npts2020

Just heard some more great news, not! Now the Fed is going to start doing unsecured (not asset backed) loans to non-financial corporations. Was on NPR so not sure where it might be in print, sorry.

Well the physicists and mathematicians were hired to be "experts" in a particular matter, if you are a CEO do you ignore your own experts' advice? It is probably true that not enough questions were asked for clarification, but the fact of the matter is that many if not most made their money anyway and will never have to give any of it back. IMO many knew the whole thing was untenable from the start but didn't really care because it was too complicated for more than a very few to understand and they would be gone before things collapsed.

IMHO the best thing to tell them is that it is currently a matter of scientific investigation but that our best explanations at this point are those presented above, i.e. there is nothing so far as we know......

JohnB: Yes the upper atmosphere will also radiate into space faster but not as much faster as surface upwards. (remember the temperature in space does not significantly change so the difference will be less). The main effect, however, is caused by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane that tend to congregate in the lower part of the atmosphere. Higher energy photons pass through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the earth and re-emitted as lower energy photons (usually infra-red). One of the properties of both mathane and carbon dioxide is to allow high energy photons to pass through but reflect infra-red ones, causing temperature increase at the surface of the earth as the amounts of those gases increase from more reflections back toward the source (earths surface in this case).

Definitions are supremely important. That is one reason scientists like math so much, the terms are well defined and consistent from one person to the next. A leprechaun is not defined by a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow so not finding that pot is not going to disprove the existence of leprechauns. Leprechauns (like God) can be defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable with 100% certainty. Yes we can show that nobody has ever found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and that no other creature on earth can turn invisible and therefore deduce that Leprechauns are highly unlikely to exist but those alone do not make it impossible, just seemingly impossible. As has been mentioned on this forum more than once, it is very difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. Likewise, I can make up a definition for a word that fits reality, such as saying a leprechauns are no more than an Irishmen in a green suits and funny looking hats (not the standard definition I am aware), but something I have seen with my own eyes. The same can be said for "god". If I simply define "god" as "anything greater than myself" who would have enough hubris to claim to be an athiest? Back to the topic at hand, I think Darwin got his ideas from finches and moths.

I wonder if any of those physicists and mathematicians were named Ponzi?

None of the properties of the metal will be effected unless the surface coating is somehow incorporated into the crystaline structure of the metal, a process i am not even sure is currently possible. The object so coated may be stronger, less brittle or whatever but that is from adding the properties of the coating to those that are already in the metal, not from changing any intrinsic property of the metal inside. What does change is the average of those properties for the whole object. Think of it like an egg. The inside of the egg is no different whether the shell is there or not. The yolk is still soft, its only the shell (the coating) that is harder, more brittle, etc.

Short on facts long on speculation. If it is impossible to take a picture of it, what is the picture in the article of?

JohnB: Heat does not flow from a "colder upper atmosphere to a warmer surface". As the upper atmosphere warms (but still colder than the surface) there is less difference in temperature between the two. The rate of heat transfer is related to the difference in temperature between source and sink (in this case surface and upper atmosphere). As you heat the sink (upper atmosphere) less heat is transferred away from the surface causing surface temperatures to rise till again reaching equilibrium at some higher temperature.

Anyone remember Kent State in 1970?

One could say aliens existed but no rational person would give it credence without some further evidence. In the case of evolution, you dont even have to believe fossils are real (although it is more logical to see how they could have been formed from extinct life forms than any alternatively proposed process I have ever seen) to see it in action. What do you suppose breeding (plant or animal) is all about? There are still bodies of many extinct species, dodo birds, carrier pigeons, and wooly mammoths just to name a couple, in existence. Where did those bodies come from? Plus there is speciation occuring right now, how many breeds of dogs, cats, or corn are there now compared with 200 or even 100 years ago? Simply put, evolution is the best explanation for the way things change from one generation to the next. I would love someone to come up with a better idea for it but I'm not holding my breath.

If we had to launch a ship ASAP this would be a logical choice for doing it. I think most of the objections are not well founded in facts, however. Right now there are many "closed" environments called submarines that use exactly a reactor for an energy source. Furthermore, they have been in operation for over 50 years. IMO the only valid argument against a well designed nuclear plant is proliferation issues. Anyone who can understand refining technology and how a reactor works can build a nuclear bomb. If in fact we should worry about terrorists or rogue states obtaining and using one, how many people do you want with that kind of knowledge? The more you use the technology, the more chance of having someone willing to use their knowledge for undesirable purposes.

Which society?

Knupfer: Even scientists mostly agree that the human race will become "extinct" someday, so I fail to see your point. Does that mean we should all bury our heads in the sand in the meantime and wait for "the end"? I am not a scientist by profession but still like to try to understand the world around me, science gives me that explanation better than any other. If you have better explanations for things we all want to hear and see how they better explain natural processes.

I just finished wading through one of the biggest piles of B.S. ever. After reading every word of HR-3997 or the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 it seems like the only thing they did was add more spending on top of the already rejected $700B. While the bill has something for just about everyone to like, the totality is the biggest money grab in the history of the planet. What I don't understand, is if the real problem caused by all of this is credit availability, why doesnt the government do the lending on its own through the treasury, small business administration, or some other agency, especially since it is claimed that it is the overnight market mostly that is suffering? If that is in fact the problem, then government intervention should be very short term, a few months and not years. BTW the pork mentioned on the CNN site is only a few things seemingly pulled out at random and does not even comprise half of the giveaways over and above the original $700B.

In nearly 40 years of following politics I have never seen a populace more opposed to anything the government was doing than the current financial institution bailout plan (not Viet Nam, Iraq, Watergate, or even Guantanamo Bay). My personal opinion is that the American public realizes they are not being dealt with in an honest manner, even if they dont understand the intricacies of the problem. Economists can't come to a consensus about what to do,either. You have well respected and knowledgable economists weighing in at every point from total bailout and control by the gov to doing nothing at all. Without knowing anything else, you have two "experts" telling opposite things, one says cough up large amounts of your money to help "the system" out, the other says save your own money "the system" is a black hole that needs fundamental changing before investing in it. Add to that the people arguing for the first option claim it really isn't a bailout but what else do you call giving money to someone in financial trouble who has exhausted all other means of paying off their debts? Who are you going to listen to? The problem for the politicos is that dipping into peoples pockets is one of the few things that government does that gets the attention of a large segment of the electorate. If the house goes along with the senate bill before the election, look to see as many as 100 or more new representatives come January, unfortunately they will still be mostly democrats and republicans.

Two things from the last 2 posts. Firstly, I thought earmarks were added after the bill had already passed and was in conference? Secondly, how can anyone buy cash or gold in significant amounts but not be able to buy real estate?

Exactly how are you defining the term "greed"? I dont see how it can be defined in such a way as to not be a negative (to those not greedy) trait. It has been a couple of decades since reading "Wealth of Nations", "Das Kapital", etc. but it seems to me every book I read seemed to say capitalism is based on greed (what is profit motive?). What is capitalism based upon if not greed?

Not exactly. Greed is the basis of capitalism, does that mean no capitalist system is tenable? The true cause is allowing that greed to be unfettered.

ParanoiA, there has been very little detail about the plan. Getting a copy of the bill the house turned down before it was voted on was nearly impossible. There was some talk about allowing the treasury secretary to basically run the economy as he saw fit, that was changed but exactly how? Why should the financial institutions that are in trouble be supported by taxpayers (other than the corporate welfare mentality that has permeated Washington for a couple of decades now)? Are we going to run out of banks? When the "trickle down" stops trickling why should those at the bottom be expected to keep the system propped up? IMO the sooner things are allowed to crash, the sooner we can begin to correct the problem, which has more to do with lack of enough resources for an overpopulated world than the price of an American's house or how big his credit line is. If we do buy up all of the bad mortgages, one of the few things I can see that would significantly push real estate values is to open immigration. Are we going to do that or is there some other concrete plan? No matter what happens most people are going to suffer some hardship.

Great idea DrP, race you to the patent office. lmao.

The showers will occur worldwide. However, a person in Australia would not see the same meteorites as a person in Canada even if it were dark in both places at the same time. I suppose it would be possible for an exceptionally long lived one to be visible in both places but i would think that the exception rather than the rule.

Unless you have access to some expensive high-tech equipment you are likely to be disappointed with the "hands on" part, for now. The best thing you can do right now is learn as much as you can about the subject, especially how the ideas evolved and the strengths and weaknesses of current theories. Combine that with a strong math curriculum (try for calculus before you graduate) and you should have a good basis to continue. Even if you don't follow through to making it your profession, math and physics are great areas of knowledge applicable to nearly all other fields of human endeavor.

Yes, and bigfoot survived and crawled out of the crater.

I dont see how any economic theory is relevant when nobody even seems to know any details. I have read literally hundreds of thousands of words on this matter and still couldnt tell anyone what the gist of it is other than to give more money to those who lost it all to begin with and hope they pay it back somehow. IMO they dont want anyone to know the details beforehand, anyway, which is one of the reasons for the big rush.