Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

gvg

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    621

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by gvg

  2. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    Gvg said that Paul gives libertarians a bad name. I don't know what to make of this except that you might just be ignorant.

    First off, i didn't mean bad name as in he's a bad guy, i meant he isn't as libertarian as, say, you. I may very well be ignorant though, i just can't see a guy who wants closed borders & is anti-abortion can be 'true-blue libertarian' as I said. but believe me, I like him; he's definitely a decent guy, and not as 'politiciany'. i just don't think he has a chance in hell of winning, which you recognize. (Just to throw it in there, i personally like Huntsman, but that's just me).

    As for the lord of the rings thing, that is a reasonable way of looking at it, though i've only seen the movies so i can't say much =)

    But either way, don't they crown Aragorn as king or whatever?

    And to add another book, i just finished reading Anthem by Ayn Rand in English class. I acutally liked it, and i liked some of the ideas (reflecting on our discussion has in fact sent me moveing right on the economic scale (not much, but noticeable) and even more libertarian on the social scale than i already was, UtF. Just to let you know =)). Although liberty seems awfully submissive; is there any particular reason she put the major woman character in the book in such a stereotypical way? i mean, i know it was the way of the time, but I would think Rand would want more woman's right and what not. Just wondering if any of you can explain that to me.

  4. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    We actually did get a couple of videos recorded, some intro videos explaining what we're doing, but we haven't had a chance to put it on youtube or anything yet.

    Thanks for showing some interest though =) We'll try to get an actual debate recoreded, but you know, we do have to have everyone agree on a date, which is hard at the moment. But we'll keep trying =)

  7. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    if you are stating half the first stimulus was tax cuts and that it worked than what worked the tax cuts or the stimulus? again long term i see no gain if you claim half was tax cuts than how can you be sure the tax cuts were not the actual impetus for the (ahem) increase in jobs (they keep using jobs saved and never use jobs created because you can never actually give a definite number to jobs saved bit so they can claim any BS number they want and i use the BS in maximum sense here they are just jerking you around and you are buying it.

    First off, I'm pretty sure it did say jobs created for one (2.7 million i think), and besides, the biggest point of it was to prevent anything from getting worse. Which it did well. Now, what part of it worked i don't know. The economist i sourced doesn't say. But knowing what tax cuts like the Bush tax cuts did, well, i think it was the stimulus.

    And besides, a big part of why it didn't do as well (besides haveing to be reduced in order to be able to leave congress) was, well, I'm not entirely sure the money reached the right people. After all, who does the most spending of the three economic classes (meaning rich, middle, poor)? The middle class, no? Thus, for something like this to work, the money had to reach the middle class. Did it? Well, i doubt TARP did. The obama stimulus? i think more so.

    Read the report done by the economist that I linked. He explains why it worked.

    Roosevelt and the new deal was a failure

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/18-14

    http://open.salon.com/blog/caveat_canem_croceum/2009/02/17/the_new_deal_worked_deal_with_it_neanderthals

    http://unreasonable.org/node/2230

    it worked. how can you say it didn't? The one time things slowed down, in 1937, when he was worried about deificits, unemployment jumped up and GNP (or was it GDP? I dunno, one of those) fell down. it worked.

    the us didnt coem out of the recession untill WW2 and that was due to england and to a limited extent France spending their cash to buy us arms/armamments a situation that continued untill lend lease was created to continue to help england as it was obvious they couldnt contineu to pay for all they needed (they did continue to pay for a lot) so how did the new deal help? it didnt it was total abject failure only money that came from outside that didnt need to be paid back ended the problems in the us also please not e a recession happened at the end of the war as soon as the govt stopped spending money and started having to deal with the incurre ddebt (partially offselt by continued payments from england.

    First off, I understand that the war helped. but seriously, to assume that a war cured an economy.... no, all the war did besides help a little (a little) was get rid of America's competition since Europe and Japan were blown to bits (notice that now when they are finally back, things like the US auto industry are not doing as well. That's no coincidence). And uh, the economy was great after WW2 http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/post_war.htm

    as to canadian cuts they started in early 90's i think about 92-93 id have to look uop to be sure but it was one of those 2 years add a bit of time for the effects to happen (ie the actual savings from the cuts you get to 94-95 when things picked up,.

    Well if the effects began to be felt in 94-95, than according to the chart, you are right. For Canada. =)

  8. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    If they only spend 10 cents a day, a dollar isn't bad, but somehow I got the impression that $1 wasn't much for them. Just an impression so could be mistaken.

    And also, once again, realize that sweatshops to them are like if you got 10 promotions in a day and are suddenly in the top 1/3 of the population income wise. To see how it will eventually turn out, just look at 19th century America (those countries now) vs Modern America (their future). And it'll be even faster for them, since they have the support of an already industrialized world (for instance, it took 130 years for the US/britain, but only 30 years for places in Asia (like japan i think), which went through it afterwards)

  9. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted · Edited by gvg

    OK, from reading the articles, here is your answer:

    1. Of course it violates those laws. No one is doubting that. Few bathroom breaks, cramped conditions, etc. But the point of it is, that's what the US went through over 130 years, and what Asia went through over 30. It is the beginning of industrialization, and always leads to better conditons over time (bascially, the more work they do as they get more machines/experience, the more pay and benefits they get, which gets them to do more work, and so on). so in actuality, supporting sweat shops would lead to an end to sweatshops. And no, that isn't a paradox.

    2. You are viewing it from a western standpoint. but what's going on where they live? For instance, over cries of child labor, 50000 children were fired by a compnay. What happened to them? Well, most ended up as prostitutes. So yes, here in the west, we went through that, we built up the labor, etc. and we have a responsibility to make sure people do as well as possible. but there, sweatshops ARE as well as possible. And closing down sweatshops would get them less money, less opprotunity, less benefits (besides sweatshops, they have farming. not a big money maker there, and no benefits), etc. They don't have education, they don't have what we have. That's basically it. To get there, we went through this. Here we are. If we want the third world to join us, we have to support these things. i think the best thing to read of these articles is with the one with the interviewed guy. he did the data collecting. (Though i suggest reading all of them, as they have different viewpoints politically i think.)

    And yes, your view, like mine was, was altered by the media (always is). That's why i did some snooping. And in fact, they are the best thing for third world workers.

  10. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    Thalia: It points out in the article that half the population in those countries lives on less than a $ a day, and almost all less than 2. That's why it's the best job for them, since some clothing things pay them $3.10 (notice what I said before about 2$) and in bangladesh, some get free healthcare.

  11. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    short reply as i don't have time

    no the stimulus didn't work

    http://lyingeyes.blo...lus-worked.html

    http://economyincris...lus-create-jobs

    we can keep going back and forth all day on this but to make it easier historically speaking ie looking back many years with hindsight instead of the recent recession and you will find that stimulus has never had a long term positive effect only long term negative effect. so whether 2 million jobs were saved or not (notice they dont use created, makes ya wonder) doesn't matter if in the longer term the bad economy lasts longer and even more peopel are hurt by it.

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/94367/one-more-time-the-stimulus-worked This one says what many economists think: It wasn't big enough. And it was more than 50% tax cuts. That's not government spenidng technically, so, it wasn't actually 800+ million in spending, only half that. And the economy grew more than that according to your article.

    Another: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-31/opinion/bernstein.obama.recovery_1_job-growth-unemployment-rate-gdp-growth?_s=PM:OPINION And again: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_7e1ff8e8-9e83-11df-a30c-001cc4c002e0.html (This one points out that the recession ended a year ago when the stimulus's full effects were in bloom)

    TARP was the most controversial, and again, if we make sure that 'If your too big to fail, you're too big to exist' is what we work from, that won't be needed again.

    the Canadian link proves my point. think of the economy as a large ship nothing you do has an immediate effect(well almost nothing, natural disaster wars etc are pretty immediate) in the 90's we started to do something by 1995 Canadian jobs are growing very very nicely untill the recession hits, thank you very much for proving my poiint :)

    Well that's what I wanted to know, when did the cutting things happen? if it happened in the mid-90's well.... i guess you're right. point conceded for Canada.

    as to us politics ok maybe your guys are worse than the ones we have here, but ill still live in my fairytale land and pretend the politicians are working for what they believe is the good of the country and not just themselves (yeah im hopeless)

    Have you seen fox news or MSNBC? Have you seen the guys on there? Those are the SMART ONES.

    you like Keynesian economics? it has been shot down by pretty much every economists and financial expert since it was first tried AND FAILED! just like the current stimulus has failed.

    Again, it hasn't failed, and I'd like to see evidence for Keynesian economics's failure. And after all, look at the great Depression. Government spenidng and programs, and back we went. Things declined in 1937 after Roosevelt became worried about... wait for it... DEFICITS and pulled back. he realized his mistake, and along with WW2 (Trust me, I don't underestimate its effects), he helped us out of the depression (and he's one of my favorite presidents).

  12. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    unemplyment will not go away as long as the outlook for the govt debt is soo soo bad. What I can tell you is that in the 90's we here were in the same basic situation as you guys are now. The govt did cut jobs, froze wages downloaded services to the provinces basically they did everything they could to get their house in order (financially speaking). now we are weathering the economic crisis better than any other developed country. We did some stimulus type stuff. the govt didnt actually want to. They were in a minority and were forced to, which led top the rather hilarious situation of the opposition parties screaming that the govt was spending to much and creating a deficit after they forced them to do so. Now we have a majority govt and they are working to get rid of the deficit again and have completely rejected the possibility of any further stimulus, only 1 of the 3 opposition parties thinks it should be done so they almost have unanimity on this one here.

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2009/06/comparing-employment-growth-in-canada-and-the-us-over-the-longer-term.html When did the cutting come?

    basically the problem is the 2 are interconnected you cant fix they unemployment problem with such an overwhelming debt problem. a stimulus will not help, just like every other stimulus it will create either unproductive govt office jobs that are jsut a drain on the economy or infrastructure projects that result in employment of those building as soon as the project is done which usually coincides with the need for more $ by the govt to pay the debts caused by the projects thus making the situation even worse. I am sorry stimulus has just never ever ever ever worked as a way of getting the economy going.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/09/01/evidence_shows_the_stimulus_worked_262702.html First off, the stimulus worked. (I'll get more links if you want). It made public and private jobs (and actually, Obama has fired about 2 million public workers) and prevented anything worse from happening, even though it was about (or exceeded) 50% tax cuts. So, it worked, and did what it said it would. And anytime jobs are created,I'm pretty sure that helps.

    Second, government jobs are not a drain on the economy; after all, it's better than no job at all, and it lends them spend money which increases demand. Cycle broken somewhat (of course, things need to be done to incrase private jobs, like the things I said above)

    And I look at it as: We need to increase employment, than when times are better, go ahead and raise taxes and cut more stuff. Start laying the foundation for cutting and saving and taxing now, complete it later when unemployment is down and the economy is better. Not do austerity measures now. Did you see the hell in Greece? We aren't at a point where we need to do that yet.

    and just looking quickly at your response to Dawh, i just have two quick comments:

    1. In my good old US of A, politicians are to political knowledge as Michael phelps is to political knowledge. you have the Neo-cons who want an American Empire (I know some people say we are technically one now, but they want to expand it), you have the theocrats who want a Christian theocracy in place, you have the rest of the republicans who are just a-holes, you have blue dog democrats which are republicans in disguise (they always vote with them), you have the democrats who have no spines and simply do what the biggest unions want (like the repubs do what the corporations want), and then there is an independent, a democratic socialist, who i like but will never be able to make his voice heard and i'm afraid will actually abolish the free market ( him being a socialist and all), which wouldn't help.

    American politics in a nut-shell. i know of no one who isn't in it for the reelections (maybe a few, but as of right now they're a minority). now, i may be overreacting a little, but you are definitely wrong about American politicians.

    2. I like Keynesian what-not. i looked into a little. it is true that we have done the important part (ie reduce the debt/deficit in times of good). we should start now. Lay the foundation for reduction now, work harder on it when things turn around.

    Agree 100%\

  13. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    So i was watching a show on youtube, Penn and Teller's 'bullsh*t.' this particular episode was about walmart. In that show, Penn brought up that many people don't like Walmart cause of sweathshops (he had brought up other reasons in the show as well). then, he went ahead and defended sweatshops, using a bunch of statistics and such. i was shocked; i had actually never seen anyone do that before. i immediately headed to Google to see what he was talking about. I found:

    http://www.cracked.com/funny-5759-sweatshops/

    http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/sweatshops-child-labor.php

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html (This guy was interviewed in the show)

    http://library.thinkquest.org/17749/gather/cgi-bin/rnix.html

    http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1517

    And all the others: http://www.google.com/search?q=do+sweatshops+help+thrid+world+nations%3F%5C&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADRA_en

    I couldn't believe it. Penn seemed to be right. And he had facts. A political view supported by facts is shocking in itself, but when the facts are so conclusive and well known... Well, i took the plunge. I really don't think sweatshops are that bad anymore. i can't believe i'm saying that, but facts are facts.

    What does everyone else think?

    (Note: if you only read one or two sites, don't make any of them the first one, as it is a comedy website. i just inlcuded it cause it was on the google search page.)

  14. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    Alright, to conclude:

    Basically, I think we should focus more on Jobs than the debt. wait until we get rid of this high unemployment problem, which would therefore give us more taxpayers and help the debt cause. How to get people to hire is another question. like i said above, we need to get rid of overregulations on small businesses (I'm sure people could come up with a few, like this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118030935929752.html 'The theory and practice' of shampooing? Give me a break). For instance, maybe a 2% tax cut from the 28% I said before for every, I dunno, couple of hundred thouseand you hire? Something like that? I dunno. But we have to encourage. A second stimulus would help, but government alone can't do it.

    But austerity measures wouldn't help at all. i think Dawh explains it right. The cycle must be broken in some way, and really, i can only see a public solution.

  15. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    Sorry been away on vacation, ran a triathlon and didn't come in last (near the bottom but not last :) )

    First off, welcome back. Where'd you go?

    Umm gvg you think the solution to what is basically a debt problem is actually to create more debt?

    Second, this was referring to creating jobs, not to fixing the debt.

    ref the article: I still think ya got too much tax too little cuts and I agree there is a lot of things missing. I had a colleague at work try it, he came out a bit more taxes than me but less than you. Seems everyone will have a different solution. I think that is actually part of the problem. I believe (or would at least like to believe) that all (most) politicians have same goal in mind (no not just get elected) but to create a better world. Problem is when you think you have the correct solution and that the other guys ideas will lead to ruin, it is kinda hard to compromise, if you think that compromise will lead to ultimate disaster for the county. I agree. Still something has to be done, on the bright side you Americans are finally starting to realize the deficit/debt is a problem. Oh no... you misunderstand. The tea party decided to be a lady about the debt. before that, no one cared because they were told it didn't matter (cue Dick Cheney) It happened to us in the 90's when we got downgraded from AAA. As dawh pointed out, we weren't downgraded due to the debt. That shift in public awareness/opinion on the matter finally gave the politicians the gonads to actually start to do something about it. Now we are in better shape than any of the other G8 countries due to that realization and action on the issues.

    I will begin what will probably be a rant by saying that i've decided that the debt does matter, but we have bigger issues now. Specifically, unemployment.

    We should definitely begin to take steps to reduce the debt. Cut military spenidng, raise the SS and Medicare age to 68 for those below 50 (or whatever)... yes, those we should do.

    but there's a reason that I chose more taxes than cuts: As Dawh said, austerity measure would cripple us. We can't move to fast and we can't slice too much. What we need to do is to get more people working. I care more about that. I'm going to quote Dawh here:

    The debt is a long-term problem, no question, but with certain simple, marginal changes in direction, most of the problems go away. If all of the Bush tax cuts expire, most of the deficit problems reduce down to manageable levels. Even if only the cuts on the top 2% of wage earners is allowed to expire, most of the fiscal problems the country is facing will be manageable.

    Debt is not the "Be all and the End all" of our fiscal soundness. If you have a mortgage on your house, then you are in debt, probably deeply in debt (several years' salary-worth). Even so, your credit-rating isn't in the dirt with that monumental debt hanging over your head because you can continue to pay it off over the long-term. And while analogies between government and household economics are of limited use, the government's situation isn't really much different. So long as the promise to pay off the debt remains and regular payments are made, it's possible to rack up a large debt while maintaining a strong credit-rating.

    and dawh's right.

    in my view, the debt is something we have to work on when we are NOT on the borderline of another recession with unemployment as high as it is. i know this may not be what i implied above, but the tea party was right to lady about the debt. What they didn't do right was the timing, and the method (and of course, they have a political thing going behind it, as Dawh pointed out, but that's a seperate issue). We need to put people to work, THEN focus on the deficit/debt. we currently have 47% of Americans who dont pay income tax. Why? They're either unemployed or too poor. We need to change this, not with the flat tax or other similar proposals, but with pushing people OUT of this set.

    That's why I can't agree to cutting government jobs. They may be funded by tax payer dollars, but they're jobs, and they give people money to pour back into the economy (thus indirectly funding the economy... with government. Who knew? =)) Of course, we can't fix it with only public jobs... obviously that wouldn't work. o, we have to take a few hits and possibly do some things that may or may not negate and of the changes i mentioned above to reduce the debt (of course, tax raises would help get rid of this problem... but that won't happen anytime soon, i assure you). the things i'm talking about include possibly a second stimulus and the like. but they also include common sense things.

    For instance, lowering the Corporate tax rate (and closing loopholes). Common sense, in my view. i'm not going to go reduce it to like 10%, but I could see how lowering it (instead of just closing loopholes and keeping the rate as is) would help lure corporations back. And add tax money.

    Also, there are overregulations that have to be dealt with. For instance, in some cases it's very hard to get a small business. For instance, to get a taxi company going, you need a medallion ( i think that's what it's called) that costs something like 800k to 1 million dollars. WTF? Why? you are already getting a business license.. why the hell is that needed? it just reduces the number of people who try to make a business. Even if it's just you, you need to pay that. Anyone could see that it's an unnecessary burden.

    I would continue, but i have to go eat dinner. i'll have to finish later.

  21. Music Mania

    in Games

    Posted

    I suppose i can go then?

    Now in the

    White flames of burning flags we

    found a world worth dying for, yeah

    We've been battered so hard that we don't

    feel anymore

    Take me

    From this world

    Save me

    What if we

    All die young?

    So take me

    From this world

    Save me

    What if we

    All die young?

    Dunno how many of you will get this....

  24. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    Dawh: Yeah, you're probably right. Ah well.

    Oh, and what do you all think of the roller-coaster ride known as the stock market this month?

    Quag: I'm sorry that I haven't answered your stuff, but with vacation and school work (only two weeks of summer vacation left =() I haven't really done much. I dunno when i'll get to it.

×
×
  • Create New...