On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote: [quote]
Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around.
That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves.
That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions.
Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising.
I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used.
How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems?
On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:
On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 15 2012 12:37 Voltaire wrote: [quote]
Bernanke is destroying the economy by continuing to do this crap. Making credit "freely available" as you put it causes huge inflation. That's why prices for most goods are so high during a down economy. Normally prices go up when the economy is good, not the other way around.
That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves.
That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions.
Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising.
lol 1% is huge?
Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation.
1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range.
Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth.
You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge.
I sincerely don't think you understand inflation. Inflation is in itself a rise in prices. If the inflation rate is at 2% for a year, it doesn't mean that "inflation [is] 2% higher than the year before". It means prices (i.e. the CPI) are 2% higher than the year before.
You're right, which means prices are increasing exponentially. paralleluniverse understood my point if you look back several pages.
Oh I understood what you meant (and, as paralleluniverse explained, calling a rate of inflation of 1% "huge" is silly), but your use of the term "inflation" was wrong, which is what I was pointing out.
Whether or not it's huge is a matter of opinion. I think it's big enough to criticize the fed's actions.
On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote: Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so?
Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens.
Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time.
What? I thought I was disagreeing with you. Instead I'm trying to upvote your post even though this isn't reddit. I must have missed the context in what you were saying.
Defacer is our honorary liberal American. I'm thinking of proposing to him to make him officially one of us.
I didn't think that comprehensive interventionism (which is essentially what he's saying) was a particularly liberal stance. I guess as long as it's nonmilitary interventionism? I don't know. I've never figured out what's 'liberal' foreign policy. Still, I find people on both sides to be pretty all over the place on foreign policy. I mean the Libertarians and Ron Paul are more on the callously isolationist side, for instance. But the neocons are hawks.
I think my perspective on foreign policy and intervention has evolved over the past four years. It's not a coincidence, and partially a result of Obama's remarkably pragmatic approach.
I never bought into the idealism of Libertarianism or Neoconservatives -- isolationism versus aggressively imposed 'democracy'. The former pretends that somehow, by ignoring threats to national security and global human rights (and by extension, global stability) that somehow the threats will magically disappear on it's own. It's intellectually naive and morally bankrupt. The latter ignores that true democracy is only possible when supported by a strong infrastructure, social welfare, access to food and water and education and opportunity, and effective governance. Democratic and free societies take decades to develop.
It's analogous to the extreme positions of the Gun Control debate. Banning guns doesn't erase the hundreds of millions of firearms already in the market. But assuming that somehow all citizens can handle the responsibility of arming and defending themselves is equally naive.
American foreign policy, in particular, isa domain of ever-changing and dynamic variables, responsibilities and allegiances, over which America has immense power and influence. I think approaching it with any kind of partisan ideology is a recipe for failure.
When it comes to foreign policy, all I think Americans should ask or hope for is a President and administration that isn't stupid or impaired by dogmatism. And for all the criticism Obama receives for being too idealistic on domestic issues, his approach to foreign policy seems to be the product of consistent, systemic cost-benefit analysis.
Overthrow Qaddafi? Well, there is a successful rebel force, and a committent from UN allies to stay and clean up the mess on the ground. All they need is air support, which is a low risk operation for the vastly superior American air force.
Overthrow Assad? Well, the rebel forces haven't been able to hold a city for longer than a day. The country is densely populated, urbanized, and civilian casualties are inevitable. Nothing short of declaring a full-on ground war will save them -- maybe. Let's unify our allies and impose sanctions.
So, I don't know if my position is Liberal or Conservative. But personally, I think foreign policy should be dictated by reason -- extend and support human rights and democracy however possible. Intervene when it makes sense, and when it doesn't, don't.
On September 16 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote: Obama has openly said that he does not consider Egypt an enemy or ally at this point (until they show how they react to this). That's pretty harsh diplomacy. But I guess these crazy hawks are never satisfied unless there's people dying. Psychopaths.
Defacer, America is the lone superpower. We have the chance to change the world for the better. Should we not try and do so?
Another thing, I rewatched Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in light of the Michael Lewis article, and he made an excellent point. When any free democracy turns a blind eye to oppression in other countries, and the UN doesn't make an effort to punish those countries through sanctions or other means, it makes them complicit. War should always be a last resort, but it wouldn't occur as often if other nations stepped up to the plate and put pressure on these nation's governments to protect the safety, welfare and rights of their citizens.
Basically, I agree that America has the capacity to improve the freedoms and rights of citizens globally. But they shouldn't be doing alone. Other countries can and should be taking responsibility instead of sticking it to America. Every. Single. Time.
What? I thought I was disagreeing with you. Instead I'm trying to upvote your post even though this isn't reddit. I must have missed the context in what you were saying.
Defacer is our honorary liberal American. I'm thinking of proposing to him to make him officially one of us.
I didn't think that comprehensive interventionism (which is essentially what he's saying) was a particularly liberal stance. I guess as long as it's nonmilitary interventionism? I don't know. I've never figured out what's 'liberal' foreign policy. Still, I find people on both sides to be pretty all over the place on foreign policy. I mean the Libertarians and Ron Paul are more on the callously isolationist side, for instance. But the neocons are hawks.
Overthrow Qaddafi? Well, there is a successful rebel force, and a committent from UN allies to stay and clean up the mess on the ground. All they need is air support, which is a low risk operation for the vastly superior American air force.
Overthrow Assad? Well, the rebel forces haven't been able to hold a city for longer than a day. The country is densely populated, urbanized, and civilian casualties are inevitable. Nothing short of declaring a full-on ground war will save them -- maybe. Let's unify our allies and impose sanctions.
Mild point but - part of the reason why the rebel forces remain outmatched is because countries and forces like Al Qaeda and Iran are sending weapons and forces into Syria to assist the government forces, while the foreign opposition have their hands tied because of Russia and China.
We can't really discount the rebels of Syria because they have more problems than the Libyan rebels - and part of that problem comes from our inability to convince the Chinese and Russians. On the other hand, perhaps we cannot convince them in this matter - and that's just a terrible side effect of superpowers.
On September 16 2012 10:52 Pusekatten wrote: Is it true that Romney thinks the middle class in America is 200k-250k income a year per person?
He made the statement in an interview - but his campaign submitted a different answer afterwards, I believe.
On September 16 2012 10:52 Pusekatten wrote: Is it true that Romney thinks the middle class in America is 200k-250k income a year per person?
Not exactly, he said that "middle income" he considers to be $200k - 250k and under. And that would have been for a household, not necessarily one person.
On September 16 2012 10:52 Pusekatten wrote: Is it true that Romney thinks the middle class in America is 200k-250k income a year per person?
Not exactly, he said that "middle income" he considers to be $200k - 250k and under.
Ah - just checked, this is correct.
I mildy disagree with middle income's top end being 200-250k, but I believe his campagin's issued statement afterwards was that Romney was referring to household income and not individual income. In that case, it's more reasonable.
On September 16 2012 10:54 JinDesu wrote: Mild point but - part of the reason why the rebel forces remain outmatched is because countries and forces like Al Qaeda and Iran are sending weapons and forces into Syria to assist the government forces, while the foreign opposition have their hands tied because of Russia and China.
We can't really discount the rebels of Syria because they have more problems than the Libyan rebels - and part of that problem comes from our inability to convince the Chinese and Russians. On the other hand, perhaps we cannot convince them in this matter - and that's just a terrible side effect of superpowers.
There is an error in this post, Al Qaeda has come out in support of the overthrow of Assad in Syria and has been actively participating in the fighting there against him. There have been stories of them helping rebels attack military bases as well as statements by the group against Assad, where they criticize the USA for not helping the rebels/supporting Assad.
On September 16 2012 10:54 JinDesu wrote: Mild point but - part of the reason why the rebel forces remain outmatched is because countries and forces like Al Qaeda and Iran are sending weapons and forces into Syria to assist the government forces, while the foreign opposition have their hands tied because of Russia and China.
We can't really discount the rebels of Syria because they have more problems than the Libyan rebels - and part of that problem comes from our inability to convince the Chinese and Russians. On the other hand, perhaps we cannot convince them in this matter - and that's just a terrible side effect of superpowers.
There is an error in this post, Al Qaeda has come out in support of the overthrow of Assad in Syria and has been actively participating in the fighting there against him. There have been stories of them helping rebels attack military bases as well as statements by the group against Assad, where they criticize the USA for not helping the rebels/supporting Assad.
DUBAI (Reuters) – Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, in a video recording posted on the Internet on Sunday, urged Syrians not to rely on the West or Arab governments in their uprising to topple President Bashar al-Assad. In the eight-minute video, entitled “Onwards, Lions of Syria” and posted on an Islamist website, the Egyptian-born Zawahri also urged Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to come to the aid of Syrian rebels confronting Assad’s forces. “Wounded Syria still bleeds day after day, while the butcher, son of the butcher Bashar bin Hafiz (Hafez al-Assad), is not deterred to stop,” Zawahri, wearing his white turban and seated against a green curtain, said. “But the resistance of our people in Syria despite all the pain, sacrifice and bloodshed escalates and grows,” he added. Zawahri took command of al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces in a raid in Pakistan last May. A Muslim should help “his brothers in Syria with all that he can, with his life, money, opinion, as well as information,” Zawahri says.
On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote]
That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves.
That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions.
Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising.
I don't think you even know what inflation is or does in a modern understanding of economics. You're just yelling at numbers and lines and shouting nonsense. You might as well be linking pictures of giant red boxes and complaining about the shade of red being used.
How about you respond with an argument instead of resorting to ad hominems?
On September 15 2012 15:06 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:41 Voltaire wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:34 kwizach wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:23 Voltaire wrote:
On September 15 2012 13:09 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote]
That's actually a chart of the derivative (rate of change) of prices, not the actual prices themselves.
That's how you measure inflation, by definition. Inflation is low and has been for quite some time, which is the opposite of what Austrian school economists predicted following the Fed's actions.
Look at the blue line specifically. Food and energy prices are impacted a lot more by global events (droughts, wars, etc.) so the red line should be disregarded as a way of seeing what the fed has done. Every year the rate of change in prices has increased at least 1%. That's huge. That means it's ADDING another 1%+ to inflation every single year. Some year's it's even close to 3%. You can't deny that that chart actually shows how the prices of things have been drastically rising.
lol 1% is huge?
Yes, food and fuel is impacted by global events that are outside of the control of the Fed, so they are generally not caused by loose Fed policy and do not reflect economic fundamentals, that's one reason why they are usually stripped out of CPI. But the graph includes both CPI with food and fuel and without food and fuel, so that you can see that these are temporary fluctuations and that removing food and fuel accurately tracks core, underlying inflation.
1% inflation is too low. The Fed targets 2% inflation. This is a symmetric target, i.e, the Fed will use approximately as much effort to bring 1% inflation up to 2% inflation than it does to bring 3% inflation down to 2% inflation. The Australian central bank targets inflation in a 2%-3% range.
Price stability does not mean 0% inflation. 0% inflation is bad, because it does not offer a buffer against deflation, it means that the Fed will more easily hit the ZLB in the case of a severe economic shock (like now) and it encourages hording money instead of investing money to promote economic growth.
You misunderstand what that graph is showing. It's showing the rate of change from year to year. That means when it's at 2%, inflation was 2% higher than the year before. That doesn't mean inflation is 2% overall (when you're comparing to a dollar value in say 1950); it's even higher than that. So for the rate of inflation to increase by 1% every year is huge.
I sincerely don't think you understand inflation. Inflation is in itself a rise in prices. If the inflation rate is at 2% for a year, it doesn't mean that "inflation [is] 2% higher than the year before". It means prices (i.e. the CPI) are 2% higher than the year before.
You're right, which means prices are increasing exponentially. paralleluniverse understood my point if you look back several pages.
Oh I understood what you meant (and, as paralleluniverse explained, calling a rate of inflation of 1% "huge" is silly), but your use of the term "inflation" was wrong, which is what I was pointing out.
Whether or not it's huge is a matter of opinion. I think it's big enough to criticize the fed's actions.
It's historically, economically and comparatively to other countries not huge.
On September 16 2012 10:54 JinDesu wrote: Mild point but - part of the reason why the rebel forces remain outmatched is because countries and forces like Al Qaeda and Iran are sending weapons and forces into Syria to assist the government forces, while the foreign opposition have their hands tied because of Russia and China.
We can't really discount the rebels of Syria because they have more problems than the Libyan rebels - and part of that problem comes from our inability to convince the Chinese and Russians. On the other hand, perhaps we cannot convince them in this matter - and that's just a terrible side effect of superpowers.
There is an error in this post, Al Qaeda has come out in support of the overthrow of Assad in Syria and has been actively participating in the fighting there against him. There have been stories of them helping rebels attack military bases as well as statements by the group against Assad, where they criticize the USA for not helping the rebels/supporting Assad.
DUBAI (Reuters) – Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, in a video recording posted on the Internet on Sunday, urged Syrians not to rely on the West or Arab governments in their uprising to topple President Bashar al-Assad. In the eight-minute video, entitled “Onwards, Lions of Syria” and posted on an Islamist website, the Egyptian-born Zawahri also urged Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to come to the aid of Syrian rebels confronting Assad’s forces. “Wounded Syria still bleeds day after day, while the butcher, son of the butcher Bashar bin Hafiz (Hafez al-Assad), is not deterred to stop,” Zawahri, wearing his white turban and seated against a green curtain, said. “But the resistance of our people in Syria despite all the pain, sacrifice and bloodshed escalates and grows,” he added. Zawahri took command of al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces in a raid in Pakistan last May. A Muslim should help “his brothers in Syria with all that he can, with his life, money, opinion, as well as information,” Zawahri says.
Ah thank you for the correction - I most likely misread the articles as to whom the Al Queda forces were assisting.
I'm sorry, what exactly was his point in telling this story??? I'm so confused... isn't this exactly the kind of thing he wants from the free market? China's not really communist anymore or anything.
I'm sorry, what exactly was his point in telling this story??? I'm so confused... isn't this exactly the kind of thing he wants from the free market? China's not really communist anymore or anything.
This is funny because it shows Mitt Romney being a hypocrit. The point is not about China.
That video is an ad from Mitt Romney which mocks Obama for saying that if you have a business, "you didn't build that". The idea is that people want to feel solely responsible for their accomplishments in America, but even Mitt Romney knows, as showed by that leaked video, that just being in America is actually incredibly helpful to someone's success. The ad doesn't show this, but Obama then says "we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
It happens at 2:00. People don't like it, because it's hard to hear. They probably stopped listening after "you didn't build that" and didn't bother to listen to what he actually wanted to say.
Hence the 95% by Romney. 5% initiative, 95% public framework for you to succeed.
There's still something amusing in the fact that people like to believe that their successes are entirely due to themselves and their failings are because of the government when in reality they're given an extensive publicly funded infrastructure which allows people to be wealthy and buy each other's products.
It's official, Romney hate's freedom. Not even hyperbole mr. thread note.
“They want to put me in jail, basically.”
That’s how porn director John Stagliano responds when I ask him what he thinks of the 2012 GOP platform, in particular one newly added sentence:
“Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.”
Two years ago, Stagliano was sitting in a Washington, D.C., courtroom, charged with seven counts of distributing obscenity.
Today, he’s a free man, after federal court judge Richard J. Leon “dismissed with prejudice” several of the counts and for the remaining counts “granted the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29.”
But an anti-porn crusader says Mitt Romney has vowed if he’s elected president, he’ll ramp up obscenity prosecutions, a task President Obama has shown little interest in pursuing.
According to Patrick Trueman, who ran the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush and who now runs Morality in Media, an anti-porn organization, Romney intends to launch a war on porn.
In a meeting with Alex Wong, Romney’s foreign and legal policy director, Trueman says Wong told him, “Romney is sincere about this. He’s convinced this has now had a terrible effect on society, and he will enforce the law.”
And that means pornographers like Stagliano could become targets once again.
“I don’t really want to go to jail,” Stagliano says. “I’ve got a two-year-old son. And I have a daughter, as well. I don’t think she’d like that either.”
In 2007, Romney swore that if he were elected president, he would put a porn filter on every computer.
Big Brother wants to put a web filter on your computer so you can't go onto dirty sites.
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is.
On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote: Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is.
He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America.
This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument.
That’s how porn director John Stagliano responds when I ask him what he thinks of the 2012 GOP platform, in particular one newly added sentence:
“Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.”
Two years ago, Stagliano was sitting in a Washington, D.C., courtroom, charged with seven counts of distributing obscenity.
Today, he’s a free man, after federal court judge Richard J. Leon “dismissed with prejudice” several of the counts and for the remaining counts “granted the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29.”
But an anti-porn crusader says Mitt Romney has vowed if he’s elected president, he’ll ramp up obscenity prosecutions, a task President Obama has shown little interest in pursuing.
According to Patrick Trueman, who ran the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush and who now runs Morality in Media, an anti-porn organization, Romney intends to launch a war on porn.
In a meeting with Alex Wong, Romney’s foreign and legal policy director, Trueman says Wong told him, “Romney is sincere about this. He’s convinced this has now had a terrible effect on society, and he will enforce the law.”
And that means pornographers like Stagliano could become targets once again.
“I don’t really want to go to jail,” Stagliano says. “I’ve got a two-year-old son. And I have a daughter, as well. I don’t think she’d like that either.”
In 2007, Romney swore that if he were elected president, he would put a porn filter on every computer.
Big Brother wants to put a web filter on your computer so you can't go onto dirty sites.
Well I guess the election is over then.
Betting against porn is an instant loss (Betamax-VHS) x-D
It's official, Romney hate's freedom. Not even hyperbole mr. thread note.
“They want to put me in jail, basically.”
That’s how porn director John Stagliano responds when I ask him what he thinks of the 2012 GOP platform, in particular one newly added sentence:
“Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.”
Two years ago, Stagliano was sitting in a Washington, D.C., courtroom, charged with seven counts of distributing obscenity.
Today, he’s a free man, after federal court judge Richard J. Leon “dismissed with prejudice” several of the counts and for the remaining counts “granted the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29.”
But an anti-porn crusader says Mitt Romney has vowed if he’s elected president, he’ll ramp up obscenity prosecutions, a task President Obama has shown little interest in pursuing.
According to Patrick Trueman, who ran the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush and who now runs Morality in Media, an anti-porn organization, Romney intends to launch a war on porn.
In a meeting with Alex Wong, Romney’s foreign and legal policy director, Trueman says Wong told him, “Romney is sincere about this. He’s convinced this has now had a terrible effect on society, and he will enforce the law.”
And that means pornographers like Stagliano could become targets once again.
“I don’t really want to go to jail,” Stagliano says. “I’ve got a two-year-old son. And I have a daughter, as well. I don’t think she’d like that either.”
In 2007, Romney swore that if he were elected president, he would put a porn filter on every computer.
Big Brother wants to put a web filter on your computer so you can't go onto dirty sites.
Well I guess the election is over then.
Betting against porn is an instant loss (Betamax-VHS) x-D
It's not even him being against porn.
It's him saying he wants to put a filter on our computers to stop us from looking at stuff he deems immoral.
On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:
On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:
No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong,
I see what you've done now.
You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%.
Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity.
Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error.
By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change.
Of course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment.
The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits)
If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers.
It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that.
On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote: Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is.
He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America.
This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument.
No and no.
95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale.
'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that.
EPT![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=aHJ)
