Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-17-2008, 01:16 AM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Apparently he wasn't screwing anybody.

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-17-2008, 01:31 AM
Ara T.'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,075
Does a huge surplus indicate a good thing? Seems to me that means the gov has overtaxed and are holding on to the money, aka you don't see much benefit.
__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-17-2008, 09:26 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Blue Point, NY
Posts: 25,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ara T. View Post
Does a huge surplus indicate a good thing? Seems to me that means the gov has overtaxed and are holding on to the money, aka you don't see much benefit.
When you've got a debt of $9.5T, a huge ($300B) surplus would be a very good thing.

Think of a credit card debt of $20K. You earn a bit more money this year and have an extra $600 to pay down that debt. That's a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-17-2008, 11:19 AM
Dee8go's Avatar
Senor User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,193
Why is it that some of us vote Republican primarily because of their reputed "fiscal responsibility" only to discover that THEY spend money like drunken sailors? I never thought I'd look back at Bill Clinton and think that HE was a good president. If Dubya hasn't accomplished anything else, he's convinced me of that.

I thought getting into this Iraq war was right because the Pres. said so, and I trusted him (or at least those around him) to not behave in such a cavalier fashion as to make war needlessly. I assumed they knew more than the rest of us. So much for that!
__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,318
That thing that Bush disapoints me on the most is his fiscal policy. I voted for a republican. I expected taxes to be lower, just like government spending, and I certianly didn't expect to be in debt to China for the next 100 years.
__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-17-2008, 11:39 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Blue Point, NY
Posts: 25,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatterasguy View Post
That thing that Bush disapoints me on the most is his fiscal policy. I voted for a republican. I expected taxes to be lower, just like government spending, and I certianly didn't expect to be in debt to China for the next 100 years.
I didn't vote for Bush.........primarily because there was ample evidence of his inability to manage a budget down in Texas. He did exactly the same thing in Texas that he did in Washington.............let others pay for his mistakes.

Why you would think otherwise is beyond me.......????
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Medmech's Avatar
Gone Waterboarding
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 117
If we are not in a recession I don't surely don't want to see one. Don't let 'growth' indicators fool you unemployment, cpi and other indicator equations are manipulated by administrations to promote their policy; with unemployment averaging in the 4's - 5's and hitting almost 8 in a few states...were in a ****** recession no ifs and or buts about it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-17-2008, 11:51 AM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,318
I thought he was better than Gore.

I was a McCain supporter in 2000, Bush was plan B.
__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-17-2008, 11:53 AM
Dee8go's Avatar
Senor User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,193
I'm starting to wonder if Bush isn't going to end up being the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. At least Jimmy Carter was a smart president and had good intentions. I'm beginning to wonder what could be said about George Bush that would be positive.
__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-17-2008, 12:54 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reno/Sparks, NV
Posts: 3,063
He dances funny.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=MygbSxnx_bM
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-17-2008, 03:00 PM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
I haven't voted FOR a candidate since I voted FOR Richard M. Nixon. Ever since that "growth opportunity" I have voted against the worst candidate.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-17-2008, 06:31 PM
Ara T.'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatterasguy View Post
I thought he was better than Gore.

I was a McCain supporter in 2000, Bush was plan B.
Were you even old enough to vote in 2000?
__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-17-2008, 06:33 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Blue Point, NY
Posts: 25,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ara T. View Post
Were you even old enough to vote in 2000?
..........old enough to vote??........hell, he wasn't even old enough to drive.......
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-17-2008, 09:20 PM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ara T. View Post
Were you even old enough to vote in 2000?
No but I still supported him! Had a GW sticker on my bike and all!
__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-18-2008, 08:47 AM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Scientific American Magazine - March
17, 2008


The Economist Has No Clothes


Unscientific assumptions in economic theory are undermining efforts
to solve environmental problems

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes&sc=rss


By Robert Nadeau

The 19th-century creators of neoclassical economics—the theory that now
serves as the basis for coordinating activities in the global market
system—are credited with transforming their field into a scientific
discipline. But what is not widely known is that these now legendary
economists—William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, Maria Edgeworth and
Vilfredo Pareto—developed their theories by adapting equations from
19th-century physics that eventually became obsolete. Unfortunately, it
is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The
theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the
implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other
menacing environmental problems.

The physical theory that the creators of neoclassical economics used as
a template was conceived in response to the inability of Newtonian
physics to account for the phenomena of heat, light and electricity. In
1847 German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz formulated the conservation
of energy principle and postulated the existence of a field of conserved
energy that fills all space and unifies these phenomena. Later in the
century James Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists devised
better explanations for electromagnetism and thermodynamics, but in the
meantime, the economists had borrowed and altered Helmholtz’s equations.

The strategy the economists used was as simple as it was absurd—they
substituted economic variables for physical ones. Utility (a measure of
economic well-being) took the place of energy; the sum of utility and
expenditure replaced potential and kinetic energy. A number of
well-known mathematicians and physicists told the economists that there
was absolutely no basis for making these substitutions. But the
economists ignored such criticisms and proceeded to claim that they had
transformed their field of study into a rigorously mathematical
scientific discipline.

Strangely enough, the origins of neoclassical economics in mid-19th
century physics were forgotten. Subsequent generations of mainstream
economists accepted the claim that this theory is scientific. These
curious developments explain why the mathematical theories used by
mainstream economists are predicated on the following unscientific
assumptions:

* The market system is a closed circular flow between production and
consumption, with no inlets or outlets.
* Natural resources exist in a domain that is separate and distinct
from a closed market system, and the economic value of these
resources can be determined only by the dynamics that operate
within this system.
* The costs of damage to the external natural environment by
economic activities must be treated as costs that lie outside the
closed market system or as costs that cannot be included in the
pricing mechanisms that operate within the system.
* The external resources of nature are largely inexhaustible, and
those that are not can be replaced by other resources or by
technologies that minimize the use of the exhaustible resources or
that rely on other resources.
* There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems.

If the environmental crisis did not exist, the fact that neoclassical
economic theory provides a coherent basis for managing economic
activities in market systems could be viewed as sufficient justification
for its widespread applications. But because the crisis does exist, this
theory can no longer be regarded as useful even in pragmatic or
utilitarian terms because it fails to meet what must now be viewed as a
fundamental requirement of any economic theory—the extent to which this
theory allows economic activities to be coordinated in environmentally
responsible ways on a worldwide scale. Because neoclassical economics
does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the
limits to economic growth, it constitutes one of the greatest barriers
to combating climate change and other threats to the planet. It is
imperative that economists devise new theories that will take all the
realities of our global system into account.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page