Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Aaaand Greenspan ***** us again!Follow

#1 Oct 24 2008 at 6:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Stock market going through the floor again due to "overnight global economic collapse spurred by Greenspan testamony"

Enjoy the ride...
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#2 Oct 24 2008 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
Greenspan basically said, "This wasn't supposed to happen and I really honestly don't know why it happened. *headscratch*"

Damn Ayn Randian.

It happened because people forgot that the line "Greed is good" is satire.
#3 Oct 24 2008 at 6:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
But he admitted he "may" have made "partial" mistakes! What do you people WANT?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 Oct 24 2008 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
we know what happened.

he droped interest rates to head off the tech stock crash. then droped it further to head off financial fears from 9-11.

the market was flooded with trillions of BORROWED dollars.

eventually, when rates started climbing, the BORROWED dollars started drying up. and now the market is correcting itself to its true value which is based on REAL earnings as opposed to BORROWED dollars. and under this addministraition, REAL earnings have DECLINED. thus the true value of the market has been SHRINKING while those BORROWED dollars were sending values skyrocketing.

in the end, the measures he took to stem off the correction from the tech stock bust made the INEVIETABLE correction exponentially worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

what irks me the most is our governmens "solution" to this situation. make BORROWING easier. mind boggeling. stupendious. there are not enough adjetives to describe the absolute STUPIDITY of this track of thinking.

LET IT CRASH.

then start picking up the pieces with JOB creation and increasing earnings for the TRUE market. middle income earnings.

in other words, obama.
#5 Oct 24 2008 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
Your catch phrase is "LET IT FALL", Shadowrelm. Get it right.
#6 Oct 24 2008 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I think he should wander around ranting incoherently.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#7 Oct 24 2008 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
shadowrelm wrote:
we know what happened.

he droped interest rates to head off the tech stock crash. then droped it further to head off financial fears from 9-11.

the market was flooded with trillions of BORROWED dollars.

eventually, when rates started climbing, the BORROWED dollars started drying up. and now the market is correcting itself to its true value which is based on REAL earnings as opposed to BORROWED dollars. and under this addministraition, REAL earnings have DECLINED. thus the true value of the market has been SHRINKING while those BORROWED dollars were sending values skyrocketing.

in the end, the measures he took to stem off the correction from the tech stock bust made the INEVIETABLE correction exponentially worse.


Well I'll be damned, Shadowrelm's computer does have the ability to write things in caps.

Protip: Sentences should start with capital letters.
#8 Oct 24 2008 at 9:27 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
in other words, obama.


I never heard Obama mention letting the economy crash and then starting over as you describe. I think you will be disappointed if he gets elected according to CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/12/national/main4515680.shtml

The politicians have succeeded in putting this over on the businessman and are salivating as the polls show Obama's lead increasing. They are already picking out new cars and houses (probably the ones foreclosed on by people who owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares). Obama will not deny congress any of their wishes (not that McCain would be any different since he is practically a democrat and we have already seen how he likes to put up taxpayer money). I only wonder if this election will mark our country's total dive into socialism. You think it's bad now? If you would like a preview, Atlas Shrugged offers some pretty good insight as to what socialism leads to. If you really don't want the politicians and their pet CEO's to bleed this country dry, Bob Barr is the only candidate who has promised to not put your money in the hands of politicians.

I end with a quote:
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators" - P.J. O'Rourke
#9 Oct 24 2008 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
****
4,901 posts
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:

...
If you would like a preview, Atlas Shrugged offers some pretty good insight as to what socialism leads to.
...


Insight? Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are both works of fiction. They are fairy tales.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#10 Oct 24 2008 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:
If you would like a preview, Atlas Shrugged offers some pretty good insight as to what socialism leads to.


Don't forget Faith of the Fallen! Man, I was so hatin' on socialism after the Imperial Order tried to force Richard into making that ****** statue! Good thing he was a Republican!

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#11 Oct 24 2008 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
The money in my mattress gets warmer and warmer every day.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#12 Oct 24 2008 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
She doesn't come up all that much but Ayn Rand is laughed out of the room when discussed with nearly every philosophy professor, student, or candidate that I know. I have never heard of someone else so universally reviled in my exposure to education.

Quote:
not that McCain would be any different since he is practically a democrat and we have already seen how he likes to put up taxpayer money


Except for that whole "ethics" thing. Really I've never understood why anyone would base a choice for president on the economy rather than social ideals.

Edited, Oct 24th 2008 2:24pm by Pensive
#13 Oct 24 2008 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Quote:
what irks me the most is our governmens "solution" to this situation. make BORROWING easier. mind boggeling.

If anything it's the exact opposite. Lenders are heightening the requirements so as not to accrue *more* bad debt. I suggest you check your credit score. Wouldn't be surprised to see a drop of 40 or more points. Mine did, and all I did was increase the amount I was paying on my CC balances.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#14 Oct 24 2008 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
****
4,901 posts
Iamadam the Shady wrote:
The money in my mattress gets warmer and warmer every day.


That's because of global warming. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#15 Oct 24 2008 at 11:20 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
Insight? Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are both works of fiction. They are fairy tales.


I am aware they are both fiction. I offered it as insight as far as what socialism promotes in people.

insight ( ) n. The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration. The act or outcome of grasping the inward or hidden nature of.

However, if you are interested in Ayn Rand non fiction, try Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or The Virtue of Selfishness.

Quote:
She doesn't come up all that much but Ayn Rand is laughed out of the room when discussed with nearly every philosophy professor, student, or candidate that I know. I have never heard of someone else so universally reviled in my exposure to education.


Yes, objectivism is very dangerous to the philosophy our government tries to instill in the masses through public education. Glad to see you would never challenge a proffesor, student, or candidate. Keep eating what they feed you and don't pay attention to what's going on around you.

Quote:
Except for that whole "ethics" thing. Really I've never understood why anyone would base a choice for president on the economy rather than social ideals.


Is this sarcasm? What do you know about ethics?
#16 Oct 24 2008 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:
[quote]in other words, obama.


I never heard Obama mention letting the economy crash and then starting over as you describe. I think you will be disappointed if he gets elected according to CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/12/national/main4515680.shtml

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

its true. he voted for this autrocity too. the bail out is just idiocy.

but obama is for using tax dollars to create jobs programs. call it socialism, call it wellfare, call it whatever you want. but it is the right solution to this problem. reducing unemployment through jobs programs and reducing the burden on middle income wage earner.

it is what brought us out of the great depression. it is what will build a solid market. consumer spending is the greatest part of our market. low and middle income people SPEND almost all of their earnings. that spending supports real earnings for bussiness. high income people do not. they stash it away in investments.

obamas plan is the way forward. mccain is just more of the same. feeding the top does not increase the economy. it makes a few people richer, but the economy as a whole doesnt benifit much. feeding the bottom is a direct pipe line into the economy. most if not all of that cash goes directly to bussiness, as opposed into money market accounts and mutual funds.

the dems have it right on the economy.

the repubs got us to where we are now.

the polls show people are starting to understand that.
#17 Oct 24 2008 at 11:46 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
but obama is for using tax dollars to create jobs programs. call it socialism, call it wellfare, call it whatever you want. but it is the right solution to this problem. reducing unemployment through jobs programs and reducing the burden on middle income wage earner.

it is what brought us out of the great depression. it is what will build a solid market. consumer spending is the greatest part of our market. low and middle income people SPEND almost all of their earnings. that spending supports real earnings for bussiness. high income people do not. they stash it away in investments.

obamas plan is the way forward. mccain is just more of the same. feeding the top does not increase the economy. it makes a few people richer, but the economy as a whole doesnt benifit much. feeding the bottom is a direct pipe line into the economy. most if not all of that cash goes directly to bussiness, as opposed into money market accounts and mutual funds.

the dems have it right on the economy.

the repubs got us to where we are now.

the polls show people are starting to understand that




I see how your mind is working. But you forget what an investment is:

Definition of investment (noun) form plural: investments expenditure of money or effort for future benefits

I can see how you would read this as putting it under your mattress so the peasants can't get to it. But, when rich people invest their money, they typically invest it in research, business expansion, education (certifications, job safety education), etc. When the average Joe "invests" his money, he invests it a new Dale Ernhardt jacket, spinning hubcaps, speakers for his car/truck, etc. Investments move us forward, increased consumption depletes resources and offers no incentive for efficiency.

Politicians do not have it right. Some call themselves Democrat, some call themselves Republican. They are both wrong. But keep cheering them on. I would like to be proven wrong and have Obama get elected and he takes all the money from the rich and gives it to the poor, and the rich become slaves to the poor people for always being so rich and mean. And the poor people become smarter and the rich people become dumber, and eventually everyone is equally smart and equally rich (or equally poor, depends on how you look at the glass). If the polls are accurate, we will find out in about 4 years.
#18 Oct 24 2008 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
can see how you would read this as putting it under your mattress so the peasants can't get to it. But, when rich people invest their money, they typically invest it in research, business expansion, education (certifications, job safety education), etc. When the average Joe "invests" his money, he invests it a new Dale Ernhardt jacket, spinning hubcaps, speakers for his car/truck, etc. Investments move us forward, increased consumption depletes resources and offers no incentive for efficiency.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

research - one company. one group of people. very little impact on the economy.

bussiness expansion - no bussiness can expand past the point where supply is greater than demand. and low and middle income people create the greatest part of demand in this country. investing 7 trillion dollars in expanding a tire stor will only put other tire stores out of bussiness. it will not create demand. demand is increased solely by increased earnings, not by invested dollars. again, very little impact on the economy.

education - for who? the few that can affors it? giving a rich person more money to invest in his aducation doesnt grow the economy. all it does is give a single person a better chance at increasing his personal wealth.

joes dale earnhart jacket gave a cashier, stockperson, store owner, garmet maker, seamstress, and transporter some income. joes 50 bucks was spread out all through the economy creating earnings for a whole hoste of people. joes investments from his increased earnings had a HUGE impact on the economy.

get it yet?

most people are starting too.
#19 Oct 24 2008 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
But, when rich people invest their money, they typically invest it in research, business expansion, education (certifications, job safety education), etc. When the average Joe "invests" his money, he invests it a new Dale Ernhardt jacket, spinning hubcaps, speakers for his car/truck, etc. Investments move us forward, increased consumption depletes resources and offers no incentive for efficiency.


What a stupid fucking dichotomy

Quote:
Yes, objectivism is very dangerous to the philosophy our government tries to instill in the masses through public education. Glad to see you would never challenge a proffesor, student, or candidate. Keep eating what they feed you and don't pay attention to what's going on around you.


"Objectivism" is considered a goddamn laughingstock because it's an unworkable and ethically repugnant system that most highschool students should be capable of recognizing as such.

Quote:
Is this sarcasm? What do you know about ethics?


Quite a bit you doofus. I'm a bit rusty on some of them but I've studied Nicomachean, Virtue, Utilitarian, Deontological, Subjective, Cultural, Pragmatic, Divine Command, Egoistic, and Humanistic ethical systems. Have you?
#20 Oct 24 2008 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,274 posts
shadowrelm wrote:
we know what happened.

he droped interest rates to head off the tech stock crash. then droped it further to head off financial fears from 9-11.

the market was flooded with trillions of BORROWED dollars.

eventually, when rates started climbing, the BORROWED dollars started drying up. and now the market is correcting itself to its true value which is based on REAL earnings as opposed to BORROWED dollars. and under this addministraition, REAL earnings have DECLINED. thus the true value of the market has been SHRINKING while those BORROWED dollars were sending values skyrocketing.

in the end, the measures he took to stem off the correction from the tech stock bust made the INEVIETABLE correction exponentially worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

what irks me the most is our governmens "solution" to this situation. make BORROWING easier. mind boggeling. stupendious. there are not enough adjetives to describe the absolute STUPIDITY of this track of thinking.

LET IT CRASH.

then start picking up the pieces with JOB creation and increasing earnings for the TRUE market. middle income earnings.

in other words, obama.


I don't get it. I would agree with most of your post minus the last line, Obama was part of lawsuit in the '90s suing Citibank for not giving out enough loans.

Obama also took a lot of money from Freddie/Fannie to keep regulations lax over the last 4 years. He's a large part of the problem and a far cry from the solution.
____________________________
FFIX Melee Damage Comparitor
Brimstone
#21 Oct 24 2008 at 12:43 PM Rating: Default
***
1,274 posts
Pensive wrote:


Quote:
Yes, objectivism is very dangerous to the philosophy our government tries to instill in the masses through public education. Glad to see you would never challenge a proffesor, student, or candidate. Keep eating what they feed you and don't pay attention to what's going on around you.


"Objectivism" is considered a goddamn laughingstock because it's an unworkable and ethically repugnant system that most highschool students should be capable of recognizing as such.


What's ethically repugnant about absolute truth? Or saying that one exists.

Relativism is repugnant, it has no core, its like a jellyfish.
____________________________
FFIX Melee Damage Comparitor
Brimstone
#22 Oct 24 2008 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
What's ethically repugnant about absolute truth? Or saying that one exists.


Ayn Rand's "objectivism" does not mean the opposite to relativism. It is a word used to describe her ethical philosophy and is not to be confused with legitimate discussions of objectivity vs. subjectivity.

Quote:
Relativism is repugnant, it has no core, its like a jellyfish.


Relativism may be applied to many different sorts of things, the most common of which is probably ethical relativism, which is more or less the most ontologically correct ethical theory out there, however, ontological relativism is basically self-defeating.
#23 Oct 24 2008 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
***
1,274 posts
Ayn Rand has as much to do with objectivism as the pope does with God. There may be some obvious overlap but there's no need to ever consider a single thing she says from an objectivist view point.

Moral Relativism is the most Abhorrent philosophy on the planet. self defeating doesn't begin to describe it.
____________________________
FFIX Melee Damage Comparitor
Brimstone
#24 Oct 24 2008 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Ayn Rand has as much to do with objectivism as the pope does with God. There may be some obvious overlap but there's no need to ever consider a single thing she says from an objectivist view point.


Well it's what we were talking about so any further nitpicking of the point is really unnecessary if you can understand the conversation. For better or worse, "objectivism" refers to the **** that Ayn Rand has come up with.

Quote:

Moral Relativism is the most Abhorrent philosophy on the planet. self defeating doesn't begin to describe it.


I challenge you to find a single ethical philosophy that has any basis in ontological truth whatsoever. Ontological relativism is self-defeating because it advocates for a suspension of declaration of any matters of fact, while making a declaration of a matter of fact. Ethical relativism is not self-defeating. It is a statement of facts that describes the conditions in which ethical theories find themselves created, and therefore is not an ethical system in itself, but merely a recognition of the state that we find ourselves in. Other ethical theories may be compatible with that recognition, but they are always at best arbitrary and lack ground from which to develop as anything but.
#25 Oct 24 2008 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent
I don't get it. I would agree with most of your post minus the last line, Obama was part of lawsuit in the '90s suing Citibank for not giving out enough loans.

Obama also took a lot of money from Freddie/Fannie to keep regulations lax over the last 4 years. He's a large part of the problem and a far cry from the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------

agreed. obama isnt any better than any other politician. but obama does represent the democratic party.

and it is the democratic party that will spend your tax dollars on creating new jobs weather they are socialistic government jobs or in the private sector. it is the dems who will give some relief to the largest chunk of our economy, the low and middle income workers.

by default, it is the dems who will inject the most of our tax dollars DIRECTLY back into the economy and the market. as opposed to the republicans who felt your tax dollars were better off in oil companie tax breaks to the tune of 14 billion a year.

so yes, the answer is obama.

not because he is some super star, or any better than mccain, bush, or any other politician. but solely because he represents the party that can actually help us move ahead.

and by that, you repubs can take from it, it doesnt really matter who or what obama is. as long as he is not republican. so waste your time calling him a muslim, a terrorist, an illegal alien, whatever. just done call him a republican, thats pretty much what his supporters are driving at.

obama doesnt matter. what he represents does. we want republicans out of office for their **** poor performance and damage they have caused us. it doesnt matter which home bred lieing money grabbing vermin won the dem nomination, he is in, you are out.
#26REDACTED, Posted: Oct 24 2008 at 2:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I wasn't trying to get into a circular arguement about whether or not we exist. I was referring to socialism and the social impact that follows it. I personally think existence is personal. If you've studied even a little philosophy there is nothing I am going to introduce to you. I only studied the 101 stuff back in college. I just find the basis of objectivism makes sense to me. I don't care to sway anyone on the matter, you have to live with your beliefs. I do care about the government, though. Currently, the United States is the best in my eyes and I am able to pursue happiness with minimal resistance. I will always do what I can to make it better and more free, even if it's just posting my thoughts on a message board and reading what other people think.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 238 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)