real threat of holding a gun to your head is not a deterrent from pulling the trigger.

Of course that is key for your thesis - if France knowingly acted against its own economic self-interests then it would destroy your thesis that people can be relied on not to knowingly do that. They acted, but they didn't know so it isn't a counter-example.

More importantly, France's actions came from motivations that bear no useful parallel to the motivations of current Saudi leaders. But this is a point which you refuse to acknowledge, and therefore cannot be the basis of useful conversation.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Blah - gotta hit STOP faster.
[If you imagine you are 'studying Econ' - you might -at very least- begin from an understanding of WHY that topic is permanently Guaranteed to remain: extremely IFFY - as regards any concept of that popularly abused idea of there being CAUSALITY! of any knowable sort.]


Despite ChrisR's heroic, meticulous and time-consumingly linked Clue-by-fours: it is pointless !=[*], with you.

You are the textbook-proof Example that, a course in Boolean Logic is as unrelated to possession of a working sense of Reason as :: [toughie] maybe..

possession of a Bible guarantees some knowledge of metaphysics?
possession of a car " " " physics?
possession of an egg " " " ovulation?
possession of a brain " " " a mind?
possession of a mouth " " " sentient sentences?


Your obsession with 'fact'oids "proving" some 'theory' you've recently had PowerPointed into cache-memory - in a class intended to force-feed MBA-sounding words into a group suffering from National attention span deficit:

merely clarifies your confusion about what fact, theory or process might even mean/connote/suggest... in human mentation. When explored to any depth, none of these concepts (nor many other common ones) long avoid circularity in their cross-pollination of "definitions".

You are in philosophical territory and you didn't even see the Toll Booth -- that one saying:

GO READ, absorb, ponder, experiment: before your Visa can be stamped.

Regurgitating predigested pap, slogans especially re Econ !! - punctuated with sentences ending in? - is a sure way of obtaining new flights of Flame constructs.. from others with quite less patience than the estimable (and evidently Informed) ChrisR.

You are in Philosophy and you Want: Literalness at a 8 yo level. As always.

GO READ a couple hundred non-VB-related BOOKS (or any other \ufffd-stuff) from Aristotel to Zoroaster; digest, explore, train-from-scratch a whole regimentGrand Army of new neuronal connections and,

and...


Your Non-style perpetual [sick, broke, needy, unconscious-but-got-a-keyboard] mewling Pisses Me Off, at certain times. Especially These Times, as we wait to see the Verdict:

How many of The Murican Peepul are Just Like You cha cha cha ???
[incorrigible]


This just in, kid: the mere fact that it's written down and believed in by millions of simpletons does not make something true.

"This is not a book to be set aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
Dorothy Parker

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist."
Phillip K Dick

After personal optimization sets in, you have a population with very few abilities and a great many needs.
B Tilly, maybe
Expand Edited by Ashton July 13, 2004, 08:38:30 PM EDT
New Norman, Norman -n (new thread)
Created as new thread #164301 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164301|Norman, Norman -n]


This just in, kid: the mere fact that it's written down and believed in by millions of simpletons does not make something true.

"This is not a book to be set aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
Dorothy Parker

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist."
Phillip K Dick

After personal optimization sets in, you have a population with very few abilities and a great many needs.
B Tilly, maybe
     a review of 911 by Matt Labash - (boxley) - (105)
         I shocked, shocked I tell you. - (mmoffitt)
         At least Moore's honest about his craft - (ChrisR) - (6)
             Moore? Honest? He had disclaimers? tell me moore -NT - (boxley) - (5)
                 He admits his craft has a purpose - (ChrisR) - (4)
                     It's a polemic - (deSitter)
                     Conservative AM talk radio station this morning - (lincoln) - (2)
                         As Ebert pointed out.. - (deSitter)
                         National Geographic has a POV - (ChrisR)
         Screw that. Where's *your* review? - (Silverlock) - (24)
             I will do my own review - (boxley) - (20)
                 What's your local theater? - (Silverlock) - (19)
                     problem, how do I explain to 5 other people - (boxley) - (18)
                         I'll donate another ticket for you... -NT - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                             guys, ITS A FRIGGIN MOVIE!!! not the second coming sheesh! -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                 Just trying to reduce the number of your excuses -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                     no excuses, I will watch it in the same way I watch all - (boxley)
                         Whatever. - (Silverlock)
                         I'll donate another ticket for you... That's 3. - (Ashton) - (12)
                             One from me, that's 4 - (broomberg) - (10)
                                 ROAD TRIP!!! -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                     Thou sayest Well, - (Ashton)
                                 That works for me... - (ben_tilly) - (7)
                                     Seconded - (drewk) - (6)
                                         plastic pint bottles and cargo pants would work -NT - (boxley)
                                         Re: Seconded - (deSitter) - (1)
                                             Spent a whole night playing piano drunk once. - (admin)
                                         Sheesh. - (admin) - (2)
                                             A Fair question - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                 See the headlines now - (boxley)
                             wont be voting there, patriot and ashcroft still in place -NT - (boxley)
             Well, here's one - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                 you didnt use a debit card to pay for the tickey did you? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                     What, you think I'm an idiot? - (inthane-chan)
         Tip from a Friend on what to do after seeing it. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
             Citoyens! Aux barricades! -NT - (deSitter)
             Re: Tip from a Friend on what to do after seeing it. - (deSitter)
             That is good -NT - (boxley)
         another review of Fahrenheit 9/11 - (Ashton) - (1)
             Made approx. 22 million this weekend as top-grossing movie - (tjsinclair)
         ..and another Weekly Standard-type 'exclusive' (new thread) - (Ashton)
         I agree with the concepts, but not the methods used by Moore - (orion) - (64)
             Norman, Norman - (Ashton) - (63)
                 Thus I say to you - (orion) - (62)
                     Oh, I do so wish to smack you, Norm - (Arkadiy) - (17)
                         Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? - (broomberg) - (16)
                             Re: Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? - (deSitter)
                             Not really - (orion) - (14)
                                 It is a matter of tunnel vision - (broomberg) - (13)
                                     Ironically, I disagree with you... - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                                         Figures - (broomberg) - (3)
                                             Depends how you define economics - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                 The economic/philosophy term of "Utility" comes to mind. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                     Exactly - (ben_tilly)
                                         Sadly, I find your disagreement implicitly supports - (Ashton)
                                     All I ever asked - (orion) - (3)
                                         Hehe. Impeach Bush? - (broomberg)
                                         Logic is the path from assumptions to conclusion - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                             Verily I say, thou hast the Patience of Job.. or was that - (Ashton)
                                     I consider that a cmplement in a way - (orion) - (2)
                                         Enjoy - (broomberg)
                                         BTW - (n3jja)
                     That analysis assumes that Saudis are... - (ben_tilly) - (43)
                         Very well said -NT - (deSitter)
                         Nothing economics can't explain - (ChrisR) - (13)
                             For some value of "explain" -NT - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                 Not to belittle economics too much... - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                     ie.. it Is hard to belittle Econ____too much :-j -NT - (Ashton)
                             Yet ironically - (orion) - (9)
                                 Twitterpatted - (ChrisR) - (6)
                                     ObPedanticSpellingFlame: twitterpated, twitterpate! -NT - (jake123) - (1)
                                         Rediculous!!! -NT - (ChrisR)
                                     Easy - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         Either that, or make the leaf the new form of currency - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                             No - (deSitter)
                                     Bzzzz, sorry. You don't know jack about the Phillips curve. (new thread) - (orion)
                                 Norm throw all that crap out the window - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Sorry I'd rather earn a college degree - (orion)
                         Explain this behavior then - (orion) - (27)
                             The explanation is simple... - (ChrisR) - (5)
                                 Interesting theory - (orion) - (4)
                                     I see college has brought out your natural sophistry - (deSitter) - (1)
                                         Of course - (orion)
                                     Just look up the term you don't know - (ben_tilly)
                                     Big fish catch and release program. - (ChrisR)
                             you are missing a huge point - (boxley) - (18)
                                 The same way we trapped the French in the 1930's then? - (orion) - (17)
                                     where do you get this crap norm? - (boxley) - (16)
                                         Norm is at least half-right on this one - (ben_tilly) - (15)
                                             Been some stress through the years - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                 True, but that doesn't make me much happier - (ben_tilly)
                                             banking panic had NOTHING to do with gold - (boxley) - (10)
                                                 You'd be wrong on the history of that - (ben_tilly) - (9)
                                                     try horses mouth - (boxley) - (8)
                                                         And how does this contradict what I said? - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                             thought you were promoting gold as a cause, not effect - (boxley)
                                                         Yet again you are wrong - (orion) - (5)
                                                             ah, the educated fucktard raises his snout and brays - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                 Apples and Oranges - (orion)
                                                             Yeah, and who pays for it? - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                                                 {{Shhhh!}} we're not sposed to know that. Bad for 'lections -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                 I know that - (orion)
                                             Perhaps Norm is all right? ;) - (orion) - (1)
                                                 Thank you, I learned something from that - (ben_tilly)
                             Blah - gotta hit STOP faster. - (Ashton)
                             Norman, Norman -n (new thread) - (Ashton)

Non-migratory, just like cocopabanana blaps.
410 ms