Opporturnity

[Oakman]

fat_boy wrote:

their economy will contract by the most.

From your mouth to God's ear. I note that the oil-producers aren't looking forward with much eagerness, either, since they seem equally sensitive to a recession/depression.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

digital man wrote:

They have not got a great record to date: banks are guided by economists: violinists and potters couldn't get it nearly as wrong.

Anti-intellectual drivel.

John Carson

[Oakman]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Free market ideology is THE ONLY IDEOLOGY that works, because it is the natural way.

You mean like the rhythm method of birth control?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[wolfbinary]

Oakman wrote:

And you're right, Space Exploration - which I have no doubt has contributed greatly to G.L.O.B.A.L. W.A.R.M.I.N.G.

I didn't mean it like that. I was trying and should have just stated recycling. That's what I was referring to. There are people researching water treatment, etc. I wasn't trying to say that space exploration caused global warming hat's just plain illionish. I'm really looking forward to growing season this year cherry trees, tomatoes, green peppers,hmmm good. I wait all year for fresh tomatoes. Tomatoes are magnesium lovers. I always end up with 6'x4' plants this way.

[R Giskard Reventlov]

John Carson wrote:

Anti-intellectual drivel.

If only that made any sense: you're just being silly now.

me, me, me

[KaRl]

Rob Graham wrote:

I would still like to see proof that generating electricty in a power plant with fossil fuel (80% of the US supply), transmitting it over a lossy grid to charge batteries, then running a vehicle with an electric motor from those batteries is more efficient than using the fossile fuel to directy generate power at the point of use.

The Hummer H2 weights 2903 kg with a 6.0L V8 engine, when the Prius weights 1254 kg with a 4 cylinder 1.5 L engine. In your opinion, which one needs the more energy to run? I agree the Prius is maybe not the best solution. For instance in Europe we've got small diesel cars which get a better mileage than the Prius. However the Prius goes in the good direction, by using new sources of energy, like converting kinetic energy of motion into electrical energy when breaking, and by reducing emission in urban areas.

Rob Graham wrote:

generating electricty in a power plant with fossil fuel (80% of the US supply)

Now that the Texas Oil Cartel doesn't run the White House anymore, maybe the US will start to think about that someday, and produce electricy without using that much fossil fuel.

If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy!

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[KaRl]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Free market ideology is THE ONLY IDEOLOGY that works

Russia or Argentina economies collapsing during the 90s are the proof it does not work. China booming economy is the proof other ways of doing can work.

If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy!

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[John Carson]

digital man wrote:

If only that made any sense: you're just being silly now.

It makes perfect sense. 1. Banks aren't run by economists. Banks employ some economists, but more accountants and other sorts of people. 2. Economists, like any employees, serve their employers, be they banks or governments or whatever, and these employers have their own agendas, which may not coincide with the "public interest". 3. Let us suppose, just for argument's sake and contrary to the facts, that the policies of banks and governments over the last decade or so have reflected the professional consensus of economists regarding what policies are in the public interest. Does it then follow that we should ignore the advice of economists in figuring out how to get out of the mess? Let's consider an analogy. If the military loses a battle, do we withdraw them from the conflict and send in the nation's hairdressers to fight in their place? If doctors make a diagnosis of a patient that turns out to be incorrect, do we forget about doctors and turn patient care over to motor mechanics. If programmers write crappy software, do we turn over the problem to postmen? Your remarks were precisely anti-intellectual drivel because you committed the standard errors of those who are contemptuous of knowledge, namely a) overestimating the responsibility of the relevant experts for any problems and b) drawing the false conclusion that a failure on the part of experts renders them no more qualified than the clueless. You have thrown in your lot with the George Bushes, Sarah Palins and all the other anti-intellectual deadheads.

John Carson

[R Giskard Reventlov]

Plainly you don't work in banking and don't understand how the investment banks (now all turned into ordinary banks) worked behind the scenes: I do and have done for the better part of 20 years both in London and New York. ALL of the investment banks I have worked for are economist led: they work out and promote the overall strategies of the banks and are the chief advisors to the boards and the directors. Most of the research departments will usually be headed by an economist or have one close to the top. These men and women are not always the ones you hear about but they are the ones that sit at the right hand of the Presidents and Chairmen of these institutions. Why, I even have a friend who was one of these shadowy people (retired and a very nice chap even if he was an economist). I am only contemptuous of those that have got us into the mess we now fnd ourselves in and, by and large, I believe, through experience and observation, it is largely becuase of the banking policies of economists coupled with poor regulation from government that we are in trouble. You are, of course, free to draw whetever conclusions make you happy just as I am. However, to accuse me of anti-intellectualism is a little naughty when, clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. In essence if we can't get annoyed with experts who make mistakes; with whom should we get angry?

me, me, me

[John Carson]

digital man wrote:

I am only contemptuous of those that have got us into the mess we now fnd ourselves in and, by and large, I believe, through experience and observation, it is largely becuase of the banking policies of economists coupled with poor regulation from government that we are in trouble.

Your earlier remarks condemned economists as a group and dismissed them as a source of future advice.

digital man wrote:

In essence if we can't get annoyed with experts who make mistakes; with whom should we get angry?

I have no problem with getting angry with those who actually screwed up. I object to indiscriminate anger against a broad class of people, many of whom did not screw up, and I object to the foolishness that says we should turn away from a broad group of experts when some of them screw up. The alternative is far worse. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, economists are often effectively "hired guns" pursuing an agenda set by their employers. Australia's banks have not required any bailout. That is not because Australia's economists are better than those of other countries. It is because the Australian political process was not hijacked by cowboys.

John Carson