Re: Physicists caused wall street melt down...
hanson
news:f7ac2fac-299c-4363...@f77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Did you see 60 Minutes this sunday?
>
> I especially like the piece on the economic credit crisis where the
> blame for the mess was laid firmly at the feet of physicists. The
> story was that Wall Street hired a bunch of super-technical
> mathematically inclined physicists to work out obscure formulations of
> questionable "options" like credit default swaps that were so complex
> and esoteric that nobody could figure out what they meant and thus
> were peddled to unsuspecting banks.
>
> Shame on all you guys. You just cost us all 700 billion! And it
> ain't over yet.
>
hanson wrote:
Well, if the Wallstreet gang wouldn't have trusted all
those relativistic Einstein Dingleberries who bull-
shitted them with their "bundles", "manifold returns"
and "derivatives" and if the down to earth old time
stock gamblers there would have followed their instincts
then that "new" environment would not have arisen
and wouldn't have fucked up their own game & make
us pay for it... ahahahaha.... But the greed took over
and blew the game... with the Einstein Dingleberries
merely having been the catalysts... and showing the
very BEST example what relativity is good for in the
real world.... .... ahahahaha....
>
Soon the same bubble-bursting, like on Wallstreet,
will happen to Einstein's crap too... And we will go
back to basics and turn our attention to solving the
problem of "Action at a distance" and "What is a
charge"... instead of sidestepping and twisting the
issue into manifolds and derivatives to end up with
space-time and other shit in the dark cul-de-sac of
Einstein... ahahaha...
>
So warned years and years ago...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
Einstein in a letter in 1954 to Besso in which he said:
>
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
>
:: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
:: who said
:: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
:: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
:: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
:: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
:: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
:: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
:: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
>
hanson worte:
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
dlzc
On Oct 7, 10:27 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
The boom and the bust are both part of the system of shells (as in
shell game). Money is a unit of trust, just as any other non-food
commodity is. We go looking for "real value" in assets... and you
find the "trust me" eyes of the guy offering you the goods.
We are all living in castles in the air, and are support staff for the
very few farmers and miners. Love it or change it. And if you change
it, be prepared for a major shift dwonwards in the Earth's population
density.
David A. Smith
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
You forgot about inflation.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
hanson
news:d7e7e9ca-640f-4231...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Howdy hanson:
>
Yo!, Smitty:
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c62d7fd040006386?hl=en
>
Smitty wrote:
The boom and the bust are both part of the system of
shells (as in shell game). Money is a unit of trust, just
as any other non-food commodity is. We go looking for
"real value" in assets... and you find the "trust me" eyes
of the guy offering you the goods.
>
ahahaha... and the "receiving" guy says after the bust:
"Oye weh"... "Go figure!"... ahahaha... But seriously for
a nano-sec, Smitty, in the final analysis, EVERYTHING
is a game and a gamble... no matter how strenuously
we like to suppress and deny that reality... even Food
commodities are a gamble, not just on the Futures Market...
but even in the fields... one single thunderstorm, frost,
flash flood, etc, etc, etc, and it's "TILT!"
>
Smitty wrote:
We are all living in castles in the air, and are support
staff for the very few farmers and miners. Love it or
change it. And if you change it, be prepared for a major
David A. Smith
>
hanson wrote:
Amen to that, Smitty!... .. with the notable exceptions of
(1) kike Mel Brooks and some of his ilk who believe
and said (~1974)
"These are just simple farmers. People of the land.
The common clay of the New West. You know -- morons."
and
(2) with that [EP] will die the "Green-Carbon-Foot-Print"
hopes for the crimi-legit graft by Al Gore & his enviro turds...
Thanks for the laughs, Smitty... ahhahahahahanson
Androcles
David A. Smith
===========================================
A change in density is a good thing. 150 years ago the population
density of Europe fell as the population density of the USA rose.
As to miners, they are the support staff for manufacturing. Who
needs raw materials if you don't make anything with it? And if you
have no manufacturing you might as well grow your own food.
The real problem is as the Leader of your House put it: you can't
buy a new car because you need a loan to pay for it and the dealer
can't sell you a car because he needs a loan to buy his inventory.
Tough shit. Cut the banker out, cut the civil servant out, they are
taking too big a slice of the pie. But what did you need a new car
for anyway? Maintain the old one properly, buy the new when
you can afford it and you WILL cut the banker out.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I always buy second hand and never with credit.
Typically pay about $5k and keep the car 5 years.
hanson
single letter in the post below... You are running after him in vain.
But thanks for the attention. It's flattering and funny!... hahaha..
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:ybRGk.4659$5A6....@newsfe09.ams2...
Androcles
> ---------------- AHAHAHA ----------
> ------------- ahahahahahaha ---------
> ---------- ahahAHAHAahaha ----------
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:6vTGk.1365$yI6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
dlzc
On Oct 7, 3:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d7e7e9ca-640f-4231...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy hanson:
>
> On Oct 7, 10:27 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> The boom and the bust are both part of the system
> of shells (as in shell game). Money is a unit of
> trust, just as any other non-food commodity is.
> We go looking for "real value" in assets... and you
> find the "trust me" eyes of the guy offering you the
> goods.
>
> We are all living in castles in the air, and are
> support staff for the very few farmers and miners.
> Love it or change it. And if you change it, be
> prepared for a major shift dwonwards in the
> Earth's population density.
>
> ===========================================
> A change in density is a good thing. 150 years
> ago the population density of Europe fell as the
> population density of the USA rose. As to
> miners, they are the support staff for manufacturing.
> Who needs raw materials if you don't make
> anything with it?
Glazing for windows. Metals for plows, hinges, and dinnerware.
Fertilizers. Salt. (Other) dietary mineral supplements. Mining is
not only for manufacturing "fluffware" for support staff.
> And if you have no manufacturing you might
> as well grow your own food. The real problem
> is as the Leader of your House put it: you can't
> buy a new car because you need a loan to
> pay for it and the dealer can't sell you a car
> because he needs a loan to buy his inventory.
> Tough shit. Cut the banker out, cut the civil
> servant out, they are taking too big a slice of
> the pie. But what did you need a new car
> for anyway? Maintain the old one properly,
> buy the new when you can afford it and you
> WILL cut the banker out.
Where do tires come from? Spare parts? The oil to run / lubricate
it? Cars and tractors have to go, if you are going to eliminate
mining.
David A. Smith
Benj
> Money is a unit of trust, just as any other non-food
> commodity is. We go looking for "real value" in assets... and you
> find the "trust me" eyes of the guy offering you the goods.
RULE: When someone says "trust me", immediately reach down and put
your hand firmly on your wallet!
A rule obviously not being followed by Congress recently.
Benj
> > And if you have no manufacturing you might
> > as well grow your own food. The real problem
> > is as the Leader of your House put it: you can't
> > buy a new car because you need a loan to
> > pay for it and the dealer can't sell you a car
> > because he needs a loan to buy his inventory.
> > Tough shit. Cut the banker out, cut the civil
> > servant out, they are taking too big a slice of
> > the pie. But what did you need a new car
> > for anyway? Maintain the old one properly,
> > buy the new when you can afford it and you
> > WILL cut the banker out.
So now ask yourself, WHY do you need a loan for a new car? Do you NEED
a new car or simply WANT one? And why is everyone so set on paying
double for a new car? (cost of car plus interest). That would be
because someone TOLD you that you should. So instead of just waiting
until you have the money to buy this or that, you borrow the money to
buy it and then pay some huge interest because someone on TV told you
that you can borrow against your future. And of course they tell you
this because THEY are the ones who get that extra money that things
cost.
So they sell you and you buy it. You have to promise your future so
you can buy some huge SUV with all the off-road features and low
mileage for that "extreme" "off-road" trip to work each day!
Everybody wonders how I make little money but live like a freakin'
king. Duh. I haven't bought all that BS that you are sold on. My old
POS Geo Metro hauls my ass around just fine. Do I need to spend a
hundred grand to drive around in "style"? Gimme a break.
If you wonder why you work more and have less, it's that banker on
your back you are carrying around.
There is only ONE valid reason for loans. That would be to get the
capital to purchase "something" that will eventually pay back the
money you borrowed plus (hopefully) a reasonable profit. If your car
is not going to be used to earn back the money you borrowed to buy it,
then you should have never had that loan! Think about it.
dlzc
On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
...
> So now ask yourself, WHY do you need a loan
> for a new car? Do you NEED a new car or simply
> WANT one?
Somehow we have to get this back to physics.
Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some folks live far
from "distribution centers" and horses or bicycles or walking simply
take too long. A new car is less problematic than a used one, and
spare parts are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
guy next door (essentially).
...
> There is only ONE valid reason for loans. That
> would be to get the capital to purchase
> "something" that will eventually pay back the
> money you borrowed plus (hopefully) a
> reasonable profit. If your car is not going to be
> used to earn back the money you borrowed to
> buy it, then you should have never had that
> loan! Think about it.
Less than 10% of the *average* person's income is spent on
subsistence. The balance is voluntary / optional, and strictly
speaking keeps your neighbors employed. A loan simply provides income
for (ultimately) retired folks (and the occasional fat cat).
Insurance on the other hand...
We are members of a group. We decide how many members that includes,
by what we do *now*. We know how to collapse back to ruin, it is
built into the animal. Can we learn how to *trust*; or must
contagion, famine, and conflagration (the animal programming) take
over?
David A. Smith
Benj
> Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some folks live far
> from "distribution centers" and horses or bicycles or walking simply
> take too long. A new car is less problematic than a used one, and
> spare parts are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
> guy next door (essentially).
Question, should a person take out a LOAN to buy jewlery? Does that
make sense to you? How does the jewelry pay back the loan? I'm not
saying it can't. It could. Say you need to have the Jewelry to "show
class" for some promotion or sales job you are undertaking. Just like
say you need a new car because you are a salesman and need both the
'style" and the reliability. But for old Joe Sixpack, a loan to buy
stuff that has no potential payback is a loser.
> Less than 10% of the *average* person's income is spent on
> subsistence. The balance is voluntary / optional, and strictly
> speaking keeps your neighbors employed. A loan simply provides income
> for (ultimately) retired folks (and the occasional fat cat).
> Insurance on the other hand...
So, you are saying "greed is good"? Optional income isn't the problem.
If you have extra money, buy anything you like with it. The problem is
when you use that extra money to buy more money. Why not just write
checks directly to the fat cats and have that good feeling that comes
with giving to "charity"?
> We are members of a group. We decide how many members that includes,
> by what we do *now*. We know how to collapse back to ruin, it is
> built into the animal. Can we learn how to *trust*; or must
> contagion, famine, and conflagration (the animal programming) take
> over?
Why should we "learn" to "trust" anyone? Why should I "trust" anyone?
Experience on this planet has shown that to not be such a wise choice.
I love the way all the talking head news people all advertise
themselves by talking about "trust"!!! HA! They are about THE most
untrustworthy people this side of politicians! And the banks even
have "Trust" in their names! There is a reason for the "rule".
Here's the problem in a nutshell. On the planet there are two kinds
of people. Those willing to try to advance behavior to new levels of
civilization and those still following animal mores. Animals are
basically amoral. If you see something you want, if you can, you take
it. If someone gets in your way, you kill them. When hunting you use
camouflage and deception to make the kill. And it's all perfectly fine
whether you are the one living or the one dying under the rules of
"evolution". But here's the catch. Animals form societies, but they do
not create civilizations. And it's even worse than that. We humans
have BOTH groups operating with opposing philosophies at the same
time. One tries to use animal rules (predators) and another is trying
to raise civilization above the level of taking swords and going to
grab what you want from the neighboring city-state. But until somehow
these people are forced to wear Nazi-style patches identifying which
group they belong to, "trust" is a pretty foolish thing to try.
And of course, business is really just an analog for war. Hence one
has the problem of predators believing that the rich and intelligent
have a divine duty to take everything the poor and dumb own, while we
also have an idealistic group trying to promote logic, fairness, the
scientific method and civilization in the face of all this opposition.
It's not a particularly hopeful situation. Until one group or the
other gains the upper hand, the situation is not likely to be
resolved.
Nevertheless I'm still rooting for the side of civilization no matter
how it turns out.
Now. If we could just mathematically model these ideas and sell them
to Wall Street! :-)
Androcles
Hello Androcles:
On Oct 7, 3:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d7e7e9ca-640f-4231...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy hanson:
>
> On Oct 7, 10:27 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> The boom and the bust are both part of the system
> of shells (as in shell game). Money is a unit of
> trust, just as any other non-food commodity is.
> We go looking for "real value" in assets... and you
> find the "trust me" eyes of the guy offering you the
> goods.
>
> We are all living in castles in the air, and are
> support staff for the very few farmers and miners.
> Love it or change it. And if you change it, be
> prepared for a major shift dwonwards in the
> Earth's population density.
>
> ===========================================
> A change in density is a good thing. 150 years
> ago the population density of Europe fell as the
> population density of the USA rose. As to
> miners, they are the support staff for manufacturing.
> Who needs raw materials if you don't make
> anything with it?
Smiffy:
Glazing for windows. Metals for plows, hinges, and dinnerware.
Fertilizers. Salt. (Other) dietary mineral supplements. Mining is
not only for manufacturing "fluffware" for support staff.
==============================================
Androcles:
Chimpanzees and polar bears don't live in glass houses. Nor do they
make anything.
What is the first obvious difference between man and any other animal?
His clothes.
Take them away and be prepared for a major shift downwards in the
Earth's population density (and population). First to go is the eskimo,
who is no farmer or miner.
Neither were North American aboriginals until farming was forced on
them by Europeans.
I repeat:
Who needs raw materials if you don't make anything?
Naming the things you do make doesn't answer that question.
> And if you have no manufacturing you might
> as well grow your own food. The real problem
> is as the Leader of your House put it: you can't
> buy a new car because you need a loan to
> pay for it and the dealer can't sell you a car
> because he needs a loan to buy his inventory.
> Tough shit. Cut the banker out, cut the civil
> servant out, they are taking too big a slice of
> the pie. But what did you need a new car
> for anyway? Maintain the old one properly,
> buy the new when you can afford it and you
> WILL cut the banker out.
Smiffy:
Where do tires come from?
=========================================
Androcles:
Unlike money, they grow on trees.
http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/Armstrong/syllabi/rubber/rubber.htm
Nylon shirts are mined, silk panties
are farmed, cotton blouses are farmed.
Miners and farmers are the support staff for manufacturing.
Smiffy:
Spare parts? The oil to run / lubricate
it? Cars and tractors have to go, if you are going to eliminate
mining.
=========================================
Androcles:
I'm talking about eliminating bankers and lawyers. Where did I
say I'd eliminate mining, you clown?
The politically correct buzzword for keeping an old car running
nowadays is "recycling". That means washing used containers
like milk churns instead of using them once and melting them
down, which is what your banker has persuaded you that you
need so that he can lend you (sell you) money to waste on packaging.
Sheesh, I live alone and I still throw out a full trash bag every week,
full of food packaging.
You don't throw your house away when it gets old, do you?
No, the bankers and lawyers are all over that like flies on shit.
Money is vapourware (like relativity).
Big financial crisis - cut interest rate by 0.5% and get the economy
going again. Trust me, its a shell game as cha-cha says.
Androcles
Dear Benj:
On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
...
> So now ask yourself, WHY do you need a loan
> for a new car? Do you NEED a new car or simply
> WANT one?
Somehow we have to get this back to physics.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Relativity is like money - vapourware.
=================================
dlzc
On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:37 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some
> > folks live far from "distribution centers" and horses or
> > bicycles or walking simply take too long. A new car
> > is less problematic than a used one, and spare parts
> > are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
> > guy next door (essentially).
>
> Question, should a person take out a LOAN to
> buy jewlery? Does that make sense to you?
> How does the jewelry pay back the loan? I'm not
> saying it can't. It could. Say you need to have the
> Jewelry to "show class" for some promotion or
> sales job you are undertaking. Just like say you
> need a new car because you are a salesman and
> need both the 'style" and the reliability. But for old
> Joe Sixpack, a loan to buy stuff that has no
> potential payback is a loser.
But you don't disagree that optional income can be spent in any way,
and if "five years" disposable income can be "gathered" into a today
purchase, and this purchase simply makes you more liable to show up
for work, feel better about your circumstances, and feel like working
a little harder to make sure you can pay off the debt... should loans
for "jewelry" be forbidden? It seems to me "investment" yields
current productivity. Or can.
> > Less than 10% of the *average* person's income
> > is spent on subsistence. The balance is voluntary
> > / optional, and strictly speaking keeps your
> > neighbors employed. A loan simply provides
> > income for (ultimately) retired folks (and the
> > occasional fat cat). Insurance on the other hand...
>
> So, you are saying "greed is good"?
Greed is the basis for civization, if you insist on "black and white"
allocations. I am willing to discuss shadings here, if you wish.
> Optional income isn't the problem. If you have
> extra money, buy anything you like with it.
How about I help you buy a new / less-used car, on the agreement that
you pay me some amount more by the end of the loan?
> The problem is when you use that extra money
> to buy more money. Why not just write checks
> directly to the fat cats and have that good feeling
> that comes with giving to "charity"?
I would not consider you charity. I would hope that if I loaned you
money (like I had any), you would not consider me a fat cat because I
did. And vice versa.
> > We are members of a group. We decide
> > how many members that includes, by what
> > we do *now*. We know how to collapse back
> > to ruin, it is built into the animal. Can we
> > learn how to *trust*; or must contagion,
> > famine, and conflagration (the animal
> > programming) take over?
>
> Why should we "learn" to "trust" anyone?
Why should you not live next door to:
- someone that has a military arsenal, and practices some arcane
ritual you don't personally believe in (say cannibalism)?
- some family that squirts out a kid or two every nine months, neither
of them has a job, and they never (can afford to) go to the doctor?
... can you trust them?
> Why should I "trust" anyone?
You do and must. You trust your NSP to deliver your posts, for
example.
> Experience on this planet has shown that to not
> be such a wise choice. I love the way all the
> talking head news people all advertise themselves
> by talking about "trust"!!! HA! They are about THE
> most untrustworthy people this side of politicians!
Douglas Adams... "take me to your lizard"
> And the banks even have "Trust" in their names!
US unit of currency has exactly the same thing. Money is only a unit
of trust. And those that hold "precious metals and jems" trust that
they will always be in demand, and will get them food on demand.
> There is a reason for the "rule".
>
> Here's the problem in a nutshell. On the planet
> there are two kinds of people.
No. Nothing is this simple.
> Those willing to try to advance behavior to new
> levels of civilization and those still following
> animal mores. Animals are basically amoral.
Not really. Cats are really better at society than we are. As are
whales, dolphins (who still eat their own), wolves, etc. "Moral" is
pretty slippery when applied to animals, since much
"anthropomorphizing" must be imposed in order to judge. But to your
point...
Must society be based on the highest, the lowest, or something in
between?
> If you see something you want, if you can,
> you take it. If someone gets in your way, you
> kill them. When hunting you use camouflage
> and deception to make the kill. And it's all
> perfectly fine whether you are the one living or
> the one dying under the rules of "evolution".
> But here's the catch. Animals form societies,
> but they do not create civilizations. And it's
> even worse than that. We humans have BOTH
> groups operating with opposing philosophies
> at the same time. One tries to use animal
> rules (predators) and another is trying to
> raise civilization above the level of taking
> swords and going to grab what you want
> from the neighboring city-state.
... like oil, the right to form your own society, or wimmun ...
> But until somehow these people are forced
> to wear Nazi-style patches identifying which
> group they belong to, "trust" is a pretty
> foolish thing to try.
It is all we have, however. There is no way to judge a man's soul...
all we can hope for is his deeds... aka. "credit history", "military
service record", "driving record", ... abstractions in use today for
that purpose.
> And of course, business is really just an
> analog for war. Hence one has the problem
> of predators believing that the rich and
> intelligent have a divine duty to take everything
> the poor and dumb own, while we also have
> an idealistic group trying to promote logic,
> fairness, the scientific method and civilization
> in the face of all this opposition.
Well, the company I am working for is tripping all over itself to be
otherwise, and one of our competitor continues to sell lies about what
his equipment will do.. and takes the loss from another column in the
spreadsheet. But he gets sales.
> It's not a particularly hopeful situation. Until
> one group or the other gains the upper hand,
> the situation is not likely to be resolved.
>
> Nevertheless I'm still rooting for the side of
> civilization no matter how it turns out.
And that requires *trust*. There is no "guarantee" a civilization
will reward each of its citizens equally. Socialism and communism
didn't. Police states don't.
> Now. If we could just mathematically model
> these ideas and sell them to Wall Street! :-)
Yes, but who would buy it? Good chatting with you.
David A. Smith
Benj
> > Why should we "learn" to "trust" anyone?
>
> Why should you not live next door to:
> - someone that has a military arsenal, and practices some arcane
> ritual you don't personally believe in (say cannibalism)?
> - some family that squirts out a kid or two every nine months, neither
> of them has a job, and they never (can afford to) go to the doctor?
> ... can you trust them?
>
> > Why should I "trust" anyone?
> You do and must. You trust your NSP to deliver your posts, for
> example.
No most certainly do not! I EXPECT them to deliver them, but since I
use Google, I certainly don't TRUST them to do so! And in fact, they
regularly don't. And why shouldn't I live next door to someone with a
military "arsenal"? Should I trust my neighbor more than I trust G.W.
Bush? I think I would. And that would be true even if they practice
arcane rituals I don't personally believe in like say driving new SUVs
or voting Democrat. Why should I "trust" anyone? When I do business
it sure would be nice to operate old school with a handshake and
mutual trust. But those days (if they ever existed and I doubt they
did) are long gone. We write out contracts in detail precisely because
people can NOT be trusted.
Money is the IDEAL example. People say, if you have lots of money
your are wealthy! BZZZTTT! Wrong! Money is the opposite of wealth. It
is only a piece of worthless paper with a promise to pay written on
it. And how much can I "trust" that promise? Well, bunky, I had this
5 dollar bill that said Silver Certificate on it. The government
PROMISED me that that this piece of paper could be exchanged for
silver. Guess what, even though I expected them to hand over a few
worthless sandwich quarter tokens and say, "there you go", they
wouldn't even do THAT! Nope. It can only be exchanged for other
worthless pieces of paper with NO promises on them! Oh sure, I should
TRUST everybody. Even when there is a written contract they won't
honor it. That's evolution! If you can get away with something then
it's OK. If you can't and get caught, that's OK too. Either way
society "progresses"!
> > Nevertheless I'm still rooting for the side of
> > civilization no matter how it turns out.
>
> And that requires *trust*. There is no "guarantee" a civilization
> will reward each of its citizens equally. Socialism and communism
> didn't. Police states don't.
Does not require trust. But it does require a certain equality.
Equality before the law is not an equal reward. It's only the pursuit
of happiness, not a guarantee of it. And since most other forms of
government like monarchy or democratic republics are pretty much no
longer viable, I'd say the chances for human civilization at present
are pretty slim.
Jeff▲Relf
almost 9 years ago, is now worth only 1 oz.
Millions of homes now lay idle for sqautters to plunder.
That's why I invest in myself, not others, not stock or houses.
For example, I pay Individual.NET 10 Euros per year;
so I never have problems posting to Usenet.
I never fully plonk anyone, instead I keep a list of nyms to “ watch ”;
the rest are “ Muffled ”, so I only see their 3 most recent posts.
However, I read All replies to me, no matter who,
and I Always see the “ Heritage ”, e.g. the parent post; like this:
“ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/UnVisted.PNG ”.
Eric Gisse
> 4 oz of gold invested in Nasdaq at the start of 2000,
> almost 9 years ago, is now worth only 1 oz.
Gold has gone up a factor of 3 in price since Jan of 2000.
idiot.
[snip]
Jeff▲Relf
“ Gold has gone up a factor of 3 in price since Jan of 2000. ”
Had you invested in the Nasdaq Composite at its peak, start of 2000,
when it was 5,050, you'd be down 66** percent, before taxes, fees,
inflation***, etc. [ **: .66 = 1 - 1,740 / 5,050 ]
***:
In Seattle, the official inflation number is 5.6 percent/year;
however, since 1988, my rent has have gone up much more than that.
If what you say about gold is correct, then
Nasdaq, as measured in gold, lost 89** percent in 9 years.
**: .89 = 1 - 1,740 / 3 / 5,050
It was fraud, a scam, a con, and it killed tech-jobs.
Now, the same thing has happened in the housing market because
no one cared about Earnings or Management !
Millions of homes now lay idle for sqautters to plunder.
Fannie and Freddie “ own ” 6 teradollars in bundled mortgages.
Who manages these houses ? what are the earnings ( from rent ) ?
Eric Gisse
> You told me:
> " Gold has gone up a factor of 3 in price since Jan of 2000. "
>
NASDAQ is not gold. idiot.
Jeff▲Relf
You can track the Nasdaq Composite in terms of rolls of toilet paper;
or, better yet, months of rent+utilities in Seattle.
One glance at the pump prices and you know the value of the dollar;
one dollar is one share in “ U.S.A. Inc. ”, the U.S. government.
How well is it managed ? what is it earning, e.g. from taxes ?
What's this “ idiot ” shit ? are you talking to yourself again ?
stric...@gmail.com
> That would be because someone TOLD you that you should.
Maybe you are that stupid, but I buy a new car because it works
better, not because some crook like Honest Eric told me so. It's not
worth my time to fix them up. You can put the dealership in Fargo,
I'll still buy one.
stric...@gmail.com
What does Eric know? His only asset is the watch he lifted from
Walmart.
Eric Gisse
Your troll-fu is slipping into straight up stupidity.
Benj
You've got the wrong idea. The problem is not new cars vs old cars,
the problem is buying a car when you don't have the money to do so.
You promise your future money so you can have something right now.
What you are buying is irrelevant except in the sense that one needs
to ask IF the gear in question will produce enough profit to pay back
the loan with some left over. The latter case is what we call
business. But people have been sold this "live for today" crap that
says, if you decide you want something (say a new car to show class
with the neighbors) you "deserve" to have it RIGHT NOW even though you
haven't got the money to buy it. THAT is the "sales pitch". And that
means that you max your credit card, you become a slave to your job,
pay much more for things than they actually cost and all the rest.
Bosses LOVE people who have put themselves in that fix. My bosses hate
me. When they say "kiss my ass" I can say "I don't think so". People
say, "aren't you worried about losing your job?" And I tell them, hey,
I could quit right now and pay myself my current salary for YEARS and
I sure can live on a lot less than that! That is freedom! So the
bottom line is not do you buy a new car, but do you already have the
money to buy that car you are looking at? See?
Jeff▲Relf
who will you work for then ? a Nasdaq company ?
The spot-price for gold is now 916.75 USD per troy ounce
a 3.37-fold increase from the 272 USD/ounce at the start of 2000;
so Nasdaq, as measured in gold, lost 90** percent in ~9 years.
**: .90 = 1 - 1,645 / 3.37 / 5,050 ”.
Eric Gisse
Why do you keep saying stupid things like 'nasdaq, as measured in
gold' ?
Bill Snyder
<jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because he's a clueless imbecile. HTH. HAND.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
David Bostwick
More stupider, why is this nonsense in sci.* groups? And why am I extending
the chain?
Benj
Bostwick) wrote:
Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Why do you keep saying stupid things like 'nasdaq, as measured in
> >gold' ?
>
> More stupider, why is this nonsense in sci.* groups?
Because it was alleged that physicists and other scientists hired by
wall street created the complex derivatives that if not caused,
certainly contributed to the crash by hiding bad debt under
mathematical complexity.
> And why am I extending the chain?
Because you don't know better?
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Oct 10, 12:40 pm, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (DavidBostwick) wrote:
>
> Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Why do you keep saying stupid things like 'nasdaq, as measured in
> > >gold' ?
>
> > More stupider, why is this nonsense in sci.* groups?
>
> Because it was alleged that physicists and other scientists hired by
> wall street created the complex derivatives that if not caused,
> certainly contributed to the crash by hiding bad debt under
> mathematical complexity.
Well, the problem is even worse than that, the idiots hid it under
*computer* complexity,
since the only thing the numerologists understand less about than
computers, is mathematics
that isn't Fibonacci numbers.
Which is why the people with economic, science, engineering,
history, and non-Cantor logic brains
invented the post AT&T fiber optics, RISC++ HDTV[], laser-guided
lasers, Post GM Holograms,
Post Ford Batteries, Post Chrysler Transmissions, XML, other
things that aren't
recursive Quantum Noise.for the IBM Wanks.
Eric Gisse
> On Oct 10, 12:40 pm, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (DavidBostwick) wrote:
>
> Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Why do you keep saying stupid things like 'nasdaq, as measured in
> > >gold' ?
>
> > More stupider, why is this nonsense in sci.* groups?
>
> Because it was alleged that physicists and other scientists hired by
> wall street created the complex derivatives that if not caused,
> certainly contributed to the crash by hiding bad debt under
> mathematical complexity.
Was it 'alleged' by anyone not functionally retarded?
Jeff▲Relf
to buy a Nasdaq Composite fund .. then today, almost 9 years later,
you cashed out what's left of that fund and used it to buy gold ..
.. you'd have just one pound ( ignoring taxes, fees, etc. ).
Nasdaq turned 10 pounds of gold into just one, 9 years later.
Personally, I don't see how you could fail to understand that.
Jeff▲Relf
When everyone is rich, fat, drunk and happy,
no one looks too closely at the fine print.
The same thing happened 20 years ago, durring the Savings&Loan Crisis;
McCain was a big part of that, even back then.
20 years from now, I expect it will happen all over again.
If people could be more disciplined ( ha ha ),
they'd value assests based on earnings and management, not the market.
No one asked:
“ How well are the houses being managed ?
have they been abandoned to squatters and looters ?
How much income/rent is being generated ? none ? ”.