SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13461
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 12:44 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYou might want to read the Constitution some time to understand the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches.Here is a moderately intelligent guy reduced to pretending he doesn't understand English, for what? For his hatred of Jesus? For his love of abortion? As a result of some reflex that was programmed into him over and over like some sick shit from Huxley's "Brave New World?"You're right, it wasn't Obama's healthcare scheme, he didn't pass it. Now that you have won that argument, maybe you can explain how the sun is blue, or what you gain by voting for Obama to destroy the country where you live and work.
 
User avatar
CrashedMint
Topic Author
Posts: 2591
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 9:12 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 12:51 pm

Quote... for what? For his hatred of Jesus? For his love of abortion?lol, i always find it funny how for you tea party guys everything can be somehow made a religious and/or pro-life issue.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 1:22 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYou might want to read the Constitution some time to understand the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches.Here is a moderately intelligent guy reduced to pretending he doesn't understand English, for what? For his hatred of Jesus? For his love of abortion? As a result of some reflex that was programmed into him over and over like some sick shit from Huxley's "Brave New World?"You're right, it wasn't Obama's healthcare scheme, he didn't pass it. Now that you have won that argument, maybe you can explain how the sun is blue, or what you gain by voting for Obama to destroy the country where you live and work.What's funny and sad is that both the left and right seem convinced that the policies of the other side will destroy the country. But both sides are farcically wrong. Abortion won't destroy the country, low gas mileage cars won't destroy the country, tighter (or looser) gun laws won't destroy the country, gay marriage won't destroy the country, wind turbines (or the absence of wind turbines) won't destroy the country, higher (or lower) taxes won't destroy the country.The metatruth is that hyperbolic rhetoric sells newspapers, TV air time, and voters and the actual logic of the situation is neither necessary nor wanted. The only thing that's destroying the country is all the unproductive hot air about how X will destroy the country. What's sad is that instead of having productive conversations about the good and bad consequences of policy X, everything for or against X is reduced to "destroy the country" soundbites.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13461
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 1:39 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaWhat's funny and sad is that both the left and right seem convinced that the policies of the other side will destroy the country.Barack Obama has said he wants a post-American era, an of change, an end to American dominance, a time for people to pay the piper, yada yada yada. Yes, he wants to destroy the country. And for millions of people who are out of work, it is working.You just don't seem to give a fuck about real conditions. You figure you will eat your cheese and program your computer for a long time before the water reaches your doorstep. Meanwhile real stuff is happening, that is a destruction of things that were good.Here every credit-rating agency is talking about downgrading the US credit rating. And you are saying there is no policy that in some far-out theory could destroy the country, lol.All the people buying gold and selling dollars seem to have a clue about something which matters, but which is of course less important to you than hating Jesus and loving abortion. All you really are saying is that you feel you are rich enough that you can afford two buckets of destroyed country, in exchange for a bushel of abortion or something. But many are not so rich as you.Yes, it is a long time until you starve. But in the meantime, very real things are happening to real people that are bad. You are not the country.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 2:27 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunNo I don't think they are lobbyist, but in general you'll need 1B to run for president, and you'll owe that to your investors once you get the seat, they want ROC. The mechanism results in a bias of presidental actions that please the opinion of wealty lobyists instead of the will of the people. Wealthy institutes are wealthy becasue they are able to get the money flowing from others to them, (and sometimes beyond the level that socially acceptable). That's the behaviour that reinforces. It more capitalistic and less democratic: e.g. you need to have money to become visible.That assumes that only companies (and their capitalist owners) have money. Trade unions make up 11 of the top 20 largest political donors. Only 2 of the top 20 donors are companies (AT&T and UPS). And, whereas unions tend to give almost all their money to the left, the other top donors tend to split 50-50 to maybe 40-60. The point is that most of the biggest of the big money donors are arguably non-capitalist.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 2:50 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaWhat's funny and sad is that both the left and right seem convinced that the policies of the other side will destroy the country.Barack Obama has said he wants a post-American era, an of change, an end to American dominance, a time for people to pay the piper, yada yada yada. Yes, he wants to destroy the country. And for millions of people who are out of work, it is working.You just don't seem to give a fuck about real conditions. You figure you will eat your cheese and program your computer for a long time before the water reaches your doorstep. Meanwhile real stuff is happening, that is a destruction of things that were good.Here every credit-rating agency is talking about downgrading the US credit rating. And you are saying there is no policy that in some far-out theory could destroy the country, lol.All the people buying gold and selling dollars seem to have a clue about something which matters, but which is of course less important to you than hating Jesus and loving abortion. All you really are saying is that you feel you are rich enough that you can afford two buckets of destroyed country, in exchange for a bushel of abortion or something. But many are not so rich as you.Yes, it is a long time until you starve. But in the meantime, very real things are happening to real people that are bad. You are not the country.Yes, real (unpleasant) things are happening to real people in the U.S. But it has nothing to do with Obama or Jesus and neither Obama nor Jesus can save that situation. The U.S has done a shit job preparing for life in a global economy and the housing bubble (and government debt bubble) was the last all-you-can-eat buffet. Most of what Americans lost in the last few years (and the Tea Party wants back) was wealth they never should have had in the first place if mortgage and sovereign lenders had been prudent. The reality is that a group of 300 million people can not expect to remain economically dominant over a group of 500 million people (EU), 1,155 million people (India), or 1,331 million people (China). Other countries and regions will catch up (have caught up) and will pass (have passed) the U.S.The sooner the U.S. gets off it's high-fructose corn syrup Koolaid diet of pseudopatriotic crap about American dominance, the better off it will be. The sooner the U.S. gets off its whining ass -- both the left and right cheeks -- the better off it will be. Make something that others want and make it better/faster/cheaper than others can, and you can have a good life. Sit around whining about the good old days and what you were promised, and the future will be crap.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13461
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 3:00 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaThe sooner the U.S. gets off it's high-fructose corn syrup Koolaid diet of pseudopatriotic crap about American dominance, the better off it will be. The sooner the U.S. gets off its whining ass -- both the left and right cheeks -- the better off it will be. Make something that others want and make it better/faster/cheaper than others can, and you can have a good life. Sit around whining about the good old days and what you were promised, and the future will be crap.It is people on the left who are leading an assault on our most competitive industries - pharmaceuticals and medical devices - so that lazy fucks can get free medicine. The left is the one who whines when we have a profitable industry, whether it is in drugs or energy. The only companies whose profits the left doesn't attack are companies like Apple and Intel who keep their profits overseas. Rather the left insists on having the highest tax rate in the world so that these companies hire overseas.The Tea Party never whined about the profits of innovative drug companies, lol, you are just making crap up. Why, because you hate Jesus? US companies and innovators are the most productive in the world, and it is the left, not the Tea Party, that attacks this bearing fruit in private industry.When did anyone on the tea-party right ever whine about a US company making too much money? The tea party is not whining at all about the US being non-competitive. They are whining about $40 trillion dollars in the US being stolen from people who can run circles around their competitors overseas, to be given to people who don't work to buy votes and/or achieve social justice.The left in the US is paying people to not work. No Chinese person could learn less in school than the typical Democrat voter, or steal his job doing nothing.
Last edited by farmer on July 31st, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13461
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 3:34 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaThe reality is that a group of 300 million people can not expect to remain economically dominant over a group of 500 million people (EU), 1,155 million people (India), or 1,331 million people (China). Other countries and regions will catch up (have caught up) and will pass (have passed) the U.S.Obama was speaking of destroying the cultural and military influence, in addition to the role as economic leaders. I promise you someone will always be an economic or cultural leader. Regardless of how many billions of people aren't leaders.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 3:52 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: outrunNo I don't think they are lobbyist, but in general you'll need 1B to run for president, and you'll owe that to your investors once you get the seat, they want ROC. The mechanism results in a bias of presidental actions that please the opinion of wealty lobyists instead of the will of the people. Wealthy institutes are wealthy becasue they are able to get the money flowing from others to them, (and sometimes beyond the level that socially acceptable). That's the behaviour that reinforces. It more capitalistic and less democratic: e.g. you need to have money to become visible.That assumes that only companies (and their capitalist owners) have money. Trade unions make up 11 of the top 20 largest political donors. Only 2 of the top 20 donors are companies (AT&T and UPS). And, whereas unions tend to give almost all their money to the left, the other top donors tend to split 50-50 to maybe 40-60. The point is that most of the biggest of the big money donors are arguably non-capitalist.Indeed! I should have said "power owners" instead of money owners. The point is that it's skewed towards clustering power hierarchies, and that the president makes debt when running. (and the president doesn't realy matters at all, a much larger group has the power ) Btw interesting hedge the 50-50, those can maintain power no mater *who* gets elected!Very true! If 100,000 people each give $10 to a campaign, then the politician's sense of reciprocal obligation will be so diffuse as to be negligible. If 100,000 people each give $10 to an organization that funnels that $1 million to a campaign, then the politician's sense of reciprocal obligation will be significantly sharper. It's a kind of second-tier representative democracy by which people give money to their unions, associations, interest groups, and companies (by buying that company's products) who are then de facto representatives in the campaign/lobbying process. In some ways, one might argue this system is economically efficient because no politician could easily listen to and aggregate the will millions of individual voters. But if voters pool their money/power/political capital, then they can create a noticeable and concentrated message. For better or worse, a politician can handle a dozen or a hundred big donor/lobbyists much more effectively than a million voices.
Last edited by Traden4Alpha on August 1st, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13461
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 4:13 pm

I think Fermion should head down to the BART station. Maybe he can get 10 people to sign a petition saying politicians should give him some capital. Then again...
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26738
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 7:20 pm

Non cogito ergo non sum.- Vox Populi
Last edited by trackstar on July 31st, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 7:23 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaThe reality is that a group of 300 million people can not expect to remain economically dominant over a group of 500 million people (EU), 1,155 million people (India), or 1,331 million people (China). Other countries and regions will catch up (have caught up) and will pass (have passed) the U.S.Obama was speaking of destroying the cultural and military influence, in addition to the role as economic leaders. I promise you someone will always be an economic or cultural leader. Regardless of how many billions of people aren't leaders.That's a promise you can't keep.Ironically, it will be the Tea Party that attenuates U.S. military strength -- you can't slash taxes and government spending and maintain a massive military budget.Cultural leadership depends on respect, admiration, and likability. Unilateral wars and Banana republic political behaviour on the debt isn't culturally attractive. Backwards fundamentalist social policies that have more in common with Iran, aren't culturally attractive, either. The U.S. does have Hollywood but I'm not sure if that makes the U.S. a cultural shining star or an abomination.Economic leadership is also impossible. The U.S. will be (already is) just another country when it in comes to the production or consumption of X for almost all X. Maybe the U.S. can be retain some kind of lead in the field of must-have consumer technology, but that will depend on Apple (your favourite company!)
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On