Open Thread: Tigris

Tigris

This entry was posted on Friday, May 22nd, 2009 at 7:43 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-tigris/trackback/

65 Responses to “Open Thread: Tigris”

Bilbo Says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Women,

Is your man more pain than he's worth? Let Tigers-R-Us help you out. Just one night in your home and you'll never have to put up with all that abuse he's been dishing out for years. And we'll even clean up all the leftovers.

Comment by Bilbo — May 23, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

Dick Says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Lovely creature. The tiger's nice, too.

Comment by Dick — May 23, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

Bradford Says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Good one Bilbo but don't give the phone number to my wife.

Dick:

Lovely creature. The tiger's nice, too.

It could have been titled Open Thread: Tigrises.

Comment by Bradford — May 23, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

Bradford Says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Computerist, who do you think will come out undefeated- Evans or Machida?

Comment by Bradford — May 23, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The girl is attractive, that is for sure……

Changing he topic: Does the future affect the past? I recall the double slit delayed-choice experiment. That has been used to argue that future observations affect the past.

I will be taking a class quantum mechanics next spring, and then sometime down the line if it is offered, quantum computing.

I worked for a firm that did research into applying Schorr's algorithm. I thought it was fascinating. Also I briefly worked with a research group involved in nano-technology, and the problems of future measurments affecting past computations seemed sufficiently important to research.
Care had to be taken to ensure double-slit delayed choice effects were minimized. I found this to be truly amazing. Quantum computers seem amazing too.

Barrow and Tipler and Wheeler have extended the idea of double-slit delayed choice and quantum computing for their notions of ID.

I have the book, Quantum Evolution, by Jon Jo McFadden, and I think his QM is way off. He tries to explain how biology of the past is affected by events in the future, but I don't think the time scales and macroscopic objects preclude his notions of QM being applied to evolution.

However, Barrow and Tipler argue that for the entire universe, if there is a Universal Wave Function, then in principle, events in the future are driving the destiny of the universe to a final teleological goal.

I will be taking a class in classical mechanics this Fall where least action principles will be explored. My understanding is that least action principles in physics were philosophically inspired by teleology.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

Bradford Says:
May 24th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
How to Turn a Robot Evil, In Nine Easy Steps

Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

Bradford Says:
May 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Hi Computerist. We both had Machida pegged right but then again we're IDists noted for our sound judgement. Looks like Brazil might have the middleweight and lightheavyweight titles sown up for awhile. Brazil has a good welterweight about to go up against St. Pierre too. The sport has grown tremendously but has yet to get the attention of the mainstream that it merits. That has a deja vu feel to it.

BTW, one of my favorite fighters- Chael Sonnen- fought last night. He was a fill in when the original intended fighter got injured. He got a call asking him to fill in on May 1st. At that time he weighed 221 pounds but slightly over three weeks later he made the 185 pound weight limit. Incredible. And he won the fight.

Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

Bradford Says:
May 24th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
During the campaign, a woman in her mid-twenties told me she would not vote for Gov. Sarah Palin because "Palin is so stupid she doesn't even know where Alaska is." I asked what she meant, and she explained that in a TV interview Palin had referred to Alaska as "up North," whereas everyone knows Alaska is "down there with Hawaii south of California." I surmised that her knowledge of geography is based on seeing textbooks depicting the U.S. map with an insert for Alaska and Hawaii placed in the lower left-hand corner, underneath California. When I gently explained where Alaska is, she dismissed it with, "Well, Palin's stupid anyway."

Too funny.

here

Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

olegt Says:
May 24th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Liberty University kicked out College Democrats. New York Times reports exploding irony meters all over the East Coast.

Comment by olegt — May 24, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 8:05 am
University of Connecticut hosts conference of dissident physicists and creationists:

http://blog.conference.worldnp...

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 26, 2009 @ 8:05 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
One of the more respected scientists who are part of the Natural Philosophy Alliance of dissident physicists and creationists is Santilli.

Santilli is from MIT and Harvard. His critique of Einsteinian Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be found here.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 26, 2009 @ 8:46 am

Bradford Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
It looks as if both Chysler and GM will now file for bankruptcy; something they should have done in 2008 as I said back then. Now after $20 billion plus was poured into the companies they still end up in bankruptcy proceedings and taxpayers are out the money. The wrong people are running this nation.

Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

Pez Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 12:32 am
re Chrysler:
The White House has bought in with taxpayer money and is calling the shots.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PA...

Comment by Pez — May 28, 2009 @ 12:32 am

Zachriel Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Bradford: It looks as if both Chysler and GM will now file for bankruptcy; something they should have done in 2008 as I said back then.

That would have accelerated the collapse of the economy. The delay allowed the industry to begin the process of restructuring. Most industrialized nations have much stronger social safety nets. The U.S. has had to improvise to survive the storm, but it does look like the situation is beginning to stabilize.

Pez: The White House has bought in with taxpayer money and is calling the shots. {Chrysler's 'hit list' targets GOP donors}

According to your own resource, 83% of the cancelled dealerships sold more used cars than new.

Comment by Zachriel — May 28, 2009 @ 8:04 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Group Selection may be dead!

http://www.nature.com/news/200...

Also, regarding GM and Chrysler, what should have gone bankrupt is the UAW. Labor Unions are screwing employees and businesses.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

olegt Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Hi Sal,

I came across a very nice book that you might find interesting. It is entitled The Age of Everything: How Science Explores the Past. The author is Matthew Hedman, a research associate at the Department of Astronomy at Cornell. The book has an accessible and detailed description of various dating methods spanning the time scales from a thousand years to the age of the Universe: tree rings, carbon, potassium-argon, molecular clocks, and so on. Highly recommended.

Comment by olegt — June 2, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Hi Olegt,

I just ordered it on your recommendation. I value your criticism of YEC ideas.

As I've said before, I don't think the evidential case for YEC is very strong, but I have been disturbed by various anomalies.

By the way, I'm off for the summer and will study Classical Mechanics this Fall. Maybe I'm lucky I don't have to study it in your class as I doubt that I'm as talented as your students at the Homewood campus. The version of classical mechanics that I'm taking is for physics students that were not undergrads in physics (my undergrad was in EE/CS/Math).

I hope to study Quantum Mechanics in the Spring and Statistical Thermodynamics in the Summer of 2010.

Many of my physics professors were hostile to ID, but that has never dimminished my respect for the discipline….

Thank you for recommending the book!

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
For a theme that will gain traction in the months and years ahead:

here.

The stimulus package a failure? An expensive mistake we can ill afford.

BTW, did anyone catch Hugo Chavez's remark? He and Fidel Castro better be careful or they will find themselves to the right of Obama. This has the makings of an American nightmare.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

Raevmo Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
It's getting a little quiet on TT lately, Bradford. Perhaps some readers and commenters are a little turned off by you turning TT into an outlet of your political frustrations. How about some more science/ID and less far-right political screeds?

Comment by Raevmo — June 4, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Raevmo, for years I watched left wing commenters use open threads to vent and largely ignored it or responded with polite comments. I know that some would rather not hear about criticism of the left. They seem to think that criticism is their exclusive preserve. It's not. As far as blogs about scientific concerns, you're right, there should be more. But in case you haven't noticed I'm not getting a lot of help. There is a blog on a book review centered on cosmology. I suppose that some science blogging gets little in the way of responses because unless there is an evident ID target there is little incentive to comment. In the past I've posted on original papers, linked to them and seen little or nothing in the way of responses.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Incidentally, Morris is not far right unless any critic of the status quo is deemed to fall into that category. He served under Clinton and his domestic policy values are centrist by any reasonable metric. The telling part of the piece was the encouraging news that personal debt is falling in America. But since the government cannot take credit for the actions by millions of individual Americans I suspect the word encouraging is not the descriptor of choice for some.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Bradford: The stimulus package a failure? An expensive mistake we can ill afford.

Geez. You just cited Dick Morris.

Morris: Household personal income (inflation adjusted) rose but every penny – and then some – went into savings or paying down debts.

That's the individual rational response in an economic crisis, and that individual rational response accelerates the downward spiral of the economy. That's why a coordinated stimulus is required.

Morris: Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and – ultimately – our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

The economic crisis occurred during the Bush Administration. As the well-to-do have drained the treasury, the lack of reserves has left the U.S. vulnerable.

Bradford: for years I watched left wing commenters use open threads to vent and largely ignored it or responded with polite comments.

There's your problem right there. For eight years, the Bush Administration has been screwing up and people have been complaining while you largely ignored it. Now that the Bush Administration is gone and the mess they left is plain for everyone to see, you start complaining about the guy with the mop.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Morris: Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and – ultimately – our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

Zachriel: The economic crisis occurred during the Bush Administration. As the well-to-do drained the treasury, the lack of reserves has left the U.S. vulnerable.

The economic problems we have now have been traced back many years and include the Clinton as well as the Bush admins. But as a good Democrat once said: "The buck stops here." It's time for Obama to heed that adage. If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree. But that's exactly what we have done. Spending more than one can afford is a sure sign that cash reserves are too low.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Zachriel:

Now that the Bush Administration is gone and the mess they left is plain for everyone to see, you start complaining about the guy with the mop.

That's not a mop in his hands. It's a flamethrower when what Obama needs is a hose to put out the fire of the economic recession. Governments don't get us out of recessions. Workers and entrepreneurs do that.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Bradford: The economic problems we have now have been traced back many years and include the Clinton as well as the Bush admins.

My Goodness, Bradford. The Bush Administration was in power for eight years and controlled Congress for most of that time. Most economists trace the trigger to the run on mortgage securities.

Bradford: But as a good Democrat once said: "The buck stops here." It's time for Obama to heed that adage.

That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article.

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Says Herbert Hoover.

Bradford: That's not a mop in his hands. It's a flamethrower

You yourself said you stood by while the Bush Adminstration drove the country and the world into the ground. Obama has only been in power since January, yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

Raevmo Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Bradford:

Raevmo, for years I watched left wing commenters use open threads to vent and largely ignored it or responded with polite comments. I know that some would rather not hear about criticism of the left. They seem to think that criticism is their exclusive preserve.

Although there are obvious political angles to the ID enterprise, I think commentary about politics unrelated to ID or science is out of place here.

As far as blogs about scientific concerns, you're right, there should be more. But in case you haven't noticed I'm not getting a lot of help. There is a blog on a book review centered on cosmology. I suppose that some science blogging gets little in the way of responses because unless there is an evident ID target there is little incentive to comment. In the past I've posted on original papers, linked to them and seen little or nothing in the way of responses.

It's nice but often not enough to just link to science stories, you also need to add more analysis and commentary in an ID context. You're right, you need to paint an ID bull's eye on your forehead to get the comments going.

Comment by Raevmo — June 4, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Zachriel,

My Goodness, Bradford. The Bush Administration was in power for eight years and controlled Congress for most of that time. Most economists trace the trigger to the run on mortgage securities.

Bradford said the CAUSE could be traced back through several administrations, not the TRIGGER. Nice try.

That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article.

The article does not cite Obama as the cause of the economic crisis. It says Obama's and George Bush's SOLUTION was and is a failure. Nice try again.

Obama has only been in power since January, yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis.

False. Nowhere in the article is Obama blamed for the crisis. Once again, nice try.

Why do you feel it is necessary to demonize those who you disagree with? Didn't you listen to Obama's Notre Dame speech?

I weep for the death of critical thinking.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
chunkdz: Nowhere in the article is Obama blamed for the crisis.

Morris: Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and – ultimately – our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

He directly blames Obama for undermining "our financial stability". Critical financial instability dates to the Bush Adminstration.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Zach: He directly blames Obama for undermining "our financial stability".

Yes, quadrupling the deficit can tend to do that. And If you read the article more closely, you'll see that Morris also described George Bush's stimulus as a failure too.

But you said:

…yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis.

and I am still waiting for you to tell us where Morris blamed Obama for the economic crisis.

If you'd like to simply say that you misspoke, I'd accept that as a fair answer.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
chunkdz: I am still waiting for you to tell us where Morris blamed Obama for the economic crisis.

According to Morris, Obama has undermined "our financial stability". Are you trying to say that the recent catatrophic financial instability is not at the heart of the recent economic crisis?

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Zach:

According to Morris, Obama has undermined "our financial stability". Are you trying to say that the recent catatrophic financial instability is not at the heart of the recent economic crisis?

Do you fail to see the difference between "undermining our financial stability" and "causing the economic crisis"? One is about bloated deficit spending, and the other is about 38 years of government mistakes.

Morris never said Obama "caused" the crisis. Critical thinking demands that you retract the following false statements:

1)…yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis.

2) That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Bradford: The economic problems we have now have been traced back many years and include the Clinton as well as the Bush admins.

Zachriel: My Goodness, Bradford. The Bush Administration was in power for eight years and controlled Congress for most of that time. Most economists trace the trigger to the run on mortgage securities.

And the run on mortgage securities was preceded by some very foolish policies promulgated under Democratic administrations.

Bradford: But as a good Democrat once said: "The buck stops here." It's time for Obama to heed that adage.

That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article.

The linked article makes the point that Obama's economic stimulus package is not stimulating the economy.

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Says Herbert Hoover.

Says sound fiscal policy. Spend within your limits or face the consequences of a need to borrow big time and either pay enormous long term interest fees on that money or monetize the deficits with inflation. Americans deserve better than that.

Bradford: That's not a mop in his hands. It's a flamethrower

You yourself said you stood by while the Bush Adminstration drove the country and the world into the ground. Obama has only been in power since January, yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis.

To the contrary Zach, I criticized Bush when I thought he was wrong. The evidence is right here at Telic Thoughts. You and those who agree with you, on the other hand, never find fault with anything the current president does. And if you do you keep silent about it.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Raevmo: Although there are obvious political angles to the ID enterprise, I think commentary about politics unrelated to ID or science is out of place here.

Please, spare us the hypocrisy. I recall quite a few remarks made by you about Palin, Bush and more during the pre-Obama era. That tiny library in Alaska was quite a bogus hoopla back in Sept. 2008. I have more books in my home than are in that village library but the spectre of censorship was pointed to as a danger since Palin questioned about but did not remove some books. It seems to me that censorship is indeed a danger but it comes from the left in the form of an inability to listen to any viewpoints conflicting with their own.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
chunkdz: Do you fail to see the difference between "undermining our financial stability" and "causing the economic crisis"?

Morris: Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and – ultimately – our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

Morris is clearly blaming Obama for undermining financial stability and the economy. But they were already undermined when he came to power. Morris is just shifting blame. I think the majority of people are fairly well tired of it.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Zachriel:

Morris is clearly blaming Obama for undermining financial stability and the economy. But they were already undermined when he came to power. Morris is just shifting blame.

Morris is saying that rather than fixing problems Obama is adding to them. Even when you inherit problems the idea is to fix those problems rather than attempt to fix the focus on Bush.

I think the majority of people are fairly well tired of it.

Most people will tire of glitz and charisma if it is not accompanied by prosperity.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Zachriel:

Morris is clearly blaming Obama for undermining financial stability and the economy.

Yes, Morris thinks that quadrupling the deficit undermines financial stability.

But they were already undermined when he came to power.

Yes, Morris points out that Bush's deficit spending was also a failure.

Morris is just shifting blame.

Nope, he said that quadrupling the deficit undermines financial stability.

He did NOT say that Obama was the cause of the financial crisis. You made this up.

I think the majority of people are fairly well tired of it.

What I'm tired of is you making up lies.

Morris never said Obama caused the crisis. Critical thinking, and common decency, demands that you retract the following false statements:

1) "…yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis."

2) "That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article."

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Bradford: And the run on mortgage securities was preceded by some very foolish policies promulgated under Democratic administrations.

The economy was entering new territory during the Clinton Administration. It would be hoped that the new captain at the helm would make reasonable course adjustments. Instead, ideologues gained control leading to a free-for-all and an empty treasury.

Bradford: The linked article makes the point that Obama's economic stimulus package is not stimulating the economy.

It actually makes the argument. During an economic crisis, people are afraid to spend money. That can deepen the crisis, so even less money flows. No one buys anything. Businesses shutter. Unemployment. Bankruptcies. Banks close. Stimulus replaces some of this spending to prevent the economy from going into free-fall. Stimulus is necessary on the macroeconomic scale because the natural reaction by individuals is to retreat from the collapsing markets.

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

Bradford: Says sound fiscal policy.

You didn't answer the argument, so I assume you are not aware of that aspect of U.S. history.

After the stock market crash of 1929, the U.S. economy went into a tailspin. This reduced tax receipts to the federal government, so the Hoover Administration cut back on expenditures. This reduced economic output, which led to a further decline in the economy, and more reductions in tax receipts. Banks and businesses were allowed to fail. The entire economy collapsed. When Roosevelt came to power in 1933, they instituted a New Deal, which included substantial intervention in the economy meant to prevent a repeat of such a calamity. Today, the mechanisms of recovery are much stronger, much of it a result of the New Deal.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

Bradford: Says sound fiscal policy.

Zachriel: You didn't answer the argument, so I assume you are not aware of that aspect of U.S. history.

After the stock market crash of 1929, the U.S. economy went into a tailspin. This reduced tax receipts to the federal government, so the Hoover Administration cut back on expenditures.

Nobody is taliking about cutbacks. But spending money like a drunken sailor is another matter. BTW, I'm well aware of that historic period. The depression persisted throughout the New Deal era and was not overcome until the Second World War.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Bradford: Morris is saying that rather than fixing problems Obama is adding to them.

Morris has said Obama is cynically spreading panic in order to increase the size of government.

Bradford: Even when you inherit problems the idea is to fix those problems rather than attempt to fix the focus on Bush.

Iraq, 911, WMD, Katrina, illegal wiretapping, torture, the financial crisis. You can't fix problems unless you understand their causes.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Bradford: The linked article makes the point that Obama's economic stimulus package is not stimulating the economy.

Zachriel: It actually makes the argument. During an economic crisis, people are afraid to spend money. That can deepen the crisis, so even less money flows. No one buys anything. Businesses shutter. Unemployment. Bankruptcies. Banks close. Stimulus replaces some of this spending to prevent the economy from going into free-fall. Stimulus is necessary on the macroeconomic scale because the natural reaction by individuals is to retreat from the collapsing markets.

One of the primary differences between natural sciences and social sciences is illustrated by the above response. Consumer spending is cut back during recessions so the government should spend more money. The problem with this theory is that our observations do not support the theory. The test of real life indicates that government spending does not eliminate recessions. But the seeds of the recovery are indicated by data supplied by Morris. Consumer debt is shrinking. That means that Americans will soon have more money to spend and the government will have nothing to do with a natural coming spending spree. Recessions are a part of economic cycles. They cannot be eliminated and those who claim otherwise are selling fiscal snake oil.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Bradford: The depression persisted throughout the New Deal era and was not overcome until the Second World War.

Consider the importance of FDIC. Imagine the panic if borrowers were wiped out when banks failed. The New Deal put millions to work. But unemployment remained a problem until the even greater expansion of government in WWII.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Bradford: The test of real life indicates that government spending does not eliminate recessions.

As the West industrialized, it experienced greater and greater boom and bust cycles. Until the total collapse of the Great Depression. Since then, there have been recessions, but they have been largely ameliorated by various government programs. FDIC, unemployment insurance, stimulus spending.

You never really responded:

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Zachriel:

Iraq, 911, WMD, Katrina, illegal wiretapping, torture, the financial crisis. You can't fix problems unless you understand their causes.

Let's have a look. Iraq is winding down thanks to General Petreaus and some fine American and Iraqui soldiers. WMDs were not found in Iraq but will soon be plentiful in North Korea. Another 911? Let's hope not but we'll see. Katrina? Those levees were defective long before Bush entered the political scene. Let's see how natural disasters are handled. We have a financial crisis now. Fix it. We'll see how civil liberties will fare under those pushing for the "Fairness Doctrine."

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
But unemployment remained a problem until the even greater expansion of government in WWII.

That expansion of government is called war and death. Is that the template you want? Wars and increased defense spending to counter the recession. The almost trillion dollars in stimulus spending is not working.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
As the West industrialized, it experienced greater and greater boom and bust cycles.

Where is the documentation for this claim?

Until the total collapse of the Great Depression. Since then, there have been recessions, but they have been largely ameliorated by various government programs. FDIC, unemployment insurance, stimulus spending.

Stimulus spending does not ameliorate recessions. That's dogma, not fact.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Zachriel: You never really responded:

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

No Zach. I said that. If you can quote Hoover saying that then do so and give us the link. You may not like my response but don't falsely claim I did not make one.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Bradford: Iraq is winding down thanks to General Petreaus and some fine American and Iraqui soldiers. WMDs were not found in Iraq but will soon be plentiful in North Korea.

That makes no sense at all. You justify the invasion of Iraq, the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis, torture, the breaking of America's solemn promises, because North Korea has nukes.

Bradford: Katrina? Those levees were defective long before Bush entered the political scene.

You still don't get it. It's because they put political hacks in charge of emergency relief organizations then acted like nothing was wrong when it all fell apart.

Bradford: We have a financila crisis now. Fix it.

Unfortunately, there is no easy fix. The system is broken, and the treasury is empty. All America can do is work their way out of the problem. But they can do it, I'm sure.

Bradford: We'll see how civil libertties will fare under those pushing for the "Fairness Doctrine."

Who's pushing for the Fairness Doctrine?

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

Bradford: No Zach. I said that. If you can quote Hoover saying that then do so and give us the link. You may not like my response but don't falsely claim I did not make one.

I thought you said you were aware of that aspect of history.

Britannica: Hoover adamantly opposed direct federal relief payments to individuals. He was also a firm believer in a balanced budget, unwilling to plunge the federal government into massive debt through a welfare program.

Hoover was trounced by Roosevelt. The lesson learned was that when there is a crisis, people pull their money out of the markets and stop spending. This deepens the crisis. Then when banks teeter, and people fear losing their savings, they pull their money out of the banks, causing the banks to fail, and drying up the very investment capital needed for economic recovery. Deepening the downward trend.

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your position and the failure of Hoover's feckless policy.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Zachriel: As the West industrialized, it experienced greater and greater boom and bust cycles.

You could take a look at this list of U.S. recessions. Before the Great Depression, recessions often lasted years. The Long Depression (beginning with the Panic of 1873) was actually called the Great Depression in its day, and was global in scope. Economies remained unstable for many years afterwards. Since the New Deal, recessions are typically measured in months and are much shallower than those that occurred previously.

Bradford: That expansion of government is called war and death. Is that the template you want? Wars and increased defense spending to counter the recession.

Roads and bridges work better. Health and green technology better still.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Bradford: Iraq is winding down thanks to General Petreaus and some fine American and Iraqui soldiers. WMDs were not found in Iraq but will soon be plentiful in North Korea.

Zachriel: That makes no sense at all. You justify the invasion of Iraq, the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis, torture, the breaking of America's solemn promises, because North Korea has nukes.

Saddam was resposible for the murder and torture of millions. If I could have a mulligan I would not have had the US invade but Iraq is much better off without Saddam at the healm. Integrity requires acknowledging the truth even if one takes an anti-war position. The point of North Korea having nukes and firing missiles at will is that this is taking place under Obama's watch. The world is not becoming a safer place.

The system is broken, and the treasury is empty.

You can't complain the treasury is empty and then spend trillions at an unprecedented rate.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 9:00 pm

Bradford Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Zach quoting Britannica: Hoover adamantly opposed direct federal relief payments to individuals. He was also a firm believer in a balanced budget, unwilling to plunge the federal government into massive debt through a welfare program.

You're citing an irrelevant analogy. We have a safety net in place. The contemporary spending, aimed at stimulating the economy, is not stimulating the economy. Conservatives are not saying the budget must be balanced but are saying that borrowing trillions is unwise.

Bradford: If the federal treasury is low the worse thing we can do now is embark on a spending spree.

Zachriel: Says Herbert Hoover.

Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your position and the failure of Hoover's feckless policy.

Very simple. I'm not advocating a strict budgetary balance. That however does not mean that removing all spending constraints makes sense.

Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 7:09 am
~~In the off chance that chunkdz is not trolling.~~ To set straight chunkdz's confusion. {Sorry. Having troubles with the Desnarkification™ Filter again.}

Zachriel: …yet you quote partisan hacks who blame him for the crisis.

Morris's position is that the recession is being manipulated, extended and deepened for cynical political motives by Obama saying he's "creating a depression." If that were true, then it reasonable to say that Obama is to blame for the crisis. Here are a few tidbits from Morris's blog:

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression.
…
He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery.
…
Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt.
…
It's Obama spreading panic.

Keep in mind that Obama has only been in office since January, having inherited a financial meltdown, but by February Morris is blaming him for causing a depression.

Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2009 @ 7:09 am

Bradford Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
You keep missing the point. Your partner pilfered the money…

You're missing the point. I don't have partners who pilfer money.

Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

Bradford Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Morris's position is that the recession is being manipulated, extended and deepened for cynical political motives by Obama saying he's "creating a depression."

That's a prediction that flows from his theory. It will be tested in the months and years ahead and either Morris will be vindicated or refuted by real world conditions. But he will not be refuted by spinmeisters.

Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Bradford Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
It's time to heap some accolades on Obama. His speech in Cairo was noteworthy for its obvious spiritual tone and references. He managed to quote from the "Holy Quran", the Bible and the Torah effectively in a way that Bush could never have done. Moreover he did so without causing rancor that comes from the usual places: political extremists and New Atheists hostile to Christianity. Obama may have generated a more hospitable atmosphere for inclusion of religiously sourced views within the broader ambit of public forums. Congratulations Mr. President.

Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Zachriel:

~~In the off chance that chunkdz is not trolling.~~ To set straight chunkdz's confusion. {Sorry. Having troubles with the Desnarkification™ Filter again.}

Hmm, hilarious.

I notice that everytime you get called on your BS you cry "Troll". Unfortunately, even if I were a troll you would still be full of crap.

Morris's position is that the recession is being manipulated, extended and deepened for cynical political motives by Obama saying he's "creating a depression." If that were true, then it reasonable to say that Obama is to blame for the crisis.

Huh? If Obama is deepening the crisis then it is reasonable to assume that he caused it too? Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

Here are a few tidbits from Morris's blog:

Lol! So failing to find a supporting quote from the article you decide to go fishing at dickmorris.com

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression.
…
He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery.
…
Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt.
…
It's Obama spreading panic.

…and still you can't seem to find Dick Morris accusing Obama of causing the economic crisis. In fact, the first quote clearly says that Obama inherited the crisis. D'oh!

Let's recall once again what Zachriel said:

"That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article."

Still as big a lie as when you first wrote it. Look, Zach, instead of cherrypicking quotes from Morris in hopes of finding a "gotcha", you could just read his bestseller, Fleeced, wherein he details many of the causes of the current crisis dating back to the Carter administration. Morris knows who caused the crisis. Everybody does. And it wasn't the Obama Administration. The Obama administration are simply the ones who "never let a serious crisis go to waste". Quadrupling the deficit proves that they weren't joking about that.

I'd suggest that you retract your false statements, but at this point backpedaling would just be too awkward for you. Maybe you should just drop it and go read "Fleeced".

Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
chunkdz: If Obama is deepening the crisis then it is reasonable to assume that he caused it too? Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

Yes, if he is *creating* it, then he is causing it. If he is creating a depression, then he is causing a crisis. It's nonsense, in any case.

Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
chunkdz: Morris knows who caused the crisis. Everybody does.

As 'everybody' knows it, then we can use Greenspan's opinion. He identified the problem. "Pressures on lenders to supply more 'paper' collapsed subprime underwriting standards from 2005 forward. Uncritical acceptance of credit ratings by purchasers of these toxic assets has led to huge losses. It was the failure to properly price such risky assets that precipitated the crisis"

Collapsed underwriting standards. Lack of transparency. A speculative bubble. Lack of accountability. A government that refused to adopt new regulations as the market evolved.

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

The result was a vast loss of equity and a huge transfer of wealth not based on merit or economic contribution.

Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Zachriel,

Yes, if he is *creating* it, then he is causing it.

True.

"That doesn't make the Obama Adminstration the cause of the debacle as suggested in your quoted article."

Which debacle? The one that began with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977? Or the debacle of quadrupling the deficit?

Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

Bradford Says:
June 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Yes, if he is *creating* it, then he is causing it.

What he is creating are massive expenditure overruns without a means to fund them now or in the forseeable future. In October (the start of the government's fiscal year) the federal government will need to find trillions it does not have to fund the budget. It will have a choice between three unattractive options. A massive increase in taxes. Borrowing the money. Or printing it. The second option requires raising interest rates and plunging the economy deeper into the recession. The third comes with double diget inflation which hurts the poor more than any other segment of society. There is no free lunch and time is not on the side of reckless spenders.

Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Bradford:

What he is creating are massive expenditure overruns without a means to fund them now or in the forseeable future.

That's what I always do when I'm massively in debt and my income dwindles. Break out the credit card and remodel the kitchen!

Comment by chunkdz — June 8, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

Bradford Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
chunkdz:

That's what I always do when I'm massively in debt and my income dwindles. Break out the credit card and remodel the kitchen!

You appear to be a good candidate for a cabinet post.

Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Bradford: It will have a choice between three unattractive options. #1 A massive increase in taxes. #2 Borrowing the money. #3 Or printing it. The second option requires raising interest rates and plunging the economy deeper into the recession. The third comes with double diget inflation which hurts the poor more than any other segment of society. There is no free lunch and time is not on the side of reckless spenders.

I understand your argument, but you keep ignoring mine. The money is already gone. The U.S. has lost more than $6 trillion value in personal real estate and another $3 trillion or so in commercial holdings. The result was a vast loss of equity and a huge transfer of wealth not based on merit or economic contribution. This great inequity and distortion of the marketplace has consequences. The other problem is that the $5 trillion in debt piled up during the last administration has hampered efforts to raise the necessary capital to keep the financial system afloat. But no matter what, the U.S. has little choice but to raise the money to try and salvage the system.

#2 and #3 Borrowing is required in the short run. Spending not only acts as a stimulus, but also allows investment in crucial infrastructure which will help with the long term recovery effort.
#1 Taxes are going to be required, but only after the system stabilizes.
#4 You forgot cutting back on spending as the economy recovers, which along with taxes will be required to put the budget back into balance.

Yes, inflation is probably the next significant threat to the U.S. economy. Your so-called patriots trashed the place. But just waving your platitudes doesn't make the missing trillions reappear. They're gone. They'll come back only with hard work and time.

Comment by Zachriel — June 9, 2009 @ 7:52 am

Bradford Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Zachriel: This great inequity and distortion of the marketplace has consequences. The other problem is that the $5 trillion in debt piled up during the last administration has hampered efforts to raise the necessary capital to keep the financial system afloat. But no matter what, the U.S. has little choice but to raise the money to try and salvage the system.

You can't decry debt piled up from the last administration while proceeding to vastly accelerate the debt accumulation process. Raising money is something that normally occurs in an economy. When money is raised to support promising business ventures we prosper. The money raised to support the government diverts capital to political projects, devised not by job creating entrpreneurs, but by politicians whose business acumen is lacking.

Spending not only acts as a stimulus, but also allows investment in crucial infrastructure which will help with the long term recovery effort.

Infrastructure spending is a tiny percentage of the stimulus bill.

#1 Taxes are going to be required, but only after the system stabilizes.
#4 You forgot cutting back on spending as the economy recovers, which along with taxes will be required to put the budget back into balance.

I did not forget. I simply note a lack of will to trim expenditures which were politically motivated in the first place.

Yes, inflation is probably the next significant threat to the U.S. economy. Your so-called patriots trashed the place.

Wall Street executives like Geithner are not patriots. In case you did not notice every administration, Republican or Democrat, is loaded with wealthy office holders whose influence secured their cabinet level positions. If you're concerned with trashing the place get Pelosi out of the House. She abuses the system and gets her tracks covered because of her ideological bent. Not very patriotic or ethical.

Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Bradford: I simply note a lack of will to trim expenditures which were politically motivated in the first place.

You ignored the argument again. Perhaps you should attempt a restatement of my position.

Comment by Zachriel — June 9, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Open Thread: Tigris

65 Responses to “Open Thread: Tigris”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books