Re: #Federal judge finds probable cause Fox News reporter helped leak classified docs

[Transition Zone]

On May 20, 2013 15:12:08 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:12:08 +0000, quack:
>
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/20/federal-judge-finds-probable-
> cause-
> > fox-news-reporter-helped-leak-classified-docs/
>
> > Federal judge finds probable cause Fox News reporter helped leak
> > classified docs
> > By David Edwards
> > Monday, May 20, 2013 9:33 EDT
>
> > In the wake of reports that the Department of Justice seized phone
> > records from The Associated Press while investigating an intelligence
> > leak, The Washington Post revealed on Monday that a Fox News reporter
> > had been fingered has a “co-conspirator” in a previous leak of
> > classified documents.
>
> Why are leftards suddenly so concerned ...

When have far right wing groups ever been concerned with the facts?

[Scout]

"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8f35706-70e5-4884...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>
> On May 20, 2013 15:12:08 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:12:08 +0000, quack:
>>
>> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/20/federal-judge-finds-probable-
>> cause-
>> > fox-news-reporter-helped-leak-classified-docs/
>>
>> > Federal judge finds probable cause Fox News reporter helped leak
>> > classified docs
>> > By David Edwards
>> > Monday, May 20, 2013 9:33 EDT
>>
>> > In the wake of reports that the Department of Justice seized phone
>> > records from The Associated Press while investigating an intelligence
>> > leak, The Washington Post revealed on Monday that a Fox News reporter

>> > had been fingered has a �co-conspirator� in a previous leak of

>> > classified documents.
>>
> > Why are leftards suddenly so concerned ...
>
> When have far right wing groups ever been concerned with the facts?

Based on the sample here....a lot more often than far left wing groups.

[STEADY EDDY]

On May 20, 5:24 pm, "Scout"
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Transition Zone" <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:e8f35706-70e5-4884...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20,  2013 15:12:08 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:12:08 +0000, quack:
>
> >> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/20/federal-judge-finds-probable-
> >> cause-
> >> > fox-news-reporter-helped-leak-classified-docs/
>
> >> > Federal judge finds probable cause Fox News reporter helped leak
> >> > classified docs
> >> > By David Edwards
> >> > Monday, May 20, 2013 9:33 EDT
>
> >> > In the wake of reports that the Department of Justice seized phone
> >> > records from The Associated Press while investigating an intelligence
> >> > leak, The Washington Post revealed on Monday that a Fox News reporter

> >> > had been fingered has a “co-conspirator” in a previous leak of

> >> >     classified documents.
>
> > >    Why are leftards suddenly so concerned ...
>
> > When have far right wing groups ever been concerned with the facts?
>
> Based on the sample here....a lot more often than far left wing groups.

it's all bullshit. The politicians have us fighting over the IRS, Gun
control etc.... The real issue is the national debt. I will be ok
because I am ahead of the debt curve. I have enough cash to live out
my days. I don't want to leave a pile of debt to the next generation.
Cut back now and we can hold our heads high. We can learn to do more
with less. Cut the government 10% accross the board and give
discretion to the heads of the departments about what to cut. We will
see who has the nerve to cut essential services without cutting the
bloated government assholes who make a living sucking on the teats of
the government.

[Richard]

On 5/20/2013 7:41 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>
> it's all bullshit. The politicians have us fighting over the IRS, Gun
> control etc.... The real issue is the national debt. I will be ok
> because I am ahead of the debt curve. I have enough cash to live out
> my days. I don't want to leave a pile of debt to the next generation.
> Cut back now and we can hold our heads high. We can learn to do more
> with less. Cut the government 10% accross the board and give
> discretion to the heads of the departments about what to cut. We will
> see who has the nerve to cut essential services without cutting the
> bloated government assholes who make a living sucking on the teats of
> the government.

FINALLY!

Someone with a clue.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:58:13 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Hmmm. PAYGO, all over again. That worked really well...

One year NOAA reacted to the 5% mandatory cuts by telling every
department they had to cut 5% across the board. "But we don't have
enough paint for the channel buoys," said the guy in charge of it. "So
paint 95% of them," came the reply from HQ.

So they did. And then the tops of the buoys all rusted off. d8-)

Be careful what you wish for, Richard.

--
Ed Huntress

[Richard]

What I wish for is that the United States Government not spend us into
bankruptcy.

Because then they won't paint ANY of the channel buoys.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:44:28 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>

Not to worry. Remember the "inflation curve" that Glann Beck had on
his TV show a few years ago, and that you got all excited about? He
was showing 50% inflation in six months. It never happened, remember?

Deficits and bankrupcy, to us non-economists, are like inflation to
Glenn Beck. They're not subjects about which we can project our
understanding of home economics and balancing our checkbooks to the
economics of the world's largest economy, a sovereign nation that
prints its own currency and virtually all of whose debts are
designated in its own currency.

People who spend their entire lives studying it disagree. So far,
there is nothing to indicate it's happening.

Our problem is lack of economic growth. Unless we grow, we're screwed,
anyway. You can't impoverish yourself into prosperity.

There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.

--
Ed Huntress

[deep]

See, this is where capitalist economics fails miserably, and you
should know better. We cannot infinitely grow in a finite
environment. There is no more room for growth, we have already
exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet and we are NOT living
sustainably. No more resources exist that are easily and cheaply
extracted. The idea that we can grow our way to prosperity is a thing
of the past and to attempt to do so is doomed to dismal failure. No
matter what we do now, billions are going to die. Maybe everyone.
Such is the nature of the inevitable ecology crash in our future.

[Richard]

These are the old paradigm, Ed.
But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
necessarily apply any more.

I think we need to rethink our think.

Unlimited growth is called "cancer".

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:ko7np8he2apcuh253...@4ax.com...

####

Then kill yourself, and make room for a better person that doesn't want to
bomb little girls with claymores, you FREAK!

[Steve]

well of course capitalism fails for someone like you. To be
successful under capitalism you must be willing to work toward your
goals.

Leftists' nature is to sit back and do what feels good at the time,
hoping that good things will happen to them or, failing that, there'll
be someone like their mom to pick them up and kiss their boo-boos
away.

Humans reached our status on the food chain by via individualism, in
other words, doing what you thought best for yourself and your closely
bonded group.

> We cannot infinitely grow in a finite

<snip nonsense>

[Ed Huntress]

Thank you, Reverend Malthus. <g>

This is over our heads, but the idea that you MUST have an
unsustainable, extractive base to have a growing economy clearly is
false.

What you *do* need is a lot less clear. But don't forget, products are
nothing but services in another form. A car is a bundled service of
transporting you from place to place. The energy issue is looking a
lot brighter than it did a few decades ago. And so on.

I have never seen a model for a no-growth form of capitalism that
makes sense. Maybe one exists, but I don't know about it. And I've
never seen an alternative to capitalism that looks even remotely
viable -- usually because they are all based on denials of human
nature.

So I remain an optimist about capitalism, and markets, and their
ability to provide a growing economy. What we really want is the
services that products provide. My belief is that we will continue to
find sustainable ways to provide them, and to make them grow, in
economic terms.

But it's not an argument I would try to sustain. Like philosophy, it's
something that other people are arguing quite well, and beyond my
level of knowledge.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:31:50 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>

Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Richard]

On 5/21/2013 11:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.
>>>
>>
>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>> necessarily apply any more.
>>
>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>
>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>
> Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)
>

Computer trading - pushing up prices 1/10th cent at a time.

[Richard]

On 5/21/2013 11:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.
>>>
>>
>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>> necessarily apply any more.
>>
>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>
>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>
> Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)
>

Make products to sell.

Instead of making money by manipulating money and commodity futures.

[Richard]

On 5/21/2013 11:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>>
>>> There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.
>>>
>>
>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>> necessarily apply any more.
>>
>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>
>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>
> Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)
>

Find a new theory...

[George Plimpton]

Growth does not mean unlimited increase in physical output. Growth
means increasing economic value. If from one year to the next, there is
no change at all in physical output, but everything produced now
requires half as much resources, then growth has occurred. If half of
what is produced this year is no longer produced next year due to
obsolescence and is replaced by superior products produced at the same
cost as the old stuff, then growth has occurred.

Stagnation is death when it comes to the economy.

[George Plimpton]

The current theory has unmatched explanatory power - no need to discard it.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:57:58 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

<snip>

>Our problem is lack of economic growth. Unless we grow, we're screwed,
>anyway. You can't impoverish yourself into prosperity.
>
>There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.

<snip>

--------------------

While this appears correct in a limited sense, there are
several other factors in play:

(1) What [sorta/kinda] worked in an earlier simpler time
does not seem to be applicable to the new domestic consumer
economy. Stimulating demand does nothing for the domestic
economy if the goods to meet the demand are all produced
externally.

(2) We are in a totally new economic era of supranational
capo capitalism, and national sovereignty in all areas is
rapidly disappearing.

(3) "pump priming" does nothing [positive] if the economic
activity generated is not "productive," and at some point
does not become self-sustaining and a positive income
generator in the holistic or aggregate sense, at least to
the extent it pays back the investment in some reasonable
period of time. Building roads and bridges from nowhere to
nowhere or airports where no planes land is futile.

(4) Energy independence and food security are critical, so
where are the LFTR production lines and the installed LFTRs?
The shale/ng to distillate conversion plant production lines
and deployed conversion units? The desalinization plants
powered by the LFTR reactors? etc. etc. More than ample
taxpayer funds have been used to "prime the pumps" -- it's a
shame the money was stolen or wasted, and every indication
is that it will continue to be stolen or wasted.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Zepp]

And since economic value cannot infinitely increase, that leaves only one
other alternative: boom and bust.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:36:13 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On 5/21/2013 11:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>> There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>>> necessarily apply any more.
>>>
>>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>>
>>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>>
>> Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)
>>
>
>Make products to sell.

That would be economic growth. I thought your idea was that growth is
cancer?

>
>Instead of making money by manipulating money and commodity futures.

Good luck!

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

Not "infinitely", you fuckwit - indefinitely. Economic value can very
obviously increase indefinitely.

You are clueless about economics, jamieson - actually, you're clueless
about everything.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:26:50 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

Maybe you should go learn something about ecology dumbass. All you
can do is play the capitalist games with words to suit your sick and
clueless ideology.

"What a maroon" Bugs Bunny

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:57:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:


>>These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>>But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>>necessarily apply any more.
>>
>>I think we need to rethink our think.
>>
>>Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>
>Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)

It's known as die-off. An it's not an alternative. It's the only
alternative. It's not only happened before. It's happened every
single time before.

[George Plimpton]

No, it hasn't, and the entire idea is bullshit.

Malthus was wrong - no ifs, ands or buts.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:46:21 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

Tell that to the Mayans. And the Easter Islanders. And every single
major civilization that ever existed for that matter. They've all
died out. And so will we.

[George Plimpton]

None "died out" due to failure to sustain economic growth, you stupid
fuckstain.

[Steve]

Hell, nobody needs economic value to increase infinitely, you bozo,
but it certainly can continue to increase... Knowledge has economic
value and knowledge can most certainly continue to increase.

[George Plimpton]

jamieson doesn't know a fucking thing about economic value.

[Steve]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:22:27 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

True, a while back the bozo claimed that corporate cash reserves "take
money out of circulation." The moron seemed to think that corporate
cash reserves consisted of stacks of money stuffed under the
corporations mattress.
.

--

"Bubbles, YOU'RE the one saying if we take money out of
general circulation, the economy will improve."
--David (Zepp) Jamieson stupidly claiming that corporate cash reserves "take money out of circulation"
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/9d77036a53c7a52c?hl=en&dmode=source

[George Plimpton]

He would think something like that. It wouldn't be taking money out of
circulation even if firms did that. The money is still available to be
spent.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:08:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Of course they did you dolt. The exhausted all their natural
resources that allowed them to grow and they had a massive population
crash. Now of course an FYI is you seem to know nothing about the
science, "die-out" doesn't necessarily mean extinction. For example
there's decendants of Mayans living today in the Yucatan. Now the
Easter Islanders... that one led to total extinction.

[Zepp]

No, they're stashed in tax-free locales such as the Cayman Islands or
Bermuda or (in Apple's case) Ireland.

Over two trillion dollars that went out of the US economy and never
circulated back in.

[Steve]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:42:25 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Exactly: No more then putting money in a savings account takes it out
of circulation, but then Jamieson doesn't have much experience dealing
with finances.

[Steve]

<ROTFLMAO> So the dimwitted moron, Zepp Jamieson, actually thinks
that corporate cash reserves consist of huge stashes of U.S. paper
money sitting in bank vaults in foreign countries.

As I said before, Jamieson has no concept of economics. The pathetic
moron probably thinks if he was to deposit money in savings account,
the bank puts the cash in their vault.

[Zepp]

I bet he clipped my succeeding remarks about boom-and-bust just so he
could make that mindless and off-topic ejaculation, too.

[Steve]

That's from Zepp <Morning wordsong> Jamieson who thinks

[Scout]

"Ivan Bodley" <bas...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:519ba35f$0$25644$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
> "deep" wrote in message news:ko7np8he2apcuh253...@4ax.com...

>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:57:58 -0400, Ed Huntress

> See, this is where capitalist economics fails miserably, and you
> should know better. We cannot infinitely grow in a finite
> environment.

So there is a limit to human knowledge, experience and technology?

[Zepp]

In economic terms the die-off is called a 'bust'. Some are small. Some
smash great nations. But they are inevitable.

[George Plimpton]

No, that's still not "out of circulation", jamieson.

[George Plimpton]

This is about economics, dumb fat fuck, not <snicker> "ecology" (which
is a fake area of study anyway.)

[George Plimpton]

I clipped them because they're bullshit - complete nonsense.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:36 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>>>> And since economic value cannot infinitely increase,
>>>
>>> Not "infinitely", you fuckwit - indefinitely. Economic value can very
>>> obviously increase indefinitely.
>>>
>>> You are clueless about economics, jamieson - actually, you're clueless
>>> about everything.
>>
>> Maybe you should go learn something about ecology dumbass.
>
>This is about economics, dumb fat fuck, not <snicker> "ecology" (which
>is a fake area of study anyway.)

Maybe you should look up the meaning of indefinately you dolt. It
means you don't have any idea how long. You want to talk about an
economy growing forever, which is what you are proposing, then that
would be infinitely. And since you can't have infinite growth in a
finite ecosystem, then your whole proposal is fucked. And that's
ecology you idiot.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/21/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:36 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> And since economic value cannot infinitely increase,
>>>>
>>>> Not "infinitely", you fuckwit - indefinitely. Economic value can very
>>>> obviously increase indefinitely.
>>>>
>>>> You are clueless about economics, jamieson - actually, you're clueless
>>>> about everything.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should go learn something about ecology dumbass.
>>
>> This is about economics, dumb fat fuck, not <snicker> "ecology" (which
>> is a fake area of study anyway.)
>

> Maybe you should look up the meaning of indefinately [sic] you dolt.

You look it up, stupid ignorant fuckstain.

> It means you don't have any idea how long.

in·def·i·nite·ly
/inˈdefənitlē/
Adverb

For an unlimited or unspecified period of time.


You stupid fat fuck.

> You want to talk about an
> economy growing forever, which is what you are proposing, then that
> would be infinitely.

No. It wouldn't.

In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.

[Zepp]

Do you think economic activity is based on potential energy or something?

[Zepp]

You're the ones trying to tell us that there's no such thing as boom-and-
bust. If it can't increase, then it must be doing something else.
Wouldn't you agree?

[Zepp]

Gosh, so all the great empires throughout history are still around, are
they?

George, you really are an idiot.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:02:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Of course it is fool. It's sitting in a tax free bank account doing
nothing. It's not in circulation in the economy. Get a clue dipshit.
You can't redefine any terms you want to fit whatever bizarre notion
you have about reality.

[deep]

This is going to be in ecological terms.

[Zepp]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:26:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>>>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>>>> necessarily apply any more.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>>>
>>>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>>>

>>> Growth does not mean unlimited increase in physical output. Growth
>>> means increasing economic value. If from one year to the next, there
>>> is no change at all in physical output, but everything produced now
>>> requires half as much resources, then growth has occurred. If half of
>>> what is produced this year is no longer produced next year due to
>>> obsolescence and is replaced by superior products produced at the same
>>> cost as the old stuff, then growth has occurred.
>>>
>>> Stagnation is death when it comes to the economy.
>>
>> And since economic value cannot infinitely increase,
>

> Not "infinitely", you fuckwit - indefinitely. Economic value can very
> obviously increase indefinitely.
>

Please define indefinitely for us, if you would be so kind.

[Zepp]

Ah. Well, right wingers don't believe in ecology. That's just something
for hippies, you see.

[Steve]

[Steve]

<LOL> Zepp believes that corporate cash reserves consist of huge

[Steve]

<CHUCKLE> I'll bet you think that money in one's savings account is
<LOL> "doing nothing" too

> It's not in circulation in the economy.

<ROTFL> All those stacks and stacks of US currency just sitting
there, huh?

[Zepp]

Welcome to the world of Plimples. He's already assured us that economic
growth is endless as long as it's "indefinite" rather than "finite", and
now money that is out of circulation is in circulation
because...well...because George said so.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:16:25 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 5/21/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:36 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> And since economic value cannot infinitely increase,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not "infinitely", you fuckwit - indefinitely. Economic value can very
>>>>> obviously increase indefinitely.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are clueless about economics, jamieson - actually, you're clueless
>>>>> about everything.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should go learn something about ecology dumbass.
>>>
>>> This is about economics, dumb fat fuck, not <snicker> "ecology" (which
>>> is a fake area of study anyway.)
>>
>> Maybe you should look up the meaning of indefinately [sic] you dolt.
>
>You look it up, stupid ignorant fuckstain.
>
>> It means you don't have any idea how long.
>
>in·def·i·nite·ly

>/in?def?nitl?/

>Adverb
>
> For an unlimited or unspecified period of time.
>
>
>You stupid fat fuck.

Standard usage:
in·def·i·nite (n-df-nt)
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.

>
>
>> You want to talk about an
>> economy growing forever, which is what you are proposing, then that
>> would be infinitely.
>
>No. It wouldn't.
>
>In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
>There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.

Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem. We aren't
getting any more of numerous essential resources that we can't live
without. Clean water for one thing. I know an asshole like you
doesn't give a shit that already a billion people don't have access to
clean water. And it's getting worse. Fast.

[Zepp]

By that logic, a car in an impound yard is rolling down the highway.

[Zepp]

See, Deep? I told you these morons don't believe in ecology.

It tells you all you really need to know about Plimples. His endless
rage stems from confusion and frustration brought about by his own
stupidity.

[George Plimpton]

Not what I said, fuckstain. I said that none died out due to failure to
sustain economic growth.

[George Plimpton]

No, it isn't. It could be spent at any time. A $20 bill in my wallet
is not "out of circulation" for the time it spends in my wallet, you
stupid ignorant fat fuck.

[George Plimpton]

It's bullshit.

[Zepp]

So none of them died out? The Ming Dynasty is still with us? The
Belgian Empire? The USSR?

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:36:22 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:28:04 -0400, Steve wrote:

>>>>>>>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>>>>>>>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>>>>>>>> necessarily apply any more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Growth does not mean unlimited increase in physical output. Growth
>>>>>>> means increasing economic value. If from one year to the next,
>>>>>>> there is no change at all in physical output, but everything
>>>>>>> produced now requires half as much resources, then growth has
>>>>>>> occurred. If half of what is produced this year is no longer
>>>>>>> produced next year due to obsolescence and is replaced by superior
>>>>>>> products produced at the same cost as the old stuff, then growth has
>>>>>>> occurred.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stagnation is death when it comes to the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since economic value cannot infinitely increase, that leaves only
>>>>>> one other alternative: boom and bust.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell, nobody needs economic value to increase infinitely, you bozo,
>>>>> but it certainly can continue to increase... Knowledge has economic
>>>>> value and knowledge can most certainly continue to increase.
>>>>
>>>>jamieson doesn't know a fucking thing about economic value.
>>>
>>>
>>> True, a while back the bozo claimed that corporate cash reserves "take
>>> money out of circulation." The moron seemed to think that corporate
>>> cash reserves consisted of stacks of money stuffed under the
>>> corporations mattress.
>>> .
>>
>>No, they're stashed in tax-free locales such as the Cayman Islands or

>>Bermuda or (in Apple's case) Ireland.
>>
>>Over two trillion dollars that went out of the US economy and never
>>circulated back in.
>
><ROTFLMAO> So the dimwitted moron, Zepp Jamieson, actually thinks

>that corporate cash reserves consist of huge stashes of U.S. paper
>money sitting in bank vaults in foreign countries.
>

>As I said before, Jamieson has no concept of economics. The pathetic
>moron probably thinks if he was to deposit money in savings account,
>the bank puts the cash in their vault.

Yah know..I thought Zepp was dead, but it turns out he isnt.

Least..for a little while.

Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[George Plimpton]

On 5/21/2013 4:40 PM, deep wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:16:25 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:36 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> And since economic value cannot infinitely increase,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not "infinitely", you fuckwit - indefinitely. Economic value can very
>>>>>> obviously increase indefinitely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are clueless about economics, jamieson - actually, you're clueless
>>>>>> about everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should go learn something about ecology dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> This is about economics, dumb fat fuck, not <snicker> "ecology" (which
>>>> is a fake area of study anyway.)
>>>
>>> Maybe you should look up the meaning of indefinately [sic] you dolt.
>>
>> You look it up, stupid ignorant fuckstain.
>>
>>> It means you don't have any idea how long.
>>
>> in�def�i�nite�ly
>> /in?def?nitl?/
>> Adverb
>>
>> For an unlimited or unspecified period of time.
>>
>>
>> You stupid fat fuck.
>
> Standard usage:

No. The definition I gave is th eone.

>>> You want to talk about an
>>> economy growing forever, which is what you are proposing, then that
>>> would be infinitely.
>>
>> No. It wouldn't.
>>
>> In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>> mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
>> There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.
>
> Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.

You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
instructed you is *wrong*. It's *value* that counts, you stupid
illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output. If the *same* output
is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.

You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.

[George Plimpton]

No.

> a car in an impound yard is rolling down the highway.

Whenever you write "by that logic", whatever follows is *not* based on
the logic of your opponent.

[George Plimpton]

We certainly don't believe in your left-wing fake "ecology", which is
nothing but a stalking horse for rabid anti-business Occutard sentiment.

[George Plimpton]

Due to inability to sustain economic growth? No.

[Steve]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:03:43 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

He's only brain dead..

[Steve]

No, you pathetic moron. The only way to take money out of circulation
is to actually take physical currency out of circulation. Otherwise
any money in any bank accounts is out there earning more money for
it's owner.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:30 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>>> No. It wouldn't.
>>>
>>> In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>>> mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
>>> There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.
>>
>> Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.
>
>You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
>instructed you is *wrong*. It's *value* that counts, you stupid
>illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output. If the *same* output
>is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.

If if if if if if if...

You keep saying if but never offer one shred of data supporting your
absurd contention.

>
>You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.

Liar. You're an idiot. Just because you say doesn't make it so and
you never offer one shred of evidence. You're a fool if you think 7
billion people are going to require less physical output simply
because of technology. During the industrial revolution productivity
might have outpaced demand, but not any more. We haven't found a
replacement energy source for example, and demand is way outpacing
production.

You fantastically think that somehow we can grow INFINITELY without
any impact on natural resources.

Mind boggling.

You lose. Get over it. Get some help if you can't cope with reality.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/21/2013 5:34 PM, deep wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:30 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>> No. It wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>>>> mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
>>>> There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.
>>>
>>> Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.
>>
>> You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
>> instructed you is *wrong*. It's *value* that counts, you stupid
>> illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output. If the *same* output
>> is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.
>
> If if if if if if if...
>
> You keep saying if but never offer one shred of data supporting your
> absurd contention.

You seriously demand "data" to support the notion that innovation leads
to lower product costs? Are you that badly unaware of the precipitous
fall in prices of virtually all electronics?

>>
>> You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.
>
> Liar.

I'm not a liar. You really *don't* know one fucking thing about
economics, and I know very much about it.

> Just because you say doesn't make it so and

That's right, and I never said anything to the contrary. What I say
isn't so merely because I say it - rather, I say it *because* it is so.
I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:42:09 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 5/21/2013 5:34 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:30 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No. It wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>>>>> mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
>>>>> There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.
>>>>
>>>> Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.
>>>
>>> You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
>>> instructed you is *wrong*. It's *value* that counts, you stupid
>>> illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output. If the *same* output
>>> is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.
>>
>> If if if if if if if...
>>
>> You keep saying if but never offer one shred of data supporting your
>> absurd contention.
>
>You seriously demand "data" to support the notion that innovation leads
>to lower product costs? Are you that badly unaware of the precipitous
>fall in prices of virtually all electronics?
>

Irrelevent. The data you need to provide is that increased
productivity from innovation has outpace increased demand therefore
"physical output" hasn't had to increase.

Of course you can't. It's an absurd contention.

>
>>>
>>> You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.
>>
>> Liar.
>
>I'm not a liar. You really *don't* know one fucking thing about
>economics, and I know very much about it.
>

You keep saying that but never say one single thing ever that would
indicate that.

>
>> Just because you say doesn't make it so and
>
>That's right, and I never said anything to the contrary. What I say
>isn't so merely because I say it - rather, I say it *because* it is so.
> I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

Prove it. Prove physical output hasn't had to increase because of
innovation.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/21/2013 6:48 PM, deep wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:42:09 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 5:34 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:30 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> No. It wouldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>>>>>> mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
>>>>>> There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.
>>>>
>>>> You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
>>>> instructed you is *wrong*. It's *value* that counts, you stupid
>>>> illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output. If the *same* output
>>>> is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.
>>>
>>> If if if if if if if...
>>>
>>> You keep saying if but never offer one shred of data supporting your
>>> absurd contention.
>>
>> You seriously demand "data" to support the notion that innovation leads
>> to lower product costs? Are you that badly unaware of the precipitous
>> fall in prices of virtually all electronics?
>>
> Irrelevent. The data you need to provide is that increased
> productivity from innovation has outpace increased demand therefore
> "physical output" hasn't had to increase.

No, I don't need to show any such thing. The mere fact that technical
innovation has caused quality to increase even as price falls is
perfectly sufficient to show that growth occurs without an increase in
physical output.

>>>>
>>>> You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> I'm not a liar. You really *don't* know one fucking thing about
>> economics, and I know very much about it.
>>
> You keep saying that but never say one single thing ever that would
> indicate that.

No, I keep saying things over and over that indicate it. You don't know
anything about economic growth. Innovation resulting in lower cost
production and higher quality (of a given output quantity) occurs all
the time, and that *is* an example of growth.

>>
>>> Just because you say doesn't make it so and
>>
>> That's right, and I never said anything to the contrary. What I say
>> isn't so merely because I say it - rather, I say it *because* it is so.
>> I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.
>
> Prove it.

Done.

[deep]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:51:54 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Yes you do.

> The mere fact that technical
>innovation has caused quality to increase even as price falls is
>perfectly sufficient to show that growth occurs without an increase in
>physical output.
>

HAHAHAHAHAHAA.

Show the Hubbert curve of oil production. Of course physical output
has had to increase you cretin. The mere fact you have the
cluelessness to claim it hasn't only proves how totally idiotic you
are.

You lose, get over it.

>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> I'm not a liar. You really *don't* know one fucking thing about
>>> economics, and I know very much about it.
>>>
>> You keep saying that but never say one single thing ever that would
>> indicate that.
>
>No, I keep saying things over and over that indicate it. You don't know
>anything about economic growth. Innovation resulting in lower cost
>production and higher quality (of a given output quantity) occurs all
>the time, and that *is* an example of growth.
>
>
>>>
>>>> Just because you say doesn't make it so and
>>>
>>> That's right, and I never said anything to the contrary. What I say
>>> isn't so merely because I say it - rather, I say it *because* it is so.
>>> I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Done.

Liar. You've done nothing of the sort. Just repeating your lies ever
and over doesn't make them true. Only makes you look stupid. Stupid
is as stupid does.

[George Plimpton]

Nope - no need at all. All I need to do is point you to Moore's Law.

>> The mere fact that technical
>> innovation has caused quality to increase even as price falls is
>> perfectly sufficient to show that growth occurs without an increase in
>> physical output.
>>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAA.
>
> Show the Hubbert curve of oil production.

This isn't about only oil, fuckstain.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics. I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a liar. You really *don't* know one fucking thing about
>>>> economics, and I know very much about it.
>>>>
>>> You keep saying that but never say one single thing ever that would
>>> indicate that.
>>
>> No, I keep saying things over and over that indicate it. You don't know
>> anything about economic growth. Innovation resulting in lower cost
>> production and higher quality (of a given output quantity) occurs all
>> the time, and that *is* an example of growth.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just because you say doesn't make it so and
>>>>
>>>> That's right, and I never said anything to the contrary. What I say
>>>> isn't so merely because I say it - rather, I say it *because* it is so.
>>>> I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Done.
>
> Liar.

No.

You lose - again.

[Zepp]

Yes. Either directly or subsequent to other factors, but that's what it
boiled down to, in the end. Empires destroy economies.

[George Plimpton]

No, it didn't.

[Zepp]

Ah, Plimples, who can withstand the sheer virtuousity and eloquence of
your reason?

[George Plimpton]

You didn't prove your point, jamieson. You wouldn't have a fucking clue
even how to start.

You concede defeat. Smart.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:02:47 -0500, F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:

<snip>
>(3) "pump priming" does nothing [positive] if the economic
>activity generated is not "productive," and at some point
>does not become self-sustaining and a positive income
>generator in the holistic or aggregate sense, at least to
>the extent it pays back the investment in some reasonable
>period of time. Building roads and bridges from nowhere to
>nowhere or airports where no planes land is futile.
<snip>


follow-up to my own post

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-21/thanks-qe-bernanke-has-injected-foreign-banks-over-1-trillion-cash-first-time-ever
<snip>
So it was our expectation that while if not slowing down its
rate of money-creation (i.e., reserve-production) -
something that won't happen for a long time as it would
crash the stock market - the Fed's reserves would at least
revert to being accumulated at US-based banks. No such luck.
In fact as the latest H.8 report demonstrates, as of the
most recently weekly data, the Fed's policies have led to
foreign banks operating in the US holding an all time high
amount of reserves, surpassing $1 trillion for the first
time, or $1,033 billion to be precise.
<snip>
At $1.03 trillion in foreign cash, the Fed's policies have
once again led to more cash being held by foreign banks than
all cash held by domestic banks.
<snip>

FWIW -- bank credit and money are not the same thing.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Richard]

Definition of insanity - Doing the same thing the same way
over and over again, expecting different results...

[Steve]

As soon as the nonproductive voters learn they can vote to have the
government take other people's money and give it to them.

[Richard]

On 5/21/2013 1:36 PM, Richard wrote:

> On 5/21/2013 11:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.
>>>>
>>>

>>> These are the old paradigm, Ed.
>>> But I believe the system has changed radically and they don't
>>> necessarily apply any more.
>>>
>>> I think we need to rethink our think.
>>>
>>> Unlimited growth is called "cancer".
>>
>> Ok, I'll await your alternative(s) with great anticipation. d8-)
>>
>

> Find a new theory...
>

the problem encountered with finding and implementing a new theory (of
anything) is that a lot of ex-experts are suddenly, to put it gently,
wrong.


<http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/21/an-unheralded-breakthrough-the-rosetta-stone-of-mathematics/>

[Richard]

On 5/22/2013 5:42 AM, Steve wrote:

>
> As soon as the nonproductive voters learn they can vote to have the
> government take other people's money and give it to them.

Ok, that's done.

What comes next?

[Stormin Mormon]

Taxes are increased, jobs go overseas, and the federal debt baloons. Eventually, the Fed is unable to pay its debts, and stiffs creditors. Unrest increases, and more laws are passed. Troops (who aren't getting paid regularly) in the streets. China tries to redeem its treasury bonds, and makes life miserable for the USA.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Richard" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ut-dndlvOatyKgHM...@earthlink.com...

[Zepp]

Nah, I was just calling you a dumb asshole and doing so in a way that
went right over your head.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:8c4op8db9frpf5auu...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:30 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>> No. It wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
>>>> mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow
>>>> indefinitely. There certainly is no physical or environmental
>>>> reason why it can't.
>>>
>>> Of course there is. We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.
>>
>>You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
>>instructed you is *wrong*. It's *value* that counts, you stupid
>>illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output. If the *same*
>>output is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.
>
> If if if if if if if...
>
> You keep saying if but never offer one shred of data supporting your
> absurd contention.
>
>>
>>You don't know economics. You don't know *anything* about economics.
>>I do.
>
> Liar. You're an idiot. Just because you say doesn't make it so

Good advice. One you should pay attention to yourself.




--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[F. George McDuffee]

OP lost

<snip>

> If the *same* output is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.

<snip>

A major portion of this disputation seems to be due to
semantics and definitions, some of which appear to be
implicit, idiosyncratic, and subliminal.

For example, one measure to determine if the *same* output
is being created more cheaply is "productivity," which in
the U.S., on paper at least has continually increased for at
least a generation.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/productivity.htm

Yet when the aggregate standard of living is examined, and
the inflation adjusted disposable per capita income or
median wage is charted, there has scarcely been any
improvement for the majority of people. Indeed, when the
enhanced governmental revenues [translation: higher taxes
and fees] are included and loss of employee benefits [loss
of defined benefit pension and reduction/elimination of
medical insurance] there has been a net reduction.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm

Rather than continuing to shout rude names at each other, it
would be helpful to detail exactly how sometimes highly
ambiguous terms are being used, and provide data/facts
rather than opinions and "appeals to authority."

Also, exactly who is being referenced, i.e. the entire
human population, the aggregate U.S. population,
identifiable segments of the U.S. population [i.e. something
more explicit than "makers v takers"], etc.

FWIW -- it appears "productivity" is no more an economic
panacea than "growth," unless the gains in productivity are
shared across the population, for example through lower
prices and/or increased wages, rather than being "skimmed"
and hoarded in off-shore tax havens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/apple-s-taxes-expose-the-rotten-u-s-code.html
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/21/3-mindbending-ways-apple-dodged-13-8b-in-taxes/

[Steve]

That's from Zepp <Morning wordsong> Jamieson who thinks

that corporate cash reserves consist of huge stashes of U.S. paper
money sitting in bank vaults in foreign countries.

"Bubbles, YOU'RE the one saying if we take money out of
general circulation, the economy will improve."
--David (Zepp) Jamieson stupidly claiming that corporate cash reserves "take money out of circulation"
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/9d77036a53c7a52c?hl=en&dmode=source

[Richard]

On 5/22/2013 8:38 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Taxes are increased,

Done

jobs go overseas,

Done

and the federal debt baloons.

Done

Eventually, the Fed is unable to pay its debts, and stiffs creditors.

Not yet. They keep pumping money into the money manipulation system to
keep the goose that laid the golden egg alive.
As long as the goose lays money they can pay the debt.
Not too sure what the payments are worth tho.

Unrest increases,

Happening

and more laws are passed.

Tried it, but it didn't fly.

Troops (who aren't getting paid regularly) in the streets.

That's happened a couple of times in our history.
I guess you mean again?

China tries to redeem its treasury bonds, and makes life miserable for
the USA.

Fuck em.

[Tom Gardner]

> There are few other options than to keep pushing the priming bulb.
>

But the government is punishing the wealth creators and job creators.
The highest corporate tax in the world, EPA, OSHA and attacks by the
government on every front. Until the government quits trying to make
EVERYBODY dependent on the gov. for their existence in exchange for Dem.
votes...we are fucked!

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/21/2013 6:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Ivan Bodley" <bas...@bass.gov> wrote in message
> news:519ba35f$0$25644$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>>
>> "deep" wrote in message
>> news:ko7np8he2apcuh253...@4ax.com...

>> See, this is where capitalist economics fails miserably, and you
>> should know better. We cannot infinitely grow in a finite
>> environment.
>
> So there is a limit to human knowledge, experience and technology?
>
>
>


Everything that can be invented, has been invented!

[Zepp]

Americans better give the corporations what they want.
Corporations need to know Americans make good pets.

[Zepp]

Spare us the nonsense. The US may have the highest MARGINAL tax rate in
the world, but in terms of EFFECTIVE tax rate, it's one of the lowest.

And yes, I heard what that upholstered Apple asswipe had to say to
Congress. He is hoping Americans are too stupid to realize that 90% of
his junk computers are already outsourced to any cheap hellhole Apple can
infest, and he's demanding a huge ransom to return the money--$44
billion--that he fucked the US over for in the first place. Tell him to
move what remains of his shabby operation overseas, keep his money, and
stop being considered "an American interest". I'm tired of seeing
trillions being spent on the military for the sole purpose of letting
imperious parasites like him undercut us.

[Ed Huntress]

Taxes were 91% on the top bracket when I was a kid. It was 50% through
most of Reagan's two terms. It's 35% now.

Who did you say are being punished?

>The highest corporate tax in the world...

The top STATUTORY, or nominal rate. But with all the breaks, such as a
better depreceiation terms under US tax law, our rates are virtually
identical to those of the other 14 largest countries (we're all around
27.2% in real terms). And the percentage of our GDP represented by
corporate taxes are one of the lowest.

You can slice this cheese in a variety of ways, and I'm not up for
battling statistics, but the point is that our corporate tax rate has
nothing to do with our competitive position in the world.

If you want a source, this is one. It's not MediaMatters, the tables
and data actually are from the Congressional Research Service, and I'm
not up for chasing down the original:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/01/the-truth-about-the-us-corporate-tax-rate-the-r/184586

If you want a contradictory view, from the conservative American
Enterprise Institute, it's here:

http://www.aei.org/article/economics/fiscal-policy/taxes/report-card-on-effective-corporate-tax-rates/

Personally, I think the AEI figures are badly biased because they
don't weight economies by their size. But that's an arguable point.
It's true, however, that small countries have lower corporate taxes.

And that's just a race to the bottom. Small countries try to buy
business investment by shifting costs onto their consumers -- or by
depreciating their incomes (and quality of life) to buy jobs. Think of
Arkansas as a nation.

>, EPA, OSHA and attacks by the
>government on every front. Until the government quits trying to make
>EVERYBODY dependent on the gov. for their existence in exchange for Dem.
>votes...we are fucked!

I don't agree that government is *trying* to make people dependent on
it. There is a huge disagreement about which services government
should provide. I find it funny right now, amidst the tragedy, that
the two senators from Oklahoma who voted against providing FEMA funds
to restore NJ and NY after Hurricane Sandy are clamoring for extra
funds to restore Moore, OK after their tornado. "Oh, but it's
different," they say. Yeah, right....

As for EPA and OSHA, I've come to believe that the only way they can
get anything done is to push for excessive regulations. A compromise
on the cleanup of the Duluth area of Lake Superior would mean, I
suppose, that they'd just leave it half dead. A moderated position on
cleaning up the steel industry around Gary, IN would mean that you'd
only have to turn your headlights on 50% of the days that are sunny
and bright ten miles to the north or east. Remember Gary in the '60s?
Remember Pittsburgh? You'd think they had painted the entire city
black.

And let's not forget your very own Cuyahoga River. Even before it
caught on fire, not even algae would grow in it. And it dumps into
Lake Erie, which it damn near killed off. Shall we moderate the EPA's
regulations about that, so that the river can grow a healthy crop of,
say, anaerobic bacteria and nematodes?

Business management has a fiduciary responsibility to push costs off
its back, to externalize costs as much as possible so that someone
else pays those costs. Apple's executives just reminded us of that
yesterday. So they'll always push for less regulation. Which means
that EPA, OSHA, and the others will always have to push for more.
Otherwise, they become industry captives, regulations become a joke,
and the whole thing goes to hell. Hmm...like the SEC, perhaps.

I've been looking for nematode recipes, but nothing looks good to me.

BTW, if this is too many words to suit you, I'll try the Usenet
approach next time if you prefer, and just yell "Bullshit!"

--
Ed Huntress

[David R. Birch]

On 5/22/2013 5:38 AM, Richard wrote:

>
> Definition of insanity - Doing the same thing the same way
> over and over again, expecting different results...

Unfortunately, that's also the definition of using Windows, because you
often DO get different results...

David

[Gunner Asch]

ROFLMAO!! True...too true!!


--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."