Obama will be a disaster...

[StreetScooby 5]

From the NYTimes:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/obama-scoffs-at-mccain-economic-panel/?hp

Quote

He also proposed streamlining regulatory agencies as well as cracking down on trading activity that manipulates markets.

These two are contradictory. Plus, trading activity is supposed to "manipulate" markets . That' why they're markets! Not some centrally planned "thing".

Quote

“What we’ve seen the last few days ,” Mr. Obama said, “is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.”

Is this a condemnation of capitalism?

Obama was #2 on the list of money given by FNMA to congressmen. Dodd (D-CT) was #1.

The more details he gives, the better for McCain.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>These two are contradictory.

No, they're not. The corollary would be to streamline USPA's Safety and Training committee process while cracking down on DZ's that do not follow USPA guidelines. The two do not contradict.

>Plus, trading activity is supposed to "manipulate"
>markets That' why they're markets! Not some centrally planned "thing".

No, actually that's illegal. If you make a false claim or make a phony business move to temporarily up your stock price, then sell that stock, that's illegal. Some people at Enron went to jail over doing that. The SEC watches out for that, sometimes doing a better job than at other times.

>Is this a condemnation of capitalism?

Nope, it's an indication that the current economic strategies (i.e. limited oversight for energy markets) doesn't work well. McCain has said similar things:

"The fundamentals of our economy are at risk . . . And those fundamentals are threatened, they are threatened and at risk because some on Wall Street have treated Wall Street like a casino.''

Is he saying that the capitalism is failing because of Wall Street investment? Nope, he's saying that there are some problems with our economy now due to speculation.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>These two are contradictory.

No, they're not. The corollary would be to streamline USPA's Safety and Training committee process while cracking down on DZ's that do not follow USPA guidelines. The two do not contradict.

Uhm, aren't you forgetting more people are required to effectively execute that?

Quote

>Plus, trading activity is supposed to "manipulate"
>markets That' why they're markets! Not some centrally planned "thing".

No, actually that's illegal. If you make a false claim or make a phony business move to temporarily up your stock price, then sell that stock, that's illegal. Some people at Enron went to jail over doing that. The SEC watches out for that, sometimes doing a better job than at other times.

Note the emphasis on trading activity None of what you discussed is trading activity, i.e. where white paper is bought/sold in a secondary market.

Quote

>Is this a condemnation of capitalism?

Nope, it's an indication that the current economic strategies (i.e. limited oversight for energy markets) doesn't work well. McCain has said similar things:

Whose economic strategies? The President's? Congress?

Quote

Is he saying that the capitalism is failing because of Wall Street investment? Nope, he's saying that there are some problems with our economy now due to speculation.

Speculators are an essential part of efficient markets. They must be allowed to fail miserably. Likewise, they shouldn't be allowed to lever themselves 10-to-1.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>Uhm, aren't you forgetting more people are required to effectively execute that?

USPA has cracked down on unsafe DZ's before without more people, so your statement is literally incorrect. Your idea of a crackdown might involve a lot more people in a big bureaucracy, but that is not the only way to do it by a long shot.

>Note the emphasis on trading activity None of what you discussed is trading activity . . .

Uh, yes it is. One of the scams that Enron pulled off was to create shell companies ("special purpose entities" in Skilling's language, with names like Hawaii, Jedi and West Treasure) whose purpose was to trade and hold Enron stock (thus driving stock prices up) and to hide some of their losses in un-auditable overseas companies (thus increasing their apparent net worth.) All technically legal, but illegal when used to manipulate the market.

Enron is a good example of how "just trading" can often be illegal. Google the terms "death star", "fat boy" and "ricochet." All just trading energy, but it added up to illegal manipulation of the market. Such schemes (and schemes like them) are new enough and complex enough that they can be hard to identify and stop.

>Whose economic strategies? The President's? Congress?

I think I will skip the blame game for this post. Strategies that were created by both the President and Congress over the past 10 years.

>Speculators are an essential part of efficient markets. They must be allowed to
>fail miserably.

I agree - which is the problem with bailouts.

>Likewise, they shouldn't be allowed to lever themselves 10-to-1.

That seems to contradict your above statement. Protecting them from themselves so they don't fail as miserably will prevent them from failing miserably.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

USPA has cracked down on unsafe DZ's before without more people, so your statement is literally incorrect.

Do you realize I was referring to financial audits?

Quote

Uh, yes it is. One of the scams that Enron pulled off was to create shell companies ("special purpose entities" in Skilling's language, with names like Hawaii, Jedi and West Treasure) whose purpose was to trade and hold Enron stock (thus driving stock prices up) and to hide some of their losses in un-auditable overseas companies (thus increasing their apparent net worth.) All technically legal, but illegal when used to manipulate the market.

That's not trading activity. That's accounting activity. As regulated by GAAP, not SEC or its equivalents.

Quote

Enron is a good example of how "just trading" can often be illegal. Google the terms "death star", "fat boy" and "ricochet." All just trading energy, but it added up to illegal manipulation of the market. Such schemes (and schemes like them) are new enough and complex enough that they can be hard to identify and stop.

You realize these strategies actually started by limiting the amount of power? This then spilled over into the secondary market.

Quote

I think I will skip the blame game for this post. Strategies that were created by both the President and Congress over the past 10 years.

Agreed. Bush is not the sole reason for this, nor did he have any significant causal effect.

Quote

That seems to contradict your above statement. Protecting them from themselves so they don't fail as miserably will prevent them from failing miserably.

No, it doesn't. Losing your money 1 for 1 is fine. Lose all you want. It's when you starting losing another 10 for every 1 you put up that things can start getting out of control.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>That's not trading activity.

Trading Enron stock is not trading activity? Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Trading Enron stock is not trading activity?

The structure you had described had its foundation in accounting activity (i.e., creating the off balance sheet entity, which wasn't a true arms length relationship). That's where the problem started.

You can't solve a problem unless you define it properly. But, you know that.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

> That's where the problem started.

Oh, I would readily agree that Enron had far more problems than that! (If you really want to go back to where the problem started, it was the OK to use mark-to-market accounting.)

That was just an example where just plain trading stock can, in and of itself, be illegal. There are many such examples, and people go to jail for trading stock quite often.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

(If you really want to go back to where the problem started, it was the OK to use mark-to-market accounting.)

All firms are required to do this, assuming their is a mark to be found.

Quote

There are many such examples, and people go to jail for trading stock quite often.

Usually for insider trading. Their trades typically don't have an impact on market pricing.

Obama doesn't know what behavior he will deem "manipulating the market". He simply doesn't know. He thinks people want to hear him say that. Next thing you know, he'll ban short selling, stock buybacks, and generally using a company's cash to support their stock's price in the market.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>Obama doesn't know what behavior he will deem "manipulating
>the market". He simply doesn't know.

So you know more about his statement than he does? That's a bit of a presumptuous statement, especially since he has given examples of the very market manipulation he opposes.

[rushmc 23]

So you know more about his statement than he does? .

But Bill

YOU do that to people on this site all the time!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

So you know more about his statement than he does? .

But Bill

YOU do that to people on this site all the time!

Bill responds to what people write, and then they get all upset and blame him because what they wrote was not what they meant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Plus, trading activity is supposed to "manipulate" markets . That' why they're markets! Not some centrally planned "thing".

So, you're ok with naked short selling?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So you know more about his statement than he does? .

But Bill

YOU do that to people on this site all the time!

Bill responds to what people write, and then they get all upset and blame him because what they wrote was not what they meant.

Nice try, not true but nice

If that was the case the crap he pulls would stop after his error of thinking is point out, but is doesnt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>If that was the case the crap he pulls would stop after his error
>of thinking is point out, but is doesnt

So you are upset when you tell me I'm wrong, and I don't believe you - and just keep on talking about things like CO2's anthropogenic effects?

If only you could muzzle people as effectively as you wished, the world would surely seem like a rosier place to you.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>If that was the case the crap he pulls would stop after his error
>of thinking is point out, but is doesnt

So you are upset when you tell me I'm wrong, and I don't believe you - and just keep on talking about things like CO2's anthropogenic effects?

If only you could muzzle people as effectively as you wished, the world would surely seem like a rosier place to you.

Bill, if you think I am wrong please tell me. I learn and will continue to learn.

I am talking about the Global Warming stopped in thread you keep miss-representing all the dam time.

As for muzzeling, what do call labeling people deniers? It that promoting debate?


What do you call "If you could muzzle people as effectiviely as you wished"........WTF is that supposed to mean??
It appears to me you would just as soon have everbody that disagree with you be label denier and shut up. It that what you are after?




You and I will not agree on some things and we do agree on some. But please stop miss-representing people or putting words in their mouths. Ya, on an internet forum there will be many miss-interpitations but keeping it up after clarification is wrong.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>As for muzzeling, what do call labeling people deniers?

Accurate. There are lots of political types out there who do little but deny global warming; some have made careers out of it. It's what they do. It's like calling a singer a singer because she sings a lot instead of an "aural entertainment technician" or something.

On the opposite side of the politics there are alarmists, and you have shown no hesitation to use that term. So forgive me if I see your outrage over the "denier" claim as a bit hypocritical.

>It that promoting debate?

You debate my use of that term all the time - so yes, it literally does.

>If you could muzzle people as effectiviely as you wished"........WTF is
>that supposed to mean?

See your own post above. Apparently you wish I would stop "the crap I pull" once my "error of thinking is point out."

Be glad no one tries to apply such a standard to you!

>It appears to me you would just as soon have everbody that disagree
>with you be label denier and shut up.

Not at all. If I believed that I'd just delete all the posts that disagree with me.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As for muzzeling, what do call labeling people deniers?

Debate in science is generally limited to testing alternative hypotheses, then subjecting the work (and data) to peer review and independent attempts to reproduce results.

Those who have actively and publicly refused to recognize the reality of the anthropogenic component of global warming have largely not taken such steps. No one is being "muzzled;" anyone is free to test alternative hypotheses. However, rhetoric does not substitute for such testing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>As for muzzeling, what do call labeling people deniers?

Accurate. There are lots of political types out there who do little but deny global warming; some have made careers out of it. It's what they do. It's like calling a singer a singer because she sings a lot instead of an "aural entertainment technician" or something.

On the opposite side of the politics there are alarmists, and you have shown no hesitation to use that term. So forgive me if I see your outrage over the "denier" claim as a bit hypocritical.

>It that promoting debate?

You debate my use of that term all the time - so yes, it literally does.

>If you could muzzle people as effectiviely as you wished"........WTF is
>that supposed to mean?

See your own post above. Apparently you wish I would stop "the crap I pull" once my "error of thinking is point out."

Be glad no one tries to apply such a standard to you!

>It appears to me you would just as soon have everbody that disagree
>with you be label denier and shut up.

Not at all. If I believed that I'd just delete all the posts that disagree with me.

Seems yours is a world of the rose colored glasses.

And either you dont get my point or you dont care.

I wonder how many times I was called a denier before I started using the alarmist term.

You still do not address the point I make about the one post you like to lie about. So I will assume you know you are lieing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

As for muzzeling, what do call labeling people deniers?

Debate in science is generally limited to testing alternative hypotheses, then subjecting the work (and data) to peer review and independent attempts to reproduce results.

Those who have actively and publicly refused to recognize the reality of the anthropogenic component of global warming have largely not taken such steps. No one is being "muzzled;" anyone is free to test alternative hypotheses. However, rhetoric does not substitute for such testing.

You post "refused to recognize" in your reply.

Guess the science is settled then huh?

WAFJ

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Seems yours is a world of the rose colored glasses.

Why, I think I've experienced Rush Putdown #17! And after so few posts.

>And either you dont get my point or you dont care.

I get your point; I merely believe you are wrong. It really isn't the end of the world to have someone question you. It's how science works.

>You still do not address the point I make about the one post you like
> to lie about.

It is unfortunate for you that all posts here are archived; you will not be able to do the revisionist-history thing. Everyone here can go back through your posts and see how many times you have declared victory over the "alamrists", how many times you've claimed global warming isn't happening, or the science has been "proven" wrong, or about how some feature of AGW (i.e. loss of glaciers) is incorrect.

And then when one of your posts is shown to be wrong, your reply is "well, I didn't really mean it; people are lieing about me!" It degrades your credibility somewhat. People will read future posts and assume that, at some point, you'll back off on those as well and claim you didn't really mean them.

Let's take your most recent post concerning how global warming is "kaput." You have posted several times in that thread about how you believe that the planet is now cooling, and is a result of a natural cycle.

Fast foward five years, when we have warmer years. At one point you'll say that you were right - global warming is really on its way out! And I'll point out that in 2008, you claimed global warming was "kaput" and you believed we were entering a cooling trend. No doubt you will cry "lier! lier! I never said that! That was someone ELSE calling it kaput."

Once people get used to that, they assume that you don't really mean what you say.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Seems yours is a world of the rose colored glasses.

Why, I think I've experienced Rush Putdown #17! And after so few posts.

>And either you dont get my point or you dont care.

I get your point; I merely believe you are wrong. It really isn't the end of the world to have someone question you. It's how science works.You are correct and I agree, however when you use a tactic of lies or miss-representation it is taken to a new level

>You still do not address the point I make about the one post you like
> to lie about.

It is unfortunate for you that all posts here are archived; you will not be able to do the revisionist-history thing. Everyone here can go back through your posts and see how many times you have declared victory over the "alamrists", how many times you've claimed global warming isn't happening, or the science has been "proven" wrong, or about how some feature of AGW (i.e. loss of glaciers) is incorrect.
Now you avoid the post I post about. You say that I said that Global Warming stopped in what ever yerar. That is a lie. I posted the title to an article. That title was in the article and the link. If you mis understood then I can see the first one or two posts claiming that. Yet, after repeated "clarifications" you continue to mis-represent that post. I am calling you on it. Sorry if you dont like it!


And then when one of your posts is shown to be wrong, your reply is "well, I didn't really mean it; people are lieing about me!" It degrades your credibility somewhat. People will read future posts and assume that, at some point, you'll back off on those as well and claim you didn't really mean them.Well, it is as yet to be proven as wrong because you have yet to prove the global warming is a man made happening.

Let's take your most recent post concerning how global warming is "kaput." You have posted several times in that thread about how you believe that the planet is now cooling, and is a result of a natural cycle.Again, even after clarification you lie about this yet again. I have posted articles (in the context of your repeated consensus bs) and even posted directly to you that I have my doubts. I have said the planet may be cooling and have posted articles about those who believe so. Again, cant you read?

Fast foward five years, when we have warmer years. At one point you'll say that you were right - global warming is really on its way out! And I'll point out that in 2008, you claimed global warming was "kaput" and you believed we were entering a cooling trend. No doubt you will cry "lier! lier! I never said that! That was someone ELSE calling it kaput."You should return to your own thread to which I have directed a few here lataley. You believe this is a settled science. So you belittle anybody who DARE QUESTION THE OPINION OF THE GREAT BILLVON. Very sad but at least I and others here know for sure where you are coming from

Once people get used to that, they assume that you don't really mean what you say.

YOU know what I mean. Dam right you do, YOU just want to mis-characteriz so as to what, make yourself feel superior? Dont bother, you got that down pat.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

>Seems yours is a world of the rose colored glasses.

Why, I think I've experienced Rush Putdown #17! And after so few posts.

>And either you dont get my point or you dont care.

I get your point; I merely believe you are wrong. It really isn't the end of the world to have someone question you. It's how science works.You are correct and I agree, however when you use a tactic of lies or miss-representation it is taken to a new level

>You still do not address the point I make about the one post you like
> to lie about.

It is unfortunate for you that all posts here are archived; you will not be able to do the revisionist-history thing. Everyone here can go back through your posts and see how many times you have declared victory over the "alamrists", how many times you've claimed global warming isn't happening, or the science has been "proven" wrong, or about how some feature of AGW (i.e. loss of glaciers) is incorrect.
Now you avoid the post I post about. You say that I said that Global Warming stopped in what ever yerar. That is a lie. I posted the title to an article. That title was in the article and the link. If you mis understood then I can see the first one or two posts claiming that. Yet, after repeated "clarifications" you continue to mis-represent that post. I am calling you on it. Sorry if you dont like it!


And then when one of your posts is shown to be wrong, your reply is "well, I didn't really mean it; people are lieing about me!" It degrades your credibility somewhat. People will read future posts and assume that, at some point, you'll back off on those as well and claim you didn't really mean them.Well, it is as yet to be proven as wrong because you have yet to prove the global warming is a man made happening.

Let's take your most recent post concerning how global warming is "kaput." You have posted several times in that thread about how you believe that the planet is now cooling, and is a result of a natural cycle.Again, even after clarification you lie about this yet again. I have posted articles (in the context of your repeated consensus bs) and even posted directly to you that I have my doubts. I have said the planet may be cooling and have posted articles about those who believe so. Again, cant you read?

Fast foward five years, when we have warmer years. At one point you'll say that you were right - global warming is really on its way out! And I'll point out that in 2008, you claimed global warming was "kaput" and you believed we were entering a cooling trend. No doubt you will cry "lier! lier! I never said that! That was someone ELSE calling it kaput."You should return to your own thread to which I have directed a few here lataley. You believe this is a settled science. So you belittle anybody who DARE QUESTION THE OPINION OF THE GREAT BILLVON. Very sad but at least I and others here know for sure where you are coming from

Once people get used to that, they assume that you don't really mean what you say.

YOU know what I mean. Dam right you do, YOU just want to mis-characteriz so as to what, make yourself feel superior? Dont bother, you got that down pat.....

-----------------------------------------------------------
is this the failed global warming issue that we are talking about? the one that has now been proven not to exist? the one that the farmers almanac (which is 80% right) has said isn't going to happen?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

[
....
is this the failed global warming issue that we are talking about? the one that has now been proven not to exist? the one that the farmers almanac (which is 80% right) has said isn't going to happen?

Who proofed global warming does not exist????

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,120]

>You say that I said that Global Warming stopped in what ever yerar. That is a lie.

I said you posted that. Anyone with even a quarter of a brain can verify that. Now, you can later deny that you meant that, just as, I am sure, you will one day deny that you posted that global warming was "kaput."

>I am calling you on it. Sorry if you dont like it!

I actually love it! It's like someone claiming that the earth is flat. Very easy to disprove.

>I have said the planet may be cooling and have posted articles
>about those who believe so. Again, cant you read?

I can indeed. Unfortunately for the outcome of your tirade, so can everyone else.

>You believe this is a settled science.

Much of it is, yes.

>So you belittle anybody who DARE QUESTION THE OPINION OF THE GREAT
>BILLVON.

Not at all. I've had some interesting discussions with people who have intelligent rebuttals to parts of the science. On the other hand, when I talk to people who think that the whole "carbon monoxide thing is warming the planet" thing is hooey, or starts in with the massive undersea volcanoes that are melting the North Pole, I am going to chuckle and suggest they read a science book.

It's like anything else. When I am talking about landing patterns, and Dan BC has a opinion that differs from mine, I will listen to him, even if I disagree. Odds are he will make some good points. If my AFF level 4 student tells me he's going to land against traffic, I am going to be "elitist and arrogant," and "THE GREAT BILLVON" is going to tell him to land into the wind in the student area or else.

>Very sad but at least I and others here know for sure where you are
>coming from.

Good! If you came from the same place, you'd get a lot more traction with your theories. You can start with journals like Science and Nature.