|
|
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Apparently he wasn't screwing anybody.
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Why you would think otherwise is beyond me.......???? |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual) Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Were you even old enough to vote in 2000?
__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
..........old enough to vote??........hell, he wasn't even old enough to drive.......
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Scientific American Magazine
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. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|