The Pay Czar and the "rulings"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Congratulations, Lucky. You started from a post that was so accurate and concise that you were complimented for it ...

Oh my god, I am so excited that the a great and brilliant guy like you praises me (bends down and kisses JCD's feet). You are so brilliant and always right, that's what you say anyway. I hang on yourr every compliment.

(Underlining to emulate JCD as he is my eternal hero)

Quote

...and argued your way to a longwinded and incorrect diatribe. That's an impressive accomplishment.

Right, because I disagree in part with you, I am wrong. What a joke. What you are saying is that an element can't both be causal and a catalyst. WRONGO, GENIUS.

Quote

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/9/7/3/2/p197328_index.html

While democracy does not directly influence child mortality it does, however, indirectly influence it by increasing female literacy which is a fundamental determinant of child mortality. In this sense, democracy acts as a catalyst to lowering child mortality and can within certain bounds be thought of as a causal determinant of child mortality.

AND...............

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z3vjT9ALxHUC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=can+a+catalyst+be+causal&source=bl&ots=aOKJ9MVK3U&sig=VmqaUHEbLkjUK2Tm-0nwDm1q6IU&hl=en&ei=z6TiSpTZGpPQ8QajspjmAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=can%20a%20catalyst%20be%20causal&f=false

PAGE 17 toward the top of the page - Thus, we should call any agent that acts as a catalyst of a causal mechanism, speeding up an induction period for other agents, a cause in its own right.

Quit embarrassing yourself, your inference that causes and catalysts are completely separate is flat wrong.

So, even tho traditionally, causes and catalysts are separate elements, they don't have to be and the int rate with this mess is one of those IMO. I feel that the int rate lowering was virtually the entire cause of this mess and when they lowered and stayed down that catalyzed and accelerated the mess, Gramm complimented it and cause did to go deeper.

You feel that Gramm was the basic cause and int rates were the catalyst. Who knows who's right, I respect your opinion, you don't respect mine. Political science is a bastard science in that you cannot replay the experiment and make constant observations from which to draw your theories. So we watch it once and make guesses, there is no independent variable that we can separate and test several of them from which to really narrow things down and establish the dependent variable, so we watch and make guesses based upon the little info we have. This is why you have to take such a large sample size over time with poli-sci, you can't run duplicate experiments at the same time to increase your simultaneous sample size.

Quote

It would appear that you just got lucky, so to speak, with your choice of words in the post for which you were complimented and don't really understand the crisis as well as the post would otherwise indicate.

Well, you're the authority, whatever you say is lined with fucking gold and has no source virtually at any time.

Between your constant underlining and arrogant demeanor, you want me to believe you before you post. You almost never post any citations to support your thoughts. Altho we are basically on the same page on issues, I dislike arrogance that cannot be backed up, arrogance that is able to be backed is ok in my world and I certainly carry some of that with me. Quit the grammar quiz and post some supporting substance.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well, you're the authority, …

Nope, I'm not an authority on the subject. I have, however, sat in on a dozen or so lectures on the crisis given by academics and professionals working in the industry. I've also put in several dozen hours doing my own research on the crisis for various research projects for different classes. So, while I'm not an authority, I know enough about the topic to recognize that your claim is wrong.

Humor me. Answer the questions I added in my last post (which I edited while you were writing your post, sorry about the bad timing).

Quote

Who knows who's right, I respect your opinion, you don't respect mine.

How many other people have complimented you on your accuracy and conciseness in Speaker's Corner in the past month? You really should have accepted the complement that essentially said that you were exactly correct. Instead, you felt compelled to argue to the point that you've exposed yourself as not really understanding the crisis all that well.

Quote

Between your constant … arrogant demeanor,

I guess you don't like it so much when the shoe's on the other foot!

Quote

Quit the grammar quiz and post some supporting substance.

Dude, I haven't once criticized your grammar (or spelling) at all in this discussion. That seems like your standard accusation when you are unable to address points that others make.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It seems you were intellectually dishonest with your quoted definition of catalyst. You had to cherry pick one definition from several, most of which don't support your assertion. Why, for example, did you not choose the first one that fit the context of our discussion? Here it is:


cat·a·lyst (ktl-st)
n.
2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences: "A free press ... has remained ... a vital catalyst to an informed and responsible electorate" (Robert O'Neal).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

That is a fitting useage and context of the word, "catalyst."

See, you drop these ridiculous assertions and don't even cite any source for a defintion of the form of the word that you find more correct.

You've basically just written: You're dishonset because........er, uh.......hmmm; I'm self-anointed briilant, that's why. POST WHAT FORM OF THE WORD YOU WOULD USE AND WHY MINE IS INCORRECT.

Quote

Think of a nightclub. People go to nightclubs all the time in order to increase the probability to get laid on the night that they go. The nightclub is a catalyst. It doesn't cause people to get laid. The people get laid because horny men and horny women meet (and often consume alcohol to lower inhibitions). Yet, without the nightclub many of those singles (and wannabe singles) wouldn't meet and spend the night together. Still, we don't consider the nightclub to cause the sex, do we? Of course not. It only serves as a catalyst.

So instead of a dictionary correction on your part, I get a barfly analogy; you just lost stock in the minds of intelligent people everywhere. You can't intelligently tell me my definition is wrong, and then fail to even take a stab at an alternate definition/usage of the word, can you? And worse yet, drop a horny barfly analogy.

Quote

Think of a nightclub. People go to nightclubs all the time in order to increase the probability to get laid on the night that they go. The nightclub is a catalyst. It doesn't cause people to get laid. The people get laid because horny men and horny women meet (and often consume alcohol to lower inhibitions). Yet, without the nightclub many of those singles (and wannabe singles) wouldn't meet and spend the night together. Still, we don't consider the nightclub to cause the sex, do we? Of course not. It only serves as a catalyst.

But I'll play to further my demonstration that you prefer barfly analogies to cogent definitions.

So with your analogy you are saying:

- The bar is the sole catalyst

- The patrons assembling are the cause

So what if these same people met in a parking lot or had a bonfire out in the desert somewhere with no accomodations, what is/are the catalyst(s) and what is/are the cause(s)?

Would the parking lot or empty desert be the catalyst? Or would the people meeting, the booze and the desire to be together be the cause and catalyst of any sex that was had? Look at my last post in this thread, foreign to you I actually posted a couple scientific sites that refer to 1 single element being the cause and the catalyst simultaneously. When I reffer to binary logic, I'm referring to people using loigic that is either yes or no; I'm actually surprised to see you use that logic, I didn't think you did. But as for you and this issue of the banking / mortgage mess, I think you decided it was mostly Gramm and then you built your thoughts/explanation from the top down.

Quote

The low interest rates were to the financial crisis as nightclubs are to sex. The low rates weren't causal, they were catalytic.

And I look at this mess as the interest rates being a catalyst and largely causal too, Gramm was accessory to it. Evidence of this is found by the signing of Gramm in Nov 99 and the mess not kicking off until the int rates dropped. Of course you could argue that when the rates dropped that was the catalyst to the cause: Gramm. Again, that's my argument, that the int rate was the primary event that made this happen and is therefore the cause and the catalyst. We can only draw opinion, as Gramm didn't have a chance to self-destruct for very long w/o theint rates dropping so low; there is a very small sample size from which to draw evidence. We can be assured that the culmination of Gramm and low rates was the cause, the apportionment is what's up for grabs and that we disagree upon. I oush virtually all, probbakly 80% to teh low rates. Hell, you even agree that w/o the low rates that Gramm would have been a minimal effect, so with that I say the low rates were the catalyst and most of the cause, you do see now that 1 element can be both, right?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Nope, I'm not an authority on the subject. I have, however, sat in on a dozen or so lectures on the crisis given by academics and professional working in the industry. I've also put in several dozen hours doing my own research on the crisis for various research projects for different classes. So, while I'm not an authority, I know enough about the topic to recognize that your claim is wrong.

And yet you post none of it......why am I not surprised?

BTW, Rush Limbaugh and his staff do a lot of research, so what? Show me, don't try to name-drop, hell ya haven't even done that.

Quote

How many other people have complimented you on your accuracy and conciseness in Speaker's Corner in the past month?

I don't give a rat's fucking ass what people think of me or my opinions, I try to find the most reliable and objective data and make my argument, perhaps you're in the running for the people's choice award.

Quote

You really should have accepted the complement that essentially said that you were exactly correct.

OMG, let me retroactively go suck some cock to get that back. You're so stuck on yourself, your position as self-anointed intellectual leader. Hey, post something and teach us all, or just run on about your popularity and position in the clique. I just don't care about that.

Quote

Instead, you felt compelled to argue to the point that you've exposed yourself as not really understanding the crisis all that well.

Right, because I don't agree with you. And what you don't understand is that a cause and a catalyst can be the sole factor to an event and the timing of said event, something you inferred couldn't be. Of course you will deny any such inference.

Quote

I guess you don't like it so much when the shoe's on the other foot!

I don't mind being arrogant when I've made my case and it's solid. Many others on here want to never cite any source but their diddy and walk around arrogantly. You've yet to assert anything but an opinion and haven't cited anything on this issue that I can recall, yet you want to anoint yourself an expert and have that carry. Hell, if you've studied this issue extensively then go ahead and share it, you must have a wealth of knowledge that you're hoarding.

Quote

Dude, I haven't once criticized your grammar (or spelling) at all in this discussion. That seems like your standard accusation when you are unable to address points that others make.

I slashed your inference that an element can't be causal and a catalyst. I did so thru 3 independent sources as compared to your zero with your self-anointed higher intellect.

And you corrected a word and emboldened it. I don't have a major problem spelling, hell, I took upper division English classes as electives, but I type fast and am not an efficient typist, so I make errors that I'm not gonna proofread for a posting forum. You did correct a spelling error and draw attention to it.

POST YOUR BRILLIANCE THAT YOU HAVE LEARNED VIA THE SEMINARS.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

cat·a·lyst (ktl-st)
n.
2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences: "A free press ... has remained ... a vital catalyst to an informed and responsible electorate" (Robert O'Neal).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

That is a fitting useage and context of the word, "catalyst."

See, you drop these ridiculous assertions and don't even cite any source for a defintion of the form of the word that you find more correct.

Lucky, you quoted my cite. I put it in boldface above so you can easily identify it.

Quote

So instead of a dictionary correction on your part, I get a barfly analogy;

More accurately, in addition to a dictionary definition, I offered an analogy to help highlight the difference between a cause and a catalyst.

Quote

So with your analogy you are saying:

- The bar is the sole catalyst

- The patrons assembling are the cause

So what if these same people met in a parking lot or had a bonfire out in the desert somewhere with no accomodations, what is/are the catalyst(s) and what is/are the cause(s)?

The causes would be the same as in my analogy, horny men and women meeting other horny men and women (of their preferred gender). The catalyst would be different. The catalysts would be whatever induced them to gather in a parking lot (if they just meet in the parking lot by chance, that would be an example of the reaction occurring sans catalyst, i.e. more slowly than with the catalyst) or the reason for the gathering around the bonfire (which could possibly be just to hang out around a bonfire).

Quote

And you corrected a word and emboldened it.

Yes, I emboldened it because that particular word was the perfect choice, and the nuance between it and cause was critical in the context of the discussion. I corrected it because I was trying to keep you from looking like you couldn't spell (i.e. I didn't car that it was misspelled, but leaving it that way and putting it in boldface would have given that impression.) If I wanted to point out the error, I would have quoted it as you wrote it and followed it with "[sic]".

* * * * *

I see you still avoided addressing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, as well as my questions about insurable interest, reserve requirements, and Lehman Brothers vs. AIG, Bear Stearns Companies, and the other financial institutions that received bailout funds? Understanding the answers to those questions will be very helpful in furthering your understanding of the financial crisis, and why low interest rates were the catalyst, not the cause.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky, you quoted my cite. I put it in boldface above so you can easily identify it.

YES, BECAUSE THE ONE I POSTED AND THE ONE YOU POSTED ARE THE SAME, YET YOU INSIST THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND MINE IS DISHONEST.

Post 49 I brought in:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catalyst

2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences


In post 50 you accused me of:


It seems you were intellectually dishonest with your quoted definition of catalyst. You had to cherry pick one definition from several, most of which don't support your assertion. Why, for example, did you not choose the first one that fit the context of our discussion? Here it is:


And then posted:


cat•a•lyst (ktl-st)
n.
2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences: "A free press ... has remained ... a vital catalyst to an informed and responsible electorate" (Robert O'Neal).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.





You've completely lost your mind, the definition I posted was the EXACT SAME ONE YOU POSTED AFTER, YET YOU SAY MINE WAS DISHONEST. Dude, you're just silly-gone w/o a clue.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I see you still avoided addressing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, as well as my questions about insurable interest, reserve requirements, and Lehman Brothers vs. AIG, Bear Stearns Companies, and the other financial institutions that received bailout funds? Understanding the answers to those questions will be very helpful in furthering your understanding of the financial crisis, and why low interest rates were the catalyst, not the cause.

Right, because you edited that in after I responded to the unedited post. Not saying you were trying to be dishonest, just saying that you can't hold me accountable for running from it when I hadn't seen it until you pointed it out now.

Perhaps you can address my scientific renderings that an element can be both the cause and the catalyst, unlike your constant inferrences that 1 element is one and another diff element is the other, as in 1 cause and 1 catalyst. You are running form that, using binary logic when it is not intelligent. Do me a favor and address that.

It's 2am here, I have to go to school tomorrow, I will address all the rest then. Go address the dual cause/catalyst issue.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

YES, BECAUSE THE ONE I POSTED AND THE ONE YOU POSTED ARE THE SAME, YET YOU INSIST THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND MINE IS DISHONEST.

Post 49 I brought in:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catalyst

2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences

Sorry, I just noticed that you added the "(causes to happen)" part yourself without any indication that it wasn't in the original definition on the Web page to which you linked.

Quote

In post 50 you accused me of:

Quote

It seems you were intellectually dishonest with your quoted definition of catalyst.

Yes I did, and the accusation stands, since you altered a definition in order to make it support your assertion.

Quote

You've completely lost your mind, the definition I posted was the EXACT SAME ONE YOU POSTED AFTER, YET YOU SAY MINE WAS DISHONEST.

Exactly the same, except for the fact that I didn't alter the definition when I quoted it. You did. Why the desperation, Lucky? Are the facts getting in the way of your argument?

So, are you going to address the questions I previously asked, or are you afraid the answers will highlight how incorrect your assertion is?

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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Yea, they were a very universal catalyst tho, they would have catalyzed the mess with or w/o Gramm. That's why I believe they were primarily causal too.

Do you understand what catalyst means? If they were a catalyst (and they were), they weren't causal; they increased the rate of a reaction that was already occurring or was imminent.

Quote

Quote

That's what I said.

Good, we're in agreement, the most compelling feature of this mess were the low int rates.

No, that's not what I said, nor was it what you said in the text that I quoted.

Quote

I agree that Gramm was a bad idea, corporations need more regulation, but even with Gramm, w/o low int rates, the mess would be either non-existent or minimal.

Right, in the absence of a catalyst, the problem would have been occurring at a slow enough rate that there would not have been a significant threat of systemic failure in the financial system.

The root cause was insufficient regulation. The low interest rates were the catalyst. It didn't matter how or why the interest rates reached such low levels. Had Greenspan played his hand differently and not kept the rates so low for so long, the low rates (or some other catalyst) would have eventually happened anyway, for some other reason, artificially or via market pressure. Without sufficient regulation, we would have the crisis at that time instead of the past year. With sufficient regulation, the low interest rates wouldn't have been such a problem.

Good analysis.

...

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Perhaps you can address my scientific renderings that an element can be both the cause and the catalyst, unlike your constant inferrences that 1 element is one and another diff element is the other, as in 1 cause and 1 catalyst. You are running form that, using binary logic when it is not intelligent. Do me a favor and address that.

Consider the following pairs of sentences:

1. The rock had a mass of five kilograms.
2. The rock weighed five kilograms.

1. An ounce of chocolate chip cookies contain more energy than an ounce of TNT.
2. An ounce of chocolate chip cookies produce greater power than an ounce of TNT.

1. The motorcycle traveled at a speed of 70 miles per hour.
2. The motorcycle traveled at a velocity of 70 miles per hour.

1. The car accelerated.
2. The car sped up.

For each pair, the two sentences appear to convey essentially the same meaning to many (or even most) people. However, for each pair, the second sentence says something significantly different from the first.

For the first pair:
The first sentence is fine. The second sentence states the rock weighed five kilograms. The kilogram, however, is not a unit of weight. The metric unit for weight is Newton, which is a unit of force. Even if we know the rock's mass, we can't know its weight without additional information.

For the second pair, the first sentence is true, oddly enough (assuming we're referring to normal chocolate chip cookies such as Chops Ahoy or Nestle Tollhouse.) The second sentence, on the other hand is false. Energy and power are two different (albeit related) quantities. Energy is the ability to do work. By weight,chocolate chip cookies (and the air required to release their energy) have a higher energy density than TNT by a factor of almost four. Power is the rate of energy release. By weight TNT can produce much greater power, compared to chocolate chip cookies.

The third pair of sentences seem to say the same thing, right? Nope. The second sentence makes no sense. Velocity is a vector quantity with a magnitude (speed) and a direction. We can't know what the motorcycle's velocity is without knowing in which direction it is traveling.

Let's look at the last pair. Surely they mean the same thing, right? Everybody knows that accelerate means to speed up. Except it doesn't. To accelerate means to change velocity. That might mean the accelerating object is speeding up, slowing down, or turning.

Of course, we all know that colloquially, kilograms are a unit of weight, we pay for power by the kilowatt hour, speed and velocity can be used interchangeably, and acceleration means an increase in speed.

If scientists utilized colloquial definitions, they would never understand anything. Units wouldn't match up, and important equations would be nonsensical. Science requires more precise meanings for words than colloquial conversation requires. Without that precision, we wouldn't have the modern world as we know it.

Let's consider one more pair of sentences:

1. Low interest rates were the catalyst of the financial crisis.
2. Low interest rates were the cause of the financial crisis.

Again, colloquially, the two sentences might seem to say the same thing. But, if we want to learn the lessons from the financial crisis and prevent its recurrence, we need more precision than colloquial definitions provide. The study of economics is, after all, generally quantitative. Thus, we need to focus on the difference between cause and catalyst, not the similarities.

Most words have synonyms. Rarely do two synonyms mean exactly the same thing. There is nearly always a subtle nuance that differentiates their meanings. Often, when writing, that subtle nuance is important enough that a particular word's intended meaning cannot be conveyed by a particular synonym because the precision of meaning is lost in the context of the writing.

This discussion of the financial crisis and the role low interest rates played is one of those times. Low interest rates were not the cause; they were the catalyst. Insufficient regulation was the cause. We need to address the cause of the crisis more than the catalyst. (Until causes are adequately addressed, we do need to be wary of catalysts that could increase the rate at which causes have detrimental effects on the economy.) Low interest rates are not the enemy. Indeed, they can even be beneficial for the economy. Insufficient regulation and oversight, on the other hand, has proven once again to cause problems.

Quote

I will address all the rest then. Go address the dual cause/catalyst issue.

I've done my part. I look forward to reading your post after you have done yours.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sorry, I just noticed that you added the "(causes to happen)" part yourself without any indication that it wasn't in the original definition on the Web page to which you linked.

Miscommunication both ways - we're all good. I just wanted to clarify it for the sake of argument.

Quote

Yes I did, and the accusation stands, since you altered a definition in order to make it support your assertion.

Oh brother, just because you didn't read it and screwd up, don't off it on me. Look, we're having an argument over semantics that neo-cons pose when they can't argue substance; let's not. BTW, adding clarification is not altering it, alterning is changing, I didn't change it, I enhanced it by clarifying it - don't be dishonest.

Quote

Exactly the same, except for the fact that I didn't alter the definition when I quoted it. You did. Why the desperation, Lucky? Are the facts getting in the way of your argument?

That is so weak. How many definitions have you read that have parenthesis in them? I have never read one, not saying they aren't there, so the obvious reaction would be to investigate further.

Alter = change

Clarify = bring more specific definition

Those are off the top of my head, but pretty close to the dictionary, so unless I changed the meaning of any words then I clarified. You fucked up, you obviously didn't read my definition, you jumped out and said I altered it and now you're trying to bury it on me. Then you accused me of not addressing part of your post, but you revised, altered, edited it as I was repsonding to it, then acccused me of not addressing it.

W/o looking further, I'm guessing you haven't addressed my evidence that a cause and a catalyst can be 1 in the same and not necessarily different elements.

Quote

So, are you going to address the questions I previously asked, or are you afraid the answers will highlight how incorrect your assertion is?

Oh, the one where you edited, altered, revised after I responded to the original? Sure, I will get right on that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yea, they were a very universal catalyst tho, they would have catalyzed the mess with or w/o Gramm. That's why I believe they were primarily causal too.

Do you understand what catalyst means? If they were a catalyst (and they were), they weren't causal; they increased the rate of a reaction that was already occurring or was imminent.

Quote

Quote

That's what I said.

Good, we're in agreement, the most compelling feature of this mess were the low int rates.

No, that's not what I said, nor was it what you said in the text that I quoted.

Quote

I agree that Gramm was a bad idea, corporations need more regulation, but even with Gramm, w/o low int rates, the mess would be either non-existent or minimal.

Right, in the absence of a catalyst, the problem would have been occurring at a slow enough rate that there would not have been a significant threat of systemic failure in the financial system.

The root cause was insufficient regulation. The low interest rates were the catalyst. It didn't matter how or why the interest rates reached such low levels. Had Greenspan played his hand differently and not kept the rates so low for so long, the low rates (or some other catalyst) would have eventually happened anyway, for some other reason, artificially or via market pressure. Without sufficient regulation, we would have the crisis at that time instead of the past year. With sufficient regulation, the low interest rates wouldn't have been such a problem.

Good analysis.

I agree in part.

Altho I think the low int rates were the root cause and the catalyst. Even with the former system before Gramm, if teh rates were dropped that low for that low and that quickly, we would have endured approximately the same mess. It was mostly artificial principal replacing the interest that propagated the spiralling prices. Gramm merely aggravated it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

BTW, adding clarification is not altering it, alterning is changing, I didn't change it, I enhanced it by clarifying it - don't be dishonest.

It's not who is being dishonest; it is you.

You presented an altered definition in a manner intended to deceive readers into believing that the definition appeared in the dictionary as you presented it. It doesn't. Without the changes you made, the definition does not say what you need it to say to support your assertion.

Had I pulled that trick in a paper for one of my classes, I would, at a minimum, flunk the assignment, but it would be more likely that I would automatically fail the class or worse.

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

[Lucky... 0]

I'm about to get jacked off by this shell game; I'll bite. (rolls eyes)

Quote

Consider the following pairs of sentences:

The rock had a mass of five kilograms.
The rock weighed five kilograms.
An ounce of chocolate chip cookies contain more energy than an ounce of TNT.
An ounce of chocolate chip cookies produce greater power than an ounce of TNT.
The motorcycle traveled at a speed of 70 miles per hour.
The motorcycle traveled at a velocity of 70 miles per hour.
The car accelerated.
The car sped up.


For each pair, the two sentences appear to convey essentially the same meaning to many (or even most) people.

Not to me, I know the slim but stark diffs.

Quote

However, for each pair, the second sentence says something significantly different from the first.

That's right. I've taken several Biology, earth science, anatomy and physiology, microbiology and other science classes. I saw the diffs immedialtely, really enjoy your attempt to condescend me.

Quote

For the first pair:
The first sentence is fine. The second sentence states the rock weighed five kilograms. The kilogram, however, is not a unit of weight. The metric unit for weight is Newton, which is a unit of force. Even if we know the rock's mass, we can't know its weight without additional information.

For the second pair, the first sentence is true, oddly enough (assuming we're referring to normal chocolate chip cookies such as Chops Ahoy or Nestle Tollhouse.) The second sentence, on the other hand is false. Energy and power are two different (albeit related) quantities. Energy is the ability to do work. By weight,chocolate chip cookies (and the air required to release their energy) have a higher energy density than TNT by a factor of almost four. Power is the rate of energy release. By weight TNT can produce much greater power, compared to chocolate chip cookies.

The third pair of sentences seem to say the same thing, right? Nope. The second sentence makes no sense. Velocity is a vector quantity with a magnitude (speed) and a direction. We can't know what the motorcycle's velocity is without knowing in which direction it is traveling.

Let's look at the last pair. Surely they mean the same thing, right? Everybody knows that accelerate means to speed up. Except it doesn't. To accelerate means to change velocity. That might mean the accelerating object is speeding up, slowing down, or turning.

Yawn. I understand sciences well, even tho I suck at mathematic-based classes, I understand concepts and theories well. One I use which you can pretend to already know is cosine error with dopler radar guns and speeding tickets. basically other than straight line radar measuring creastes this cosine error. Point of that was to establish to you that I understand well.

Quote

Of course, we all know that colloquially, kilograms are a unit of weight, we pay for power by the kilowatt hour, speed and velocity can be used interchangeably, and acceleration means an increase in speed.

If scientists utilized colloquial definitions, they would never understand anything. Units wouldn't match up, and important equations would be nonsensical. Science requires more precise meanings for words than colloquial conversation requires. Without that precision, we wouldn't have the modern world as we know it.

And like significant digits? I am so impressed with you. I learned the shit you're trying to impress me with years ago while I was learning subjects that required me to learn the subjects I majored in.

Quote

Again, colloquially, the two sentences might seem to say the same thing. But, if we want to learn the lessons from the financial crisis and prevent its recurrence, we need more precision than colloquial definitions provide. The study of economics is, after all, generally quantitative. Thus, we need to focus on the difference between cause and catalyst, not the similarities.

And there inlies your attempted out; you backdoor admit you fucked up by thinking the catalyst(s) and the cause(s) were all different elements.

I don't think the cause and the catalyst were all that different, I think the int rates would have played havoc in virtually any system. Gramm could be classified as a co-cause or an aggravator. Again, IMO Gramm alone wouldn't have done this, the int rates alone would have and the application of the low rates were the catalyst, but since absent them, IMO, they are also the cause.

Quote

Most words have synonyms. Rarely do two synonyms mean exactly the same thing. There is nearly always a subtle nuance that differentiates their meanings. Often, when writing, that subtle nuance is important enough that a particular word's intended meaning cannot be conveyed by a particular synonym because the precision of meaning is lost in the context of the writing.

Splitting hairs won't relieve you of the fact that in many events the cause and the catalyst are the same thing.

Quote

This discussion of the financial crisis and the role low interest rates played is one of those times. Low interest rates were not the cause; they were the catalyst. Insufficient regulation was the cause.

Right, it was one or the other, so go sign up with the RNC and vote Republican, you are now of the binary thinkiers. In fact, there were probably many more things to blame, we are oversimplifying it for the sake of finding primary causes.

Quote

Low interest rates are not the enemy. Indeed, they can even be beneficial for the economy.

Low int rates:

- Can cause inflation (and they did with the mortgage mess)

- Devalue the US Dollar

We all agree that under Clinton we had a great economy causing the most growth in US history, and what were teh int rates? I bought my hiouse in 98 at 7.25. The USD was 1 USD to 1.55 as Clinton left office and that disparity was felt all over the world as the dollar soared. I don't see any reaosning from you for your argument that low rates are good. Low rates are often an indicator that the economy is in bad shape and the gov is trying to motivate spending on big items.

Quote

Insufficient regulation and oversight, on the other hand, has proven once again to cause problems.

In this case it was the cause, just a subbordinate cause to the low int rates.

Quote

I've done my part. I look forward to reading your post after you have done yours.

Oh really? YOU DIDN'T EVEN POST MY CITATIONS OR ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A CAUSE AND A CATALYST CAN BE 1 IN THE SAME.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I learned the shit you're trying to impress me with years ago …

I'm not trying to impress you with anything. I offered an explanation in simple terms that even you could understand.

Quote

YOU DIDN'T EVEN POST MY CITATIONS OR ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A CAUSE AND A CATALYST CAN BE 1 IN THE SAME.

Apparently you understood nothing in the post to which you just replied if you believe that.

If you want to believe that the interest rates were the cause of the crisis, go right ahead. You won't be the only person who is ignorant of the truth of the matter. Have a nice night. Let me know if you decide to keep your word and answer my questions.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Those are pretty significant changes. At least one Senator foresaw the GLB Act leading to government bailouts.

NPR, yea, nice cite

From your article: Ten years ago, when the Clinton administration proposed legislation to deregulate much of the financial services sector, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota voted against his own party,

Byron is a Dem, only a few Dems voted for it, so NPR shows it's colors and it factual inaccuracy..

Senator Gramm was the driver of Gramm, Leach, Bliley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#2007_mortgage_and_2008_financial_.26_economic_crises

Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis.

And:

Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

So your NPR article illustrates its bias against Clinton, misinformation and that Sen Byron considered it a Democrat thing. It was proposed by Republican Gramm and passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate by far larger numbers than it has Dem support:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[

Perhaps Clinton signed it for political efficiency: This legislation (whose voting margins, if repeated, would easily have overcome any Presidential veto) was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[16]
Certainly a bad idea.

This was a Republican baby, just like bills like the Marriage Defense Act and NAFTA, Clinton stupidly signed them and has to be held accountable as with the hundreds of Republican Congress members who wrote and passed it. But the point is, your lovely NPR editorial states it was a Clinton baby, when, like NAFTA, it was a Republican dream come true.

Quote

I also noticed that you failed to comment on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Was that more intellectual dishonesty, or do you not understand its relevance either?

Actually it's dishonesty on your part, disguised by an error and later justified. You posted, I replied immediately and then you claimed I intentionally avoided this part. That's dishonest to change a post after someone replied to it and whine they didn't address that change.

Sure I do, make a point and I will address it. How can I respond to an argument you haven't yet made?

So have you addressed the everyday act of a cause and a catalyst being the same element or just some whitewash BS analogy?

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? After all, Lehman Brothers played in the market while the interest rates were just as low as when AIG were playing.

Socrates you're not, but obviously you think you are. Superior intellects are best displayed with arguments and not empty arrogance.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Those are pretty significant changes. At least one Senator foresaw the GLB Act leading to government bailouts.

NPR, yea, nice cite

From your article: Ten years ago, when the Clinton administration proposed legislation to deregulate much of the financial services sector, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota voted against his own party,

Byron is a Dem, only a few Dems voted for it, so NPR shows it's colors and it factual inaccuracy.

You're displaying your ignorance of the topic once again. GLB Act had wide bipartisan support, as well as support from President Clinton. Voting against it was voting against the party.

Quote

Senator Gramm was the driver of Gramm, Leach, Bliley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#2007_mortgage_and_2008_financial_.26_economic_crises

Quote

So your NPR article illustrates its bias against Clinton, misinformation and that Sen Byron considered it a Democrat thing.

Criticizing NPR as a source and then using Wikipedia yourself is laughable.

Quote

Actually it's dishonesty on your party, disguised by an error and later justified. You posted, I replied immediately and then you claimed I intentionally avoided this part.

No, I told you that I had edited the post to add the questions. I only pointed out your avoidance of the questions after you had ample time to read them. Feel free to answer the questions, though. The answers will highlight how your claim of low interest rates being the cause of the crisis is wrong, which is why you've been avoiding them, I suspect.

Quote

So have you addressed the everyday act of a cause and a catalyst being the same element

No, I clearly showed how they were different. Your inability to acknowledge reality is quite sad.

Now, answer the questions (assuming you have the integrity to keep your word):

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? After all, Lehman Brothers played in the market while the interest rates were just as low as when AIG were playing.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're displaying your ignorance of the topic once again. GLB Act had wide bipartisan support, as well as support from President Clinton. Voting against it was voting against the party.

The original version, AS SPONSORED BY 3 REPUBLICANS, didn't have bipartisan support, then teh R's threw in some consumer beneift and more Desm climbed on board following the fish.

It's so preceious to watch little ole you canstantly throw out the word, "ignorant" yet Ipost data and other relevant support, you're relegated to neo-con tactics of, "you're ignorant;" don't ever change little guy.

Again, I'll post what I cited:

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[

Quote

No, I told you that I had edited the post to add the questions. I only pointed out your avoidance of the questions after you had ample time to read them.

I was busy debunking the rest of your mess while you were, revising your post, then you claim I avoided them. No, you avoided my citations that a cause and a catalyst can and are often 1 in the same; your binary logic just can't grasp that.

Quote

Criticizing NPR as a source and then using Wikipedia yourself is laughable.

NPR has an agenda, albeit not as bad as many, but what agenda does Wik have? That's my point. Now, go defend NPR or perhaps newsmax has a good read. Oh, are you denying Gramm was not the driver/sponsor of Gramm, Leach, Bliley?

Quote

Feel free to answer the questions, though.

Sure, I did, now feel free to go back and revise away and then claim I'm avoiding.

Quote

The answers will highlight how your claim of low interest rates being the cause of the crisis is wrong, which is why you've been avoiding them, I suspect.

I jutst answerd them and as a good neo-con, as you are making apparent you are, you want me to make your argument. Make one and not just it was Gramm, so there. Make a comprehensive one if you have the intellect.

Quote

No, I clearly showed how they were different. Your inability to acknowledge reality is quite sad.

No, sad is you not ever addressing the citations written by schoolars and giving some weak explanation via analogy. Why not address the citations I posted, neo-con? I mean you do illustrate binary logic by saying: either cause or catalyst - can't be both.

Quote

Now, answer the questions (assuming you have the integrity to keep your word):

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? After all, Lehman Brothers played in the market while the interest rates were just as low as when AIG were playing.

We all know a revisionist like you does not by your acts, so I will answer them again.

- Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so?

Answer: yes.

- Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required?

Answer: yes.

- Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns?

- Answer: yes.

Now if you want to to write a dissertation on your argument, not gonna do it. You're not 10% as slick as you think you are. If you want to produce an argument from the questions above, feel free, but I don't have to make your argument for you as you wish. So make your argument, I will read it and agree, disagree, or agree in part and explain why. So rephrase your quetions above to make a point, as I wrote before, you're not Socrates and I won't play if you want me to pretend you are.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You're displaying your ignorance of the topic once again. GLB Act had wide bipartisan support, as well as support from President Clinton. Voting against it was voting against the party.

The original version, AS SPONSORED BY 3 REPUBLICANS, didn't have bipartisan support, then teh R's threw in some consumer beneift and more Desm climbed on board following the fish.

It's so preceious to watch little ole you canstantly throw out the word, "ignorant" yet Ipost data and other relevant support, you're relegated to neo-con tactics of, "you're ignorant;" don't ever change little guy.

Again, I'll post what I cited:

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[

If you quoted an article about the GLB Act, to which I referred in my reply (as you quoted above), you might find more relevant voting statistics.

Quote

NPR has an agenda, albeit not as bad as many, but what agenda does Wik have?

What agenda does NPR have?

Wikipedia is user edited. Its reliability can vary widely from article to article.

Quote

Oh, are you denying Gramm was not the driver/sponsor of Gramm, Leach, Bliley?

Nope, I'm saying it had wide bipartisan support.

Final bill:
Senate 90-8
House 362-57

Quote

I jutst answerd them and as a good neo-con, as you are making apparent you are, you want me to make your argument.

Yeah, I'm a neo-con.

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so?

Answer: yes.

Why is it a bad idea?

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required?

Answer: yes.

Why is it a bad idea?

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns?

- Answer: yes.

Why did they allow Bear Stearns to fail while bailing out other large financial institutions?

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so?

Answer: yes.

Why is it a bad idea?

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required?

Answer: yes.

Why is it a bad idea?

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns?

- Answer: yes.

Why did they allow Bear Stearns to fail while bailing out other large financial institutions?

@Lucky...

I'll assume from your silence that you're unable to answer the questions. I suspected as much.

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

[Lucky... 0]

In order to prevent you from crying, I will play your condescending, Socratic game. I wonder if you will do the same for me or if your ego would prohibit that?

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Why is it a bad idea?

Their interest would be for the destruction of John Doe's House, not the protection of it.

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Why is it a bad idea?

They wouldn't have the capital to cover all losses. Insurance is essentially gambling and gambling on credit is always a bad idea.

Quote

Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? Why did they allow Bear Stearns to fail while bailing out other large financial institutions?

Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase, the fed did not directly bail them out, altho gave them and JP a 30B guarantee on Bear's assets. AIG, well, that's another story. So since JP absorbed Bear with a 30B guarantee, did they really bailout Bear; Bear is no more? But the so-called bailout of Bear was a product of the fact that Bear held a tremendous amount of counterparty swap liability. Without the gov intervening and guaranteeing, all those parties on the other end of those transactions would have lost billions.

There are a few reasons why the gov didn't intervene on Lehman. It could be the line drawn as to enough is enough bailout and to assert that not everyone is, “too big to fail.” So to summarize I would say the gov was sending a message to the bigs that the nipple shuts down eventually.

Quote

I'll assume from your silence that you're unable to answer the questions. I suspected as much.

Remember, I was the one who PA'd you asking for the thread title so I could answer these after I took the weekend off.

And I'll assume you've already decided not to touch the point I've beat to death w/o you directly addressing how a cause and a catalyst can be the same thing and often is.

Look, we really agree the same thing here; the cause of this mess was at least the following:

- Gramm
- Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
- Int rates too low too long

The dispute is the apportionment of these; you think the top 2, I think the bottom was/were the primary cause. We both agreed that damage would be limited absent the low interest rates, I think they were largely and almost solely responsible. So instead of trying to talk me into agreeing that it was the top two, try to show me how w/o the low int rates any damage done by the top two would be excessive.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Why is it a bad idea?

Their interest would be for the destruction of John Doe's House, not the protection of it.

Correct. John Doe can insure his own house, because he has an insurable interest in the house. If it burns down, he (in theory) doesn't profit from the insurance benefit; he breaks even.

Allowing someone who does not have an insurable interest in John Doe's house to buy an insurance policy for it gives that person an economic incentive to enable the destruction of the house. It also allows the possibility of the house being insured by several policies totaling much more than the house is worth.

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Why is it a bad idea?

They wouldn't have the capital to cover all losses. Insurance is essentially gambling and gambling on credit is always a bad idea.

From the insurer's perspective, insurance is gambling, but with a large pool of positive expected value bets. From the beneficiary's perspective, it is quite the opposite. It is the hedging of bets made elsewhere, the reduction/elimination of risk.

That risk is only eliminated when the insurer can make good on their contractual obligations if the conditions for payment are met. The risk of the insurer not being able to pay under such conditions is a kind of counterparty risk.

Quote

Quote

Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? Why did they allow Bear Stearns to fail while bailing out other large financial institutions?

There are a few reasons why the gov didn't intervene on Lehman. It could be the line drawn as to enough is enough bailout and to assert that not everyone is, “too big to fail.” So to summarize I would say the gov was sending a message to the bigs that the nipple shuts down eventually.

We only need to notice that AIG received bailout funds after Lehman Brothers announced they were filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to recognize that the "sending a message" explanation is inaccurate. But, I'm getting ahead of myself …

Credit default swaps are similar to insurance policies for financial securities and investments. Unlike insurance policies, however, there is little to no regulation w/r/t the sale and purchase of CDS's. There is no regulation providing for an insurable interest requirement or reserve requirement.

Initially, CDS's were used to hedge investment risk. They were often used to hedge the risk associated with mortgage backed securities. Their availability actually made MBS's a more attractive investment, which to increased demand for mortgages and more (seemingly) attractive mortgage offers for borrowers.

Unfortunately, the lack of regulation allowed investors to speculate on investment performance without actually being invested in the security that was covered by a particular CDS. On the other side of the deal, sellers of CDS's didn't have a reserve requirement by regulation, and sometimes no collateral requirement by the purchaser, so they could sell more than they could feasibly pay out on should the credit event occur.

Furthermore, many investors who had purchased credit default swaps turned around and sold credit default swaps for the same securities at a higher premium. (Since there was no exchange or clearinghouse, sellers could charge whatever premiums they could negotiate; details of sales weren't publicly available to other investors.) This practice, called netting, allowed them to receive larger premium payments than they were paying out. If the security covered by the CDS failed, they would be able to collect on the CDS they owned to pay out for their obligations on the CDS they sold.

Netting created a web of interconnected financial institutions. Everything would be fine, as long as everyone was able to pay when obligated to. That is, as long as the counterparty risk was essentially zero, everything would be fine. Of course, if a CDS seller could not fulfill their obligations, then the broken link in the chain of interconnectedness would be catastrophic until it reached a party that could absorb their losses and still make good on their own obligations.

The problem was that the counterparty risk wasn't zero. Some institutions, such as AIG, had sold more CDS's than they could pay benefits on, since there wasn't any regulations for reserve requirements. And, since their credit rating had been very good, they had not been expected to put up collateral for the CDS's they sold. AIG, and other companies like them, posed tremendous counterparty risk, not only to speculators, but to investors who had used sound investment hedging strategies. Their inability to make good on their financial obligations posed a serious risk of systemic failure in the industry.

Lehman Brothers, however, had not sold CDS's to the extent that AIG had. They didn't pose a great counterparty risk in the financial industry. Their failure was due to being too heavily invested in mortgage backed securities without sufficient hedging. If they were to fail, they didn't pose a great threat of taking other institutions down with them. Thus, it was reasonably safe to simply let them fail.

Insufficient regulation offered the potential of tremendous counterparty risk to permeate the financial industry. It allowed the industry to become a bomb waiting to blow. The low interest rates served as a spark that lit the fuse.

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