ShcShc11

Personally speaking, I think it is their choice. It is another situation of risk vs rewards. just imo.

I love how people use "Al Gore flies in a jet plane and therefore he is a hypocrite" line. Reminds me of this: http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/313442_10150894221915500_717370499_21258206_1453787454_n.jpg Anyway, not surprising at all for Canada to be gone from Kyoto. Canada has the 2nd biggest oil reserve in the world with the Tar Sands so Canada would have exited Kyoto even if Liberals were in power. The Climate problem imo is not the science, but rather a lack of feasible plans to implement them. Nothing can replace China's coal nor is there any feasible plan to relay the windy/solar U.S areas (midwest-southwest) to the cities in the northeast. Kyoto doesn't seem to recognize the economic factor. Japan will be next to get out because it is economically unfeasible for them too. Edit: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2011/12/carbon-emissions Interesting chart if anyone is interested. Anyway, cheers and hugs Shc

All the Republicans who are currently running for office have planned something similar in nature and Gingrich is leading the polls. This shows a need to shift the conversation on real policies that can be very detrimental to the U.S future. Without OWS, conversations such as these would be less prevalent. Where did you bring the number "1.5 trillion $"? Taxing the 1% is not the all-in solutions, but it is fundamental that it has to be part of the solution. Here is a previous quote from my previous message: "The TPC analysis point out that if we raised the taxes on the riches (if the old brackets were still in place), the higher brackets will raise an additional 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage. " ~78 billion $ isin't 1.5 trillion $. If we keep extending the Bush tax cut, then not only are we not going to see the additional revenue, but we are actually increasing the deficit with little to no real advantage to the economy. There was a wall-street journal article (remember: WSJ is right-wing) where it showed the CBO prediction that the Bush budget would have gone into surplus had it let the Bush tax cuts ended sooner. Yet the Government is in fact taking YOUR money in order to fund the tax cuts for the rich. The economy is something that affects all of us. A couple who has sex affects only themselves. I like that you're trying to spin this into a moral subject (it would be an interesting subject to talk about), but this is an economics issue. That is why I keep asking people to provide an economic justification why they are defending this. It simply does not make sense from an economics point of view: which brings to your next point: Then somehow, you go on to talk about Westboro Baptist Church and I how "admire them". So I'l pretty much say this again: This is a real economics issue and that is how you should see it. Unless if this is talked about in the mainstream media, the politicians will implant policies that are proposed by the current GOP nominees. We have to be realistic in our approach. And I want to end with something you said at the beginning of your post: I will be extremely happy to discuss the 2008-2011 economic issues in regards to "printing/spending" money. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4236166;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread This topic provides a small summary (by no means exhaustive). ... OWS, the Tea Party and a lot of the average Joe continue to vilify important policies such as TARP. But TARP truly did save us from the Great Depression. Remember that TARP was implemented by both Republicans and the Democrats (despite being highly unpopular) because it was a necessity. George Bush & Henry Paulson and Obama & Timothy Geithner did an excellent job with TARP (not perfect, but very successful). I judge its sucess based on economic premises (not on moral values). Had either Presidents (Bush or Obama) judged TARP based on moral values (like your rebuttal do), our economies would have collapsed. And in fact, speaking of current events, Germany kept looking the Euro as a moral question and look where they are now. Europe and what happened in their last summit (last week) can be summarized with this passage: ""With this in mind, the most obvious point about the recent summit is that the “fiscal stability union” that it proposed is nothing of the sort. Rather than creating an inter-regional insurance mechanism involving counter-cyclical transfers, the version on offer would constitutionalize pro-cyclical adjustment in recession-hit countries, with no countervailing measures to boost demand elsewhere in the eurozone. Describing this as a “fiscal union,” as some have done, constitutes a near-Orwellian abuse of language.'' " Hugs and Cheers! Shc

[email] You put apples in the orange basket. My comment was we (the US) have no money. You answer was the US can Print and Borrow. Doesn't that mean, there is no, money? The US has no on hand cash, is in debt up to its eyeballs and it's only staying afloat because of assets it has not sold off to other countries, yet. Essentially, one step away from bankruptcy. Matt No. You've got the definition wrong. Think of it like a student in medicine school. They have to borrow a boat load of money in order to go through the education. Just because he is borrowing money from a financial institution (and a lot of it), does not mean he is anywhere near "bankrupted". He will borrow money at Prime Rate + 0.5% (even if its 100k, its still Prime + 0.5%). On the other hand, there are other people who can't even get a 1k VISA card or can get 5k loans only at Prime + 11% because they are unable to pay it back. The U.S (for now) is on the former category rather than the latter. The treasury bonds are at an extravagantly low % (approx 2% and less) despite Ben Bernanke tripling the monetary supply. Austrian economics said it would have gone through the roof by 2010-now. It hasn't and it won't. ... Just because a country borrows doesn't mean its broke. Canadian economics is the perfect example. Look up what was happening with 1995 Canada when they extended their debt TOO much to a point where there would be a need for deficits to pay off deficits. They were on the verge to being bankrupted. On the other hand, today 2010-2011, they are still borrowing more than they bring and are deeply in debt (GDP-wise). But they are not bankrupted because their debt is sustainable. Just like U.S debt is currently sustainable (and their economy needs to expand), but it will become "Canada 1995" for the U.S around 2025-2030 due to entitlements. The problem right now (which the U.S MUST focus) is to re-energize the economy. Of course, like I said before, the European crisis probably dwarfs any problems the U.S has at the moment.

This is probably the biggest problem with Groupon though. I know a lot of whuffos who are most definitely considering coming skydiving tandems, but are now waiting (and expecting) them to find a deal one day or another.

I got into skydiving through Groupon. Guess they made their money back through AFF schooling, beer cases and pizza

that's a different one, but I believe you're referring to the one where a bunch of wuffos thought they were seeing ufo's http://www.wingsuitnews.com/2011/01/ufos-in-elsinore.html LOL! Hilarious.

oh and one last thing (quite sorry for the self-replies): http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGGT10Y:IND 10 year U.S Generic Negative interest rate. The U.S is farrrrrrr from bankruptcy and they can print and borrow money at the moment with little to no real consequence (except getting us out of the liquidity trap and therefore improving the economy). Just needed to bury once and for all this whole notion of: "U.S have no money left to borrow/ America is bankrupted blah blah".

I'm replying to my own post, but based on the summit: "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7b944a0-24fc-11e1-8bf9-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1gWTW5u9I This leaves much the most plausible outcome of the orgy of fiscal austerity: long-term structural recessions in vulnerable countries. To put it bluntly, the single currency will come to stand for wage falls, debt deflation and prolonged economic slumps. Can this stand, however big the costs of a break-up? The eurozone has no credible plan to fix the flaws of the eurozone, apart from greater fiscal austerity: there is to be no fiscal, financial or political union; and there is to be no balanced mechanism for economic adjustment on both sides of the creditor-debtor divide. The decision is, instead, to try still harder with a stability and growth pact whose failures have been both predictable and persistent" -From FT Again, I don't blame the Germans. 1.5 to 2.5 trillion $ transfer into the EFSF is the equivalent of USA to put 7.5 trillion to 12.5 trillion $, which is absolutely ridicilous and unfeasible. (based on a rough estimate tha tthe U.S is approx x5 bigger in economy than Germany). Imagine having to put 7.5 trillion $ to "bail-out" Mexico or the rest of Latin-America

You mean this one? http://vimeo.com/27498985

It in fact is that simple. There have been numerous calls for the ECB to become the lender of last resort in order to keep financial attacks away from European bonds and/or make a Euro-bond. See Italian 10 years bond: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBTPGR10:IND if you follow the pattern, everytime there is optimism that Europe will integrate into "1 country", then 10 years Italian bond became cheaper. When ECB re-affirmed that it was looking only after price stability, Italian bonds went up. Fact is: I don't blame Germany. They are the only ones capable of putting the money to save the Euro. But it is HIGHLY (and possibly) catastrophically expensive. The estimates range from 1.5 to 3 TRILLION Euros. Trillion. All the EFSF can muster is 400 billion $ if I remember correctly. And this my friend is why the Euro will very likely to fail within end of 2012 to mid 2013. But the point is: The Euro was always a mis-conceived concept because each countries did not have full control of their monetary policies (e.g: In other words, PRINTING MONEY). Countries such as Finland and Italy are relegated to Third World Country's power where their economy is controlled by another country. That really is the basic summary. ... Right now, ALL european nations are under austerity (aka cut cut cut spending) and even the most optimistic economists are forecasting a European recession. The more they try to balance the budget through "budget cuts", the more they'l end up missing growth target and have the very possibility of getting into a catastrophic deflation. This will be a lesson to the U.S too who are also looking to "cut and slash" their budget in the name of expansionary austerity. ...And if the Euro fails. This might as well mean the second Great Depression in the U.S (the major U.S banks are still largely tied to the European countries... if you want I can probably come back later when I have time as to how the U.S banks are tied). I know, I sound like a pessimist... an alarmist...a whacko. But if a 2nd Great Depression (or Great Recession) do end up happening, it will be because we kept our false economic prejudices alive (cut/slash the budget and somehow we'l find the economy growing again). 1930s and Japanese lost decade (1990s) fallacies come alive again. Cheers and Hugs! Shc

Wow. There's a major difference to claim: "you're blaming the 1% for all your problems" and "The current system seems to disproportionally favour the 1% and the politicians need to recognize that". Understand now that I am for the latter. The least thing you can do is truly refute my claims with something more substantial than saying "Nope false. wrong. That's wrong too!". So now you're just shying away from the conversation by trying to point at the author rather than the facts. Ezra Klein not good for you? Then look at the CBO. Not good enough? http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3246 Under the Gingrich Tax Plan, the average federal tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent would be just slightly the 10 percent line. The Third Quintile, the Fourth Quintile, the 80% to the 95% are paying substantially more than the 1 percent and 0.1 percent. Next reply of yours is probably going be: "Taxpolicycenter.org?? Laughable source!!" Cheers and Hugs! Shc

Not sure where you are getting your numbers but according to http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/774/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/ UK's national debt is much lower than Italy's or Greece's. As the page suggests Japan's unreasonably low risk premiums are due to the national savings rate. It is pretty much economics 101 that the ability to print money can be used as a tool to help against bond attacks. The U.K national debt has the same U.S issues in that it has fiscal problems 2030 and beyond. If you need a historical reference why "printing money" can be a good thing, look back in the days when countries were with the Gold Standards. Look at the 1930s and how the gold standard was a major chain on the country's neck. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/27/opinion/112711krugman2/112711krugman2-blog480.jpg Finland is on the Euro (no ability to print money themselves) and Sweden is NOT on the Euro. There's a reason why the interests on bond went up for Finland (hint: ability to print money). Sweden and Finland are not that different economics wise. France's bond is going up and went up to about 3 to 3.5% while U.K stays around 2%. This really is Economics 101. You're not understanding what's happening with economics if you look at country's budget the same way as a family household income. Its not the same. It doesn't function the same. p-s: Greece is unique in the sense that even if they could have printed money, they would still be near-bankruptcy. If there's a country that truly did spend beyond their means, it is Greece. The U.S isin't Greece.

you must be blind. No such thing did I say "The 1% is to be blamed". There is simply no denying that there needs to be modification to the current system which disproportionally favours the higher echelon without any real advantages to the overall economy. It is intellectually dishonest to go on and keep saying: "you just want to blame the 1% for your failure". The system, though very functional overall, needs improvement. Why do Occupy Wall Street do what its doing? Look at the GOP proposals: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-two-conversations-over-taxes/2011/12/13/gIQAk8VcrO_blog.html This number has been confirmed by the bi-partisan CBO and you still deny there's anything wrong. What I would definitely like to hear is as to why this is justifiable. Hugs and cheers! Shc

You mean this one? http://vimeo.com/27498985

If we look at the 2009 figures, we should have spent approximately 2 to 2.5 trillion $ in order to cover the gap that was caused by the Great Recession 2008. We instead got a very small stimulus package of a few hundred billion $. We are still very much in denial on this. It means just because a country has a debt doesn't mean the Government should cut, slash and save money (austerity). This isin't a houshold budget where spending is evil and saving is good. If we look at Europe right now, Germany is essentially saying: We are in the surplus thus we should be in control. Italy is in the debt and they should go into austerity. Its economically counter-productive and Germans don't want to seem to admit that they too take a large share of the blame in the Euro crisis. And guess why Europe is very near collapse. They can't print their own currency. Countries such as the U.K and Japan are in worse standing (debt-wise), but their bonds are considered very safe by investors (around 2% 10 years bond). They are considered safe because they can print their money if needed.

Understand that if the U.S wants to have a thriving economy, then it has to take the right procedures in order to correct it. This isin't a long-term structural problem. It is essentially a zero-bound liquidity trap that can be solved through spending. There are too many misconceptions such as: "You can't print money to solve the debt problem!". People take this at face value rather than judging the situations. A lot of us (the smart and intelligent ones too) have been wrongly taught and we are collectively suffering the consequences. Whether it is from the extreme left with Occupy Wall Street to the other extreme Tea Party (and most of us in the middle), they don't understand what is happening with the Economy at the moment. But like I said, what Europe is doing now is far worse than what the U.S has done so far. Then you describe how NOT to do that. Did you forget the US GOV has no money? And that reality is the efforts of "Spending" has not worked? Matt Prove to me that the US Gov has no money. http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND If you truly understand economics, then you wouldn't say the U.S has "no money" when its 10 years bond is at an all-time low of 2%. The U.S can afford very easily to borrow more money at very little cost. In fact, the bonds are begging us to take more money. U.S fiscal problems are 2030 and beyond. Not 2011. Our current problems are a severe lack of growth and persistent unemployment despite zero-bound monetary policies. This isin't your usual "mom n pop family budget". This isin't about saving money, but restarting the economic engine. The more you think along the lines of "we can't spend anymore because we (the U.S) don't have anymore money)", the more we will suffer because the engine will simply not function as well. The more time we wait, the longer people are out of work. The longer people are out of work, the more detrimental their skills are. Get the engine working now and then fix the fiscal debt problems.

The least thing you can do is bring up a more intelligent reply than that. Why do you think your "it's the 1%" argument required more? You can always try to dispute my claims with concrete numbers and statistics. You first. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316 The TPC analysis point out that if we raised the taxes on the riches (if the old brackets were still in place), the higher brackets will raise an additional 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage. In contrast, if we raise the Medicare eligibility age, something that would create a lot of hardship to the middle class... the CBO gives a whopping 42 billion $ a year. So like I said, this is one of many examples where YOU will be subsiding for the rich. ...I find it truly odd that we skydivers (out of all people) want to cling on old misconceptions rather than challenging the facts. I remember a few whuffo friends saying "most skydivers die after a few years" and even with the facts, they still didn't want to see the truth.

haha. Look, here's the thing: My personal guess is that you worked really hard all your life and you're very proud of it. When you were at age X and Y, you probably had an insurmountable obstacle which you prevailed in the end. Nobody helped you. Now you're looking at the young protestors and say to yourself "when I was at that age, nobody helped me. They should learn to help themselves". And I understand that 100%. Its an admirable trait and I definitely do hope more people are like that. What I'm arguing however is about ways to improve the current system (which is overall great, but imperfect).

The least thing you can do is bring up a more intelligent reply than that. Why do you think your "it's the 1%" argument required more? You can always try to dispute my claims with concrete numbers and statistics.

The least thing you can do is bring up a more intelligent reply than that.

This is the misconception that is brought up everytime. This isin't about you giving "half of everything" to the protestors. This is about you giving "half of everything" to the higher echelon (most notably the 0.1 percent). Are you seriously happy giving part of your wealth to people who are richer? If we take Romney's plan for example, YOU will be paying for the tax cuts for the rich by cutting off YOUR future benfits. You are the ones that are supposedly take the burden of the sacrifice. Another example: Privatizing the Veterans Health Administration (V.H.A.). It is a direct cost increase for everyone under the V.H.A.

Exposure. Media exposure. It is all about shifting the national conversation from the ineffective austerity talks (expansionary fiscal austerity has a very Orwellian sound to it). I definitely applaud your father's hard work mentality. People should work hard and should earn the money for it. But that doesn't take away that there are issues that need fixing. Unless there are people in the street to fight for it, then the system remains the same. "According to that report, between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted, after-tax income of Americans in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. The equivalent number for the richest 0.1 percent rose 400 percent. " For who are the 0.1 percent? most of them are corporate bigwigs and financial wheeler-dealers. One recent analysis found that 43 percent of the super-elite are executives at nonfinancial companies, 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate. And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.

Its funny how any of us could be against Occupy Wall Street There are serious talks about raising retirement age, making medicare private (making them more expensive in other words)and cutting benefits ... yet permanent tax cuts to the higher echelon that would nullify these cuts and/or put the Government more in debt. ...and for some reason, you want to stop the people who are protesting against it. Look at the 0.1 percent (not the 1 percent, but the 0.1 percent)'s income increase in the last few decade and compare it to everyone else. "They want you to say 'thank you' while you wipe your chin and walk away"

Hello all! Just wondering what some of your favorite wingsuit videos are. I think it helps us newbies dream and say "one day, I'l fly one.. one day." This is my personal fav so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER1PGYe9UZA Good music, good editing and a good emotional perspective of the guy. The psychological aspect really helps... cheers!