amanda more

Haha. "the government, by the people, for the people."

So when the government is imperfect you become so much more comfortable beancounting.

Sit in a nice room. Count stacks of beans. Laugh at all those ridiculous people who live in the real world.

Then make an argument about why I am misdirected. The point I made was that the government collects taxes and spends money as part of governing, so I don't see how misdirected I can be about that; I'm pretty sure it's true.

 

 

 

These are very vague sentiments, but there's no substance to them.

 

I want to point out that doG, Realitycheck and I corrected you on a technicality (definition of fiduciary), and that does not necessarily mean that any of us endorse each others' position on a BBA. It would be a mistake to automatically assume that we do. (i.e. One can point out flaws in an argument and still agree with the conclusion. Or one can disagree.)

You lack substance.

Corrected is incorrect. You waylaid the essence of the discussion with superfluous misdirection. Stop platitudes. Stop party lines. I ask that you think.

Not thinking is terribly simplistic and lacks substance.

Hooverists there I've said it again. Counter that term. Explain how any of the proposals wouldn't be as stupid as the methods causing or at least deepening the Great Depression.

You can't. Economists want to hide but that is because they are in agreement and their positions are funded by these same jokers that recently profited.

Reread Huckleberry Finn if you have to, Just because your golf partners pat each other on the back it does not show validity. This country USA had everyone thinking racism was God's way. Rethink. Now, how vague is this? If you never saw an economics book then I would suggest you do that first so you can then judge what has substance.

Actually it is. In the current economy when government revenue is down because of the quantity of people that are out of work and paying no taxes, and the number of people working at reduced wages paying less taxes and the number of businesses closed that are paying no taxes then is the time to keep the budget and debt to a minimum. Our government should have been preparing better for bad times when times were good but as always it maxed out our credit even then. The country is not living within its means and this is directly the result of Congressional actions. They need their hands tied.

Thank goodness for the recent history of "reverse Robin Hood," Follow the money. The middle class was overly burdened with cash to the government while the rich got richer. Forty five percent of American wealth is held just like what used to be Banana Republics with a precious few.

America has been smart enough to raid the treasury instead of percentage wise defacto the wealthy at even the same rate as the poor. They are a vast untapped sea. If we don't tap that to at least the same burden as the rest of the population then any history buff can see instability in the future. My bets are on the upper 2% to wise up. It is in their own self interest to stabilize the current climate in the USA.

Obviously there is much truth in what you say and I did say I might be biassed. I am not trying to make a case for equality of income but I do feel that some people and some organisations are so rich that they could afford to put more into the national pot. I also feel that rewards for effort could be more sensibly distributed. I find it obscene that a pop singer can earn many times the income of a brain surgeon or that many people in local government in the UK earn much more than the salary of the Prime Minister. I feel that we are getting rather off topic so I will repeat the point that I originally made - I think that allowing the National Debt to increase year on year is dangerous and a sensible strategy would involve shrinking it year by year.

A dangerous strategy which shows lack of any sensible strategy would involve shrinking national debt year on year. Just so you know your concept is Hooverism. How is that working for you?

So, again the reason the American economy is deteriorating -now- is kneejerk reactions with wrong headed thinking.

Hi, I have a biomedical engineering background and would love to get into the nitty gritty of the detailed biochemistry here. I can again look up pubmed articles to support this. I like to try to drill down to the underlying cause then work from there. Many medical treatments never touch the underlying cause so I am not discounting the many methods using ways removed from this. But it provides a deep understanding if we are to a point to "get it" first at this level.

two b-cells O O

they see a substance <<<<<<<<<<

They both get activated

then one quiets

O

but the other stays active

The first one is a normal bcell that has seen a substance which is actually part of the person's own body. The second one is the essence of Lupus and also reacts. This appears to be independent of all the other cell signaling factors acting on or with the bcell. Why? And even if one has the bad luck to have selfreacting bcells can they be messed with to then have them do selfdeath or switch back?

Is there any chance that the USA can get a job to earn a few $ ? What is it good at , besides robbing it's own people ?

It is good at hating science and even reasoning allowing it to not only rob and steal but smile and tell you that it is for your own good.

There does exist however opinions that run counter to that.

Sounded like sarcasm. If it wasn't I apologize, but that makes the statement even more puzzling. The government handles money collected in taxes. They are entrusted with spending it responsibly. Article I section 9 of the Constitution says No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The statement and account is so that the public can see how its money is being spent. (In reality, the government wastes a lot of money in keeping these accurate accounts)

 

 

 

I think that claiming a reductionist view misrepresents the argument. doG said "The people will never get the fiduciary responsibility they deserve from Congress unless it is forced on them" At no point was it claimed that this is the only responsibility of Congress. But I think it's silly to deny that this isn't one of the responsibilities of Congress.

As I say. just keep up your tune of fiddling while the economy tanks. You are misdirected and playing the wrong song.

The only rationale is that you can take solace in having some company. Seeking refuge in odd platitudes and wrongheaded direction is very common in difficult times. Hence making them almost catastrophic times should this style of groupthink become the norm.

An escape into "because everyone I like does it" should have been left back in high school.

(((( how, exactly, did you become friends? grew up together. ))) Don't get me wrong i like my friends, It just becomes a hassle to just talk about anything non "idiot" related. And ill find myself in social settings being a ( loner ) i suppose due to the lack of obsession with social networking and going through the same list of bars they map out sun-mon. Does anyone here know of any real study about the correlation between those who are (socially) intelligent as opposed to those who are (mentality) intelligent? For example: A individual's characteristics being a social butterfly and more associated with that life style, As opposed to someone who study's more often than not and prefers to watch educational shows than reality TV. This i believe to be a very interesting relation to the way people's behavior is and why. Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

I have two sisters very close in age. A built in social life. One person told me that genius must be lonely. I did a calculation that there are 300,000 people in this country with IQ's over 160. So smart people are theoretically not alone.

There was a book that popularized the notion of EQ.

I want to design a tshirt that starts in a circle and winds down. "Let me tell you how drunk I was last night and first I am getting drunk tonight. Let me tell you how drunk I was last night and first I am getting drunk tonight . . . . ."

I wonder if say England has an acceptance of those "eccentrics" who talk of other things?

Oops, I hit post too soon.

 

What I meant to say is that when in a depression, the government shouldn't do anything that they wouldn't do when the economy is going well.

 

 

No.

Now isn't this just silly?

In your own personal life you would ignore all data regarding the direction you are taking and plow full steam ahead regardless of it?

Everyone has some level of blind faith. Whatever approach you are using has to be based on that to some level. We all have blind spots.

Okay, now let's apply that to the economy. A depression too is incurable; the government, like the doctors, should do nothing.

 

However, I would disagree that a cold is incurable, we just don't know how to cure it yet. Similarly, a depression is not/may not be incurable, we don't know how to cure it yet though. Besides, our body will get rid of it fast enough, just like the economy will get rid of a depression by itself quickly.

 

Just like we don't try out new medicines or techniques on humans first, we shouldn't try them out on the US first. Let the little economies try them out first, and we won't use them unless there is almost certain evidence that a procedure will help the economy. In the meantime, I propose the gov should leave the economy alone.

Very odd here in this forum. A most unscientific approach. And such optimism. I have an 85 year old friend who, because of actual personal experience, does not have your pie in the sky faith. Short? Really? Why?

Government even in times of robber barons and before in times of landed gentry never ever left the economy alone. Such an intense radical departure would indeed be a large experiment without any scientific basis whatsoever.

I have friends that vary widely in intelligence and interests; all you need to do is know what to talk about with who. If your friends only talk about things that don't interest you and you don't talk about anything that interests them how, exactly, did you become friends? I'm sure everyone has interests other than <insert preferred area of study> so talk about that if they don't care about <whatever was inserted>.

 

And if all else fails take the advice my friends give me all the time, don't be a d!<k

Come on Ringer. If you are someone who would be in the posters circle, tell us the real secret. You make them drinking buddies.

A fiduciary duty (from Latin fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal. Congress owes the highest fiducial responsibility to the People. They are not there to represent themselves. They are not there to raise their own spending limit with our money and then max out the debt to the limit over and over and over ad infinitum. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States and it owes it to the people to not ruin that credit by using it irresponsibly.

Again this reductionist view sees only beans in and beans out. That is not the intelligence resident in government. It isn't a computer or a simple bean counter. Those who only can think this way will find it impossible to take a real view.

"A more perfect union" is not equal to "a better counted union."

Perhaps, but in this case I'd say it's more like how much we know about the brain's reactions/psychology. There are more economists who disagree, IMO, on what to do when there is a depression than doctors on what to do if you have a serious cold (a depression IMO is a sort of sickness to the economy).

 

It is too bad so few have your faith in doctors.

The argument you make is specious. Of course any real world practitioner will fall short of the results in a laboratory. The argument here is that joining a side and attempting to have facts fit it according to politics is very self defeating. Watch Dr. Phil sometime. He tells some guy to get real. Magically through the lens of TV he does.

And whatever your doctor does for you- especially with the common cold then you can get lots of rest and drink plenty of fluids. One reason they can all agree is because it is incurable.

The current stock market crash will provide 100% agreement. Just like I've mentioned elsewhere when is a hurricane prediction 100% accurate? When it is overhead.

I've used fiduciary and I don't work in a bank. Sarcasm really isn't a substitute for an argument.

How is it sarcasm?

The business of government is to govern. It isn't a bank. And if it was even close, just how strong a word is it that harkens to banks in our current climate.

Fiduciary is a term meant to represent a position of trust, ie., the govt. is entrusted to use the peoples' money responsibly, which in this case fits the meaning quite well.

The business of government is to govern. How simplistic to be so reductionist to think of it as this piggy bank. It is like reducing a human being to the nutrients coming in, the build up in the system and what comes out. So emphasizing the input output of government is immature. We elect representatives, it is not some patriarchal monarchy that sits and does. We control it. For those who are here then, it should be possible to not parrot some kind of odd gobblygook no matter how often repeated. Greenspan said he made a mistake. It is time others actually examine the rhetoric.

I just informed a retiree that his stockbroker had lied. You can change out of the stock market into FDIC insured in your retirement fund without penalty. I suggest others who worry about government money, right now before close of the stock market tomorrow, now consider their own.

IMHO the financial woes of both the UK and USA have a simple underlying cause. Governments who allow a national debt to increase year on year are building a house of cards that is destined to eventually collapse. The simple solution is to ensure that the national debt decreases, if only a little, year by year so that eventually over many years solvency can be obtained. The problem with this is that any government that takes the necessary steps to ensure this happens would become so unpopular that they would soon be voted out of office. I fear that this is a weakness of democracy and if "the house of cards" does collapse then democracy might collapse with it. I borrowed money earlier in my life to buy my home and sundry cars over the years but now I am retired I owe nobody anything. There was a newspaper headline the other day "Apple is richer than America". Since I am debt free I feel I can fairly claim that I, too, am richer than America!

wrong

Economists do not have a handle on depression IMO. There are theories, but none are certain, because it is extremely difficult to prove a cause/effect relationship in economics. However, it is easy to bend data to look like it is a cause/effect relationship.

Economics is to the mathematics of the economy as doctoring is to the science of medicine.

That's not really a good argument against it. Right now we have a credit card holder with a limit on how much they can spend but they're also the one in control of setting the limit so they just get to raise it every time they max the card out so they can just go further and further in debt with no checks or balances.

 

A responsible card holder would never max out the card if it was to serve as their safety net lest they had some savings to use for such a need. In the case of the American people their card holder, Congress, is not a responsible card holder. Congress constantly keeps the card maxed out with every single increase in the credit limit, that they themselves raise, because there is no legislative obstacle to keep it from doing so. The people will never get the fiduciary responsibility they deserve from Congress unless it is forced on them.

Fiduciary? really? So you want to use a term reserved for people in banks?

That is the group you are holding up as exemplary. The current climate is "Reverse Robin Hood." The weird farout but longstanding unscientific religious belief system you are trying to gain converts to is Hooverism. How is that working for you?

Here is a short post .

 

There was a documentary on the television two weeks ago here in Western Europe which was 2 hours long and it claimed that the USA can't extract Wall Streets interests from the Houses of Government . They claim that Wall Street is running your country and taking your money . That's sad , if true , but not rare in these times when a lot of governments around the world have to put billions of $ and € into banks who made large bad debt portfolios while taking commissions for themselves . The people have to run the country for the people , not the bankers for the bankers .

Yes, they even got the supreme court to make bribing legal. (called it "speech") It is also foreign corporations have little interest in the economy of the US and they also own congress.

But, we took the rest of the world along. Like I mentioned about The Great Depression, history will look back at this great depression with a multifaceted eye.

Checkout Frontline "The Warning." Does anyone know a PHD economist who can answer this question. "Can you imagine a scenario, any scenario that will find a way to clear 1200 trillion dollars in worldwide derivatives which amounts to over 120,000 for every man, woman and child in the world?

So turning the US into a raw goods exporter makes it a colony of other countries who then sell us manufactured goods. I also ask economists "How can you have an economy that gets multiplying effects based on only a nurse, a doctor, a teacher and a lawyer?" Our economy then is tanking on a lack of good jobs and those that are are service jobs which depend on someone else making money.

But now the US is the tip of the iceberg. Our economy is deteriorating at its fundamentals and also due to whacky policy. But the worldwide derivatives thing will keep the world from recovering.

Hi,

I have decided to call those who refuse to understand anything about the Great Depression as Hooverists.

The lesson learned is ,however disturbing it is to Joe sixpack who is out of work, that it deepens and lengthens a recession if government pulls back and slows spending. So somehow having this belief that if "I cut back government should too." is a kneejerk reaction that is wrongheaded.

Economics is called the dismal science and it can be relied on for some ability to provide an understanding. If it was extremely predictive then economists would all be millionaires independent of the funnelled money into their pockets from Wall Street.

Depression is something that economists do have a handle on.

To see what is happening now it helps if you do have one economics course. The causes of The Great depression were many. My vote goes to the sudden shift from farmworkers to farm machinery that threw millions of those laborers out of work. Cities weren't going to be able to hire them. Without work people were not able to buy goods and services. It is a vicious cycle.

What is happening now? What is your opinion on cause today? Any takers? What do you think?

swansont; I don't know for how long but budgets have been based on the previous years spending, without regards to the economy. While the economy of the US has been near stagnant since 2008. while budgets have nearly doubled, the excess spending, then being borrowed. All known estimated future budget, including 2012 are far over expected GDP and/or revenue, any reduction then into the future are revisions of those projections, not cuts. If interested check out "Zero Baseline Budgeting" or when the effort to go that route failed...

 

 

 

 

I prefer to think you simply don't understand the problems being created by the Federal and frankly on to the States (entitlement programs), but it's just as possible I'm not explaining myself coherently. I don't normally don't start threads, feeling some sense of responsibility to follow through, so will bow to your self professed expertise in economics, no more replies this thread. Thanks for your participation???

 

 

 

You too amanda, thanks for your response and I hope you understand what's going on, I don't think you do...

 

The bill will no doubt pass the Senate today and be signed by Obama, the cuts meaningless, any tax hikes held off until 2013 and about 900B$ being added immediately to the debt ceiling and that money will all come from borrowed money, with interest. In December or early 2012 the fight will start up again to get the additional 1.5T$ added, just to get by 2012 and with the many programs already in law (HC/Tuition/others) and without some major changes in the Government makeup, your going to be looking at adding to the ND for years to come already estimated by some to be 24,000B$ (24T$) by the early 2020's. IMO, Mickey Mouse could beat Obama in 2012, but I'm not sure any of the Republicans running today could do much better.

I guess there needs to be a new movement. Perhaps they will gather around a violin player as the economy goes up in smoke.

Since they can't learn from history they doom us all to relive it.

Since they don't think they are doing actual radical change let's let them keep the mantle of conservatism strong.

Hoovorists

I view the tea party as the future of humanity, they possess the absolute truth as described in their revealed word of god, this absolute truth has so much weight with the people who believe, it will eventually create such a pull of absolute truth it will pull the entirety of human society into an intellectual black hole from which nothing intelligent will ever be able to return. that is what I think of the tea party... brainteaserfan, it was a joke, not a real suggestion of how run a government but the tea party is no joke and the danger it poses is no joke either....

CONGRESS VOTES TO PAY ITS BILLS (as of around 7 tonight)

I keep asking what the heck is going on. Then I recalled.

These are the people who start wars.

If they are willing to sign off on 100,000 deaths in a country to "free" them.

Either causing seniors heart attacks or playing chicken and/or crashing the economy is all good.

As I watched the flurry of suits in the House of Representatives then, of course.

A bunch of irrelevant middle aged chunky fat cats or their wannabes. No wonder. I suppose not much opportunity for fake machismo in the real world.

Pointing two cars at each other and gunning their engines must appeal to these jokers but their Daddys would have cut up their trust funds.

Believe me amanda, if I didn't think you sincerely were looking for answers, I would not bother giving my opinions. In reading between the lines, trying to explain a Government, opposed to an individual, Government has an obligation cost (no less than interest to you) and the combined annual obligations of US Local/State/Federal Governments, into the NEAR future is above what can be sustained. While you and what's referred to as "Keynesian Economics" feel to cure a poor economy is for Government to spend their way out, you are not alone. It's my opinion that adding new programs, with questionable cost, adding regulation and cost to existing business/investors and taxes regardless on who, is not the way go.

 

Going a little further, to me "crashing the economy" implies a cause, which either needs to be corrected or changed. I believe in the Capitalist System as in the US and most the industrialized world, where all the people can participate, this means stimulating (relax regulation/tax/interest rates) on the Corporate World, which includes small business and they will and often have regenerate an economy.

 

HOUSE VOTES TO PAY ITS BILLS as of fifteen minutes ago.

Yes, you believe. That is the difficulty. Morphing faith into any kind of lucid discussion is problematic. I watched the house quit holding the debt ceiling hostage. Let's see if the ransom itself has dire effects.

Causality is pretty basic. If the debt ceiling wasn't raised first off the market tanks. Arguably the economy has already tanked. But at least a market drop is termed a crash. The economy then follows at whatever term you would like.

Checkout "The Warning" in Frontline. Greenspan apologizes. Really. His odd weird faith based ideas- he now says were wrong for twenty years.

Too bad it took stepping out, watching the "crash" and sidestepping responsibility to admit it. Not that it was an apology.

So if the government pays 10 % instead of less than 2% according to you then, it has not increased spending. Any economics you have sited is so poorly documented as to be considered extremely unscientific.

Not that this religion hasn't put you in company that would be considered good company. The serfs pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. They pay 15% into a system that if you realize poor people live less long they will never benefit from. That defines it as a pure tax. Another way you tax the poor to keep the rich happy and healthy. Put everyone in poverty then Limbaugh it that him and the 2% rich may have to let go of some because the poor don't have bread and the King can't extract anything. Percentage wise the rich spend less on govt obligations..

Destroying the American economy Tuesday benefits whom? Follow the money. Who will benefit in a win-win, they benefit from bringing it to the brink and they benefit from crashing it?

Who?

I'm honestly asking here. I see little upside to crashing the economy.

Thank you for the input everyone. I think I'll just focus on Chem basics for the next year. I'll give OC a go next summer, depending on how AP Chem goes.

I was able to take the second semester of organic chemistry in college using a tutor and a test.

It was amazingly productive this way. Anything I stumbled on in the book the PHD organic chemist explained.

Earth's Atmosphere May Be More Efficient at Releasing Energy to Space Than Climate Models Indicate, Satellite Data Suggest

 

ScienceDaily (July 29, 2011) — Data from NASA's Terra satellite suggests that when the climate warms, Earth's atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change may indicate.

 

http://www.scienceda...+Environment%29

We can't even predict when and where hurricanes will form and when and where they will land. Depending on where you live that is immediate.

It is easy to see that there is a wonderful natural feedback that has made it possible to prevent the earth from turning into a Venus for loe all these many billions of years.

Just because one observation - a cloud has two impacts on this. It prevents solar load below it- and it holds in greenhouse gases doesn't mean using those variables are useless.

This seems like anti-science that because you can't have a crystal ball you can say nothing. Give it a shot and as the hurricane starts to devastate, your scientific predictions then get really accurate.

Instead, go ahead. Tell us about hurricanes this year. Are you going to be wrong? yes. Tell us about global warming now? The models aren't going to be 100% accurate. So wait until you grandchildren and greatgrandchildren have the wonderful solace of then knowing science is so accurate they have moved from Florida and live in Oklahoma as a desert.

This is getting rather off topic.

 

I think you'd need other options besides the two extremes, and besides, if you were elected and there was a downturn in the economy, you'd be hurt for the rest of your life (assuming it wasn't put to a quick end at the termination of your term.)

Neurologically two people can see the same data and the information may be viewed correctly.

One group embraces absolutes. That is calming.

Another group tries to figure what the heck is really going on and scrambles even in the midst of ambivalence and acknowledging confusion. They welcome many concepts and ideas.

One group I snuck in on a week ago had the statement "We are being enslaved and we need to wake up to this." Question- Hasn't this always been true and hasn't it been worse in the past?

"It wasn't true at one time in the past - things were better at the founding of this country"

"Uh, well Slavery" I then spread my arms wide "And women didn't have the right to vote" I pointed my palms up entreating him.

"It was better for me"

John, lets put this into some kind of a perspective; The current US FEDERAL Debt (money owed to Americans &/or others) is 14.55T$ with an estimated INCOME of around 2.5T$ (nearing 5 times its debt) and the current requested Debt Increase is for 2.4T$, to last through 2013. Add to this, CURRENT &/or unfunded future Federal obligations about 115T$ and the true unknown cost of several new Federal Programs (Healthcare/College Funding). This said another way, with in a few years all Federal Revenues will be obligated prior to receiving, estimated servicing the Debt alone hitting a trillion dollars in about 10 years. GDP which is a guide for potential incomes, has never grown fast enough to keep up with these kinds of figures.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

 

Example:

I am so in debt that I only pay interest, not principle. For every $1 I have to spend .50 goes to pay just the interest on the debt. Serious problem. I could increase revenue and would basically have to. The "reverse Robin Hood" of recent years only allows increasing burdens on the poor and middle class and gives that money to the rich. The way government increases revenue is called fees if you are a Bush or taxes if honest. Destroying increases in revenue costs even more than you think.

The default we are getting Tuesday means that the 50 cents of debt payment at very low interest will increase to a pleasant 10% here benefitting those with money who are happy to get the high interest rate from those new t-bills.

So now the way we will have changed the pie is we will spend 55cents of every dollar instead of the 50 cents on nothing- no goods ,services, prevention of economic collapse. Increasing our inability to ever pay off the debt.

We will have increased spending.

Great way to balance the budget. This does not seem like rocket science. But maybe it is?

I read that axons and dendrites are only replaced when damaged.

Also when organelles die arent they recycled?

 

And yes I know parts of neurons move around and change.

As I recall around puberty there is a pruning of neurons. I know we now know there is more plasticity of the brain throughout adulthood than was once thought.

I had long had a question of the energy source of brain cells. They need to be bathed in glucose but only recently have they found the insulin that enables glucose to go into the cells. Perhaps these types of cells would, oddly enough,do less "work" than other cell types. They could then afford to be more longlived?

I just read of the "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. People have the memory but in the frontal lobes they don't have the ability to access it as they age. Is the shrinking of the frontal lobes representing cell death or poor energy utilization? It seems kind of odd that those memories do retain within us stored somewhere.