tvashtarkatena

No street cred, no clicky.

McCain's lost Michigan. Early voting in OH and a huge early voter registration program will secure OH for Obama. Florida, hit hard by foreclosures and disasters, will go Obama this time around. Both OH and FL have new Sec. of states who are closely watching for the kind of shinnanigans the GOP indulged in during the past two elections. It's looking more and more like a landslide this year.

Have you negotiated a penis shield trade agreement?

I thought only FW bothered to go back and re-quote this kind of shit.

One of the reasons there are no progressives in Papua New Guinea is because they've all been spear killed for being too fucking annoying.

To be fair, I believe he said something to the effect of 'anyone' can climb 5.13 is they put their energies towards it. Which is a bit like saying that anyone could run a marathon in 2 hours and 10 minutes or finish in the top 10 of the Tour de France if they just put their mind to it. Um...no. Doesn't work that way.

It's a good thing we're not still in Vietnam fighting CHARLIE. I don't think I'd ever turn a TV or radio on ever again.

Yeah, well, do something for me a load a MSFT Movie Viewer on the laptop this time, will ya?

Personally, I don't care about the bolt thing either way, but I would like to see Dawg post humor that's fresher than the mid 80s.

Perhaps you, rather than we, don't hear about them.

It's also useful to point out that policy does not and has not followed theory to the letter, and that theories can have better or worse predictive accuracy depending on what you plug into them. By way of example, Friedman once wrote an article about pollution. It would seem that, without environmental regulation, it's worth it for companies to pollute (empirically true, BTW). This would seem to refute Friedman's free market theories, but he countered that if companies had to pay the actual cost of the resource inputs they use (land, water, air, human lives and health, etc) as well as the actual cost of cleanup, not polluting would be the more economically beneficial option. It's politicians, he argued, not politicians, that determine whether or not companies pay these costs and how much they pay. So Friedman was 'wrong' when one boundary was placed around his theory and 'right' when a broader boundary, which included environmental costs, was employed. He wasn't 'wrong' on the face of it. Some theories, of course, are put forth by fringe kooks who gain favor with the rulers of the day. Every era has its Laffers. It's also helpful to recognize that there is a world outside of the US with its own various schools of economics.

Curriculum Vitae; a resume for academics.

Oh, OK, and now I guess it's time for you to 'tell it like is' to the rest of us. Until recently, the Neocons ruled the foreign policy roost...all 6 or 7 of them.

I'd wager $100 that 100 of 100 random people reading a Raindawg thread would never guess he's a College Professor. Not the least of which are his juvenile off topic rants and verbal assaults. I suspect many of them may think you are the professor Trash. Certainly not Don. Unless you pulled up that archeological thread of his. Why, I am a Doctor... ...of Rhetorical Proctology. Having known a few professors, I'd say that Dawg's arrested development is the norm, not the exception. Academia is a perfect haven for the socially retarded. Even among the most juvenile Phds I've known, however, I've never met anyone who liked to wave their CV in front of a wholly disinterested web audience like our very own Dawg. Kind of sad when you imagine what kind of unfulfilled needs that addresses.

An NYT summary of the bailout. It included most of what I wanted to see, with the glaring exception of granting the ability to re-negotiate primary home mortgages during bankruptcy to address a root cause of the problem. "The final agreement called for the $700 billion to be disbursed in parts: $250 billion at first, to get the program started, followed by $100 billion at the discretion of Mr. Bush and the remaining $350 billion upon request of the Treasury with Congress empowered to block the last installment by acting within 15 days. It is impossible to predict the final cost of the bailout but officials insist it will be far less than $700 billion. Because the Treasury will purchase and then resell assets, potentially at a higher price, there is a chance the program will break even or perhaps turn a profit. The deal provides for tight oversight by two boards, including an independent Congressional panel. And requires the government to use its status as an large-scale owner of distressed, mortgage-backed securities to take more aggressive steps to prevent foreclosures. The bill also seeks to limit the pay of executives of some companies that sell bad debt to the government, including restrictions on so-called “golden parachute” retirement plans. It also provides several taxpayer protections, including a mechanism for the government to take an equity stake, in the form of stock warrants, in some of the firms that seek government help, which will give taxpayers a chance to make money should the companies profit in the months and years ahead. And, if the rescue plan has lost money after five years, the bill requires the president to submit a plan to Congress for recouping the losses from the financial industry, perhaps through fees or a tax on securities transactions."

What's even more entertaining is Dawg's parental voice, even as he's arguing like a 6th grader.

Okay there, Methuselah, let us know when you're ready to shred a 5.13, on your terms of course! You're a funny guy. Have you considered running for public office? "I could balance the budget...if I WANTED to. But I'll do it when I'm ready!" And he repeats everything twice, so the GOP ticket would be good fit.

It's probably already clear to most readers here that I was referring to economics as an academic discipline, not any particular campaign slogan. If you try real, real hard, you may be able to separate political ideology from the social science in your mind. Economics as praticed today is mostly political ideology that ignores physical realities. It should be a science but it isn't. Yes I did major in scientific accounting like that found in conservations laws. Again, you need to separate economics as its practiced by researchers as opposed to the economic platitudes of politicians. Yes, there are career economists who are quacks (just as there are scientists who are global warming deniers and intelligent design proponents), and presidential administrations are good at finding and employing these people, but the majority of professional economists provide a great deal of informed substance and insight to the debate. The fact that the public (and most politicians) don't understand the discipline and its indeterminate nature doesn't cast it into the realm of superstition. Even in your field of study (physics or engineering, I assume), there are widely varying theories regarding some very fundamental processes that are not yet understood. The nature of gravity, dark energy, dark matter, why entropy increases, to name a few. Yet no one claims that, because there is uncertainty in this incomplete body of theory, physics is quackery.

A bit of a cynical viewpoint, but understandable, considering where we are right now. Actually, though, a lot of solutions to macro problems ARE known. For example, it's probably not a good idea to completely deregulate Wall Street and expect that bad things aren't going to happen. It's probably not a good idea to 'heat up' the economy beyond a sustainable growth rate and not expect a crash. It's not a good idea to rape the environment. It's not a good idea to keep spending while the debt is ballooning to stratispheric heights. It's not a good idea to invade a country that is not a credible threat to national security. In short, it's not a good idea to vote Republican. This stuff is no mystery; it's not even that complicated.

Well maybe I am guilty of mis-estimating the interests of the voting public, but I think the last eight years painfully proved just how susceptible "we" are to this kind propaganda. Am I wrong or is the American Public just begging to eat this sh*t up? Definitely. The only problem is, the media frenzy led everyone to expect her to fail, which then ironically works to her favor when she doesn't. Now everyone is thinking "wow, she actually sounded a lot smarter than I expected" (given her media portrayal up to this point). Another big Whoops. Actually I am way too young to know about/remember Reagan's campaigns, and my comparison is highly superficial. However, the comparison I am making concerns the ability to make love to the camera--a highly superficial, but extremely desirable trait for getting elected. To be fair, Obamas not too camera-shy either. Sounding a lot smarter than people expected is hardly a vote of confidence, and hardly unexpected. I mean, she couldn't have given a worse performance than in her previous interviews. What she did not do was to sound genuine. She was also far from gracious. Biden was both. He beat her at her own game. That's what happens when you hire a pro, I guess. As for making love to the camera, all four players in this campaign are experienced at that, and they're all good at it in their own ways. There are a lot of ways to do it, but in politics, coming across as genuine is of supreme importance. Palin seems incapable of it. As for how stupid the American public is, well, I'd like to think that the past 8 years have taught the dumber half of us something, but that remains to be seen.

Back to the Reagan comparison, Reagan also capitalized on voter dissatisfaction in the wake of economic (oil shocks) and security (Iranian revolution) crisis that were mismanaged by what was perceived at the time as an inept, weak Democratic administration. Reagan also rode the reactionary wave of anti-defeatism in the wake of Vietnam. In contrast, we are in the throes of an economic crisis that is clearly of Republican making. Palin is preaching for deregulation even as the country implodes because of the same. We are also currently losing two wars, and tired of those conflicts which done so much to gut our economy through massive debt spending, not craving for a new chance to prove our military might, as we (some of the country, at least) were in the early 80s. Finally, it's useful to note that Reagan wore out his welcome; he was one of the most unpopular presidents in history when he left office. No, Palin is no Reagan. Times have changed. She is simply the media play thing de jour.

DId they vote? Yes or No? Either one's a crap sandwich.

It's probably already clear to most readers here that I was referring to economics as an academic discipline, not any particular campaign slogan. If you try real, real hard, you may be able to separate political ideology from the social science in your mind. Scientific accounting? Did you major in that, cuz, like, I don't remember that that being offered in my business school curriculum.

We must have watched two different debates. Comparing Palin to Reagan is a complete stretch. Reagan had an original, large presence which Palin couldn't match in any universe. Reagan was also original; his ideas, phrases and statements were his own, and new for the time. Palins are clearly coached and parroted, and drawn from a worn out playbook that the American people have clearly grown tired of. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due; Palin didn't fuck up like everyone thought she would, but that's about as far as it goes here. To compare her to the founder of the party of Reagan, however, is complete fantasy. Rachel Ray would be a better comparison, but then, Rachel Ray isn't running for 2nd in command.

Wait, if I bring a dish, I have to share her? And you're providing the buns? It's gonna be that kind of party? I'll bring a 12 x 12 tarp.