TPS
-
Posts
7,761 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TPS
-
-
-
Then at least do yourself a favor and go to the actual briefing and not the Washingotn Posts edited version:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bi...d=0286-16013253
Here is what he actually said. Pretty neat how the post took the one statement and said we are failing:
Again, to keep the situation in Baghdad in some perspective, I must realistically note that while the last days have been tough, we have not witnessed that reduction in violence one would have hoped for in a perfect world, but there have been some successes.
I'm not sure why you think his press conference from July is relevant to this week's? According to the Post and many other sources, he stated this week that their strategy for the past two months has not stemmed the violence.
That seems to be a pretty good assessment, and your last comment even supports it. If anyone else (bungeejumper?) has any counter proof to that assessment, please provide it. Hell, if anyone here has any evidence that we are "beating the insurgency and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" I'd love to see that too.
-
I would tend to believe one of the top ranking generals in Iraq when he says the "current strategy in Iraq isn't working." But, hey, "I'm a joker, and a toker, and midnight smoker...."
-
-
Actually he's doing REALLY well. He is exactly the run-stuffer the Ravens were hoping they were drafting, and he's been surprisingly effective as a rookie.
Honestly, you should've gone with Bunkley for your post, who has not made much of an impact. If the Bills have drafted Ngata, most likely Bills Nation would be very psyched about him right now...
The maybe they could have traded up to to get Whitner at #26...hind sight....
-
And the usual response from those who blindly follow...
Do you realize the implications of this? Obviously not. The best you can do is attack the person who posts the article. IT says so much more about you than your weak attempt to attack Chicot...
-
Let me see if I get this right, Phelps & Friedman debunked the Phillips curve (so far, they are more right than wrong). Phillips was a British disciple of Keynes. The American disciples reached the same conclusions as Phillips.
Yet it's the American school and not Keynes' theories that were under attack by Phelps & Friedman.
Ok
First, Phillips was from New Zealand and attended the London School of Economics (starting the year Keynes, who was at Cambridge, died). Second, American Keynesian economics is based upon "interpretations" of Keynes by John Hicks and Alfred Hansen. Samuelson followed this line of thought. Actual disciples of Keynes at Cambridge--like Nicholas Kaldor, Joan Robinson (she called American Keynesians "Bastard Keynesians"), and Michel Kalecki--disagreed with those interpretations (one main reason was because those mechanical models ignored his discussion on uncertainty, which was fundamental in explaining why an economy could be stuck with high unemployment for an extended period). These economists represent the core of the post Keynesian school. An interesting side note on Hicks: toward the end of his life, he wrote a paper criticizing his interpretation of Keynes, mainly because of his admitted omition of the role uncertainty plays in a modern monetary economy.
I'll try to simplify things for you:
Phillips, a disciple of the Hicksian interpretation of Keynes, published an empirical paper on the trade-off between money wages and unemployment. S&S took it a step further, connecting wages to prices, and then estimating the trade off between inflation and unemployment. This simplified Phillips Curve relationship was then incorporated into the "Bastard" Keynesian models. However, without the concept of uncertainty, there's no role for expectations. This left the door open for Phelps and Friedman.
So, yes, it was the American Keynesian School that was under attack, not Keynes's actual theory, which incorporates expectations based upon the concept of fundamental uncertainty.
I believe you work in the financial industry, yes? You should read chapter 12 of the General Theory, "The State of Long Term Expectations." It's one of the best discussions on the relationship between real investment and financial investment you'll ever read.
-
I agree with you again; when will the press get back to focussing on ebezzlement and payoffs...?
-
You obviously don't know anything about Keynes' theory of inflation.
Phelps (and Friedman) attacked the notion underlying the Phillips' Curve that there's a trade-off between UP and inflation. Phillips looked at historical data for the UK to come to this conclusion. In the US, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow (so-called American Keynesians) did a similar study, and they came up with the same results. Phelps and Friedman argued that this relationship would not be permanent once you considered expectations. In particular, they held to the view that expectations were formed by the recent past--"adaptive expectations." Keynes' theory of output, employment, and prices also assumes that current expectations are formed by the recent past. His "theory of prices" is based on how prices are determined at the level of the firm--prices are a function of the costs of production (wages, materials, etc.) and a profit margin.
The Phillips Curve relationship that Phelps "debunks" was based on an historical relationship and promoted by the American Keynesian school in 1960, not Keynes.
For the record, and I stated this years ago here, I am not a proponent of this simplified interpretation of Keynes. I adhere to a group known as post keynesians, and I am probably most influenced by Hyman Minsky.
-
Very slim at best. The point was and I know you can write lots of words and say a lot of BS, but basically you sit there on one hand , accuse GS of dumping gas futures to lower the price of gas to help the republicans and then when it turns out they are one of the most liberal democrats biggest contributors you try to spin it as business as normal.
Why is one okay (giving lots of cash to Hillary)? Yet somehow dumping futures is not (regardless of market conditions), because it supports the repubs, and that's EVIL?
Pretty damn hypocritical, if you ask me.
What a dope. First, you should be referring to me, not BlueFire. Second, I gave a possible scenario for how someone or an organization could have influenced gas prices; or, in fact, as the articles stated, did influence gas prices (not the only influence, but added "fuel" to the downward pressure). I stated it was either serendipity or consipiracy, and that I leaned toward the former (however, I said the latter wouldn't surprise me either).
Who said that one was ok and the other wasn't? It is politics as usual. Many corporations make "bets" on which party (person) they believe will win the White House. They give to both sides, but tend to give more to the side they think will win. I don't think they should be giving at all, and I've constantly ranted that "both sides are bought and paid for." I've stated time and again, that I DO NOT VOTE FOR EITHER MAJOR PARTY ANYMORE (10 years now). I have voted for independents, greens, and believe it or not libertarians.
The hypocrits around here are people who constantly defend (and believe) one party to no end. And from what I've read, you are one of them.
-
It's bad, it's dumb, it's gross, it may be horrible, it's not rape and nothing close to it. Have you talked to 16 year olds lately? Especially ones that are smart enough to be congressional pages? These "kids" know what is going on in the world. Yes, they are not adults, yes they make stupid choices, yes they are easily led. But it's not like talking to a seven year old you can entice into a car. These guys know what they're doing.
Would you say the same thing about a 16 year old girl and she was an intern for someone? And then imagine if that girl were your daughter...
-
cuz I want them to...
The Bills are defiant: They are showing the swagger and the bonding needed for a team to lay it all on the line for each other. Chicago is allowing 4 yards/carry on the ground McGahee will be ready to go.
will go to the wall for the guy standing next to them. Bust em up this week.
Excellent point! That fits right into the Bills' game plan. Keep runnin' willis, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense. The Bears can be had!
-
My point is there seems to lots of articles saying that GW is getting worse and is the cause of hurricane frequency and stregth.
So now scientists seem to be backing off that since their bold predictions of a worse season then last year didn't occur.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1099102,00.html
Whether GW is true or not, I am not debating, I am debating the sensationalism that the tree hugging crowd, Goreits, etc... like to constantly orate about, and then when things are different, they have another excuse to dismiss their earlier findings.
I think people sensationalize it because it's not something you can reverse or slow in a short period: something has to be done now before we pass the tipping point.
Fortunately, businessmen/investors have to be pragmatic, and they know which side is spinning the issue.
-
-
-
I'm not political, but...
On the one hand, you complain that the market has gone up 0% with the Republicans in charge. (Therefore, Republicans = Bad)
On the other other hand, you're not complaining when the market tanked in 2000 in the great tech crash with the Democrats in charge (Therefore, Democrats = Good)
You can't have it both ways. If numbers are the true indicator that you suggest, then Clinton is worse then Bush (for the NASDAQ falling the way it did). If numbers are not the true indicator, then why are you stating above that Clinton had a "record high" stock market in 2000?
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I stated that the previous high was in 2000, and mentioned that Clinton was president then. I did not state the market went up 0% with republicans in charge. I said the market's gained 0% since the previous peak in 2000 (In fact, the market has gone up since Bush took office, because as we all know it started its fall before he took office).
Then, panties got twisted, and you guys all inferred I said "Bush bad." Now your telling me I'm saying "democrats good." Yes, there was a long bear market for much of Bush's first term, and many things happened to extend it--not the least of which was the accounting scandals. The bear ended in 2003, and the market's done pretty well since then. As KD said, only if you were foolish enough not to invest while it was down, did you experience the 0%.
By the way, how do you know I wasn't complaining when the market began its decline in 2000 (under Clinton)?
Oh, and I'm not political either....
-
-
How are you defining the crash? The bear market that lasted for 2+ years (and, yes it began in Clinton's last year)? Or the initial drop in 2000? In percentage terms, one of the largest "crashes" over the past 40 years was in October 1987. But, hey, what do I know...
-
Coming from the guy who thinks the administration controls monetary policy.
It's quite a stretch to go from my statement that "it took 6 years to break the previous high," to I must believe stock prices should always go up. I'm getting used to people stretching my statements though. The obvious inference from my statement is that the down turn in the Dow must have been pretty severe, and the resultant recovery a long, slow process. But maybe that's too complicated...
-
The other quotes point to the immediate impact on the prices, and I did not dispute the fact that when components move in and out of an index, there is a pop up or down. However, once the one-time events are done, the underlying securities settle into their natural price.
Whew! That sure took a long time. I never said the prices were being affected by the index weight change after that. I agree prices will eventually settle to what the fundamentals dictate.
The price of gasoline has been going down, because the underying contracts have been going down, no matter what the GS did to its index. Of course, there's yet a reply from you on how valid the index would be if the market participants thought that GS was manipulating it for its own benefit.Oh, oh! In one paragraph you admit there can be a "pop", and the next there's no effect?
Who said they were manipulating it for their own benefit? You asked some flippant question earlier about who the GS traders work for, not about manipulation for their own benefit. Try to stay on topic.
The topic: Both articles STATE that the change in the weight had a significant impact on gasoline prices in August. Are both the NYT and FT articles incorrect? Who should we believe? Them, or you and the monkey?
Seems to me the only contentious issue is, what was the underlying reason for the change? As i said, I lean toward the serendipity explanation.
-
By the way, I wouldn't get too cozy with the DOW at the moment; the put-call ratio on the index is about 2-1.
-
Honestly, I can't believe it took 11 replies before we got the first mindless anti-Bush Hotpockets post.
Not that Bush or Clinton (or any President) really controls the economy but the country was heading into a recession during Clinton's final year and the economy was upset by some sort of terrorist thingy in 2001.
You're celebrating the fact that the DOW's at a new high. I pointed out that it took 6 years to do that. I am happy that it finally did, especially for my pension. I am unhappy though that it took so long to get back to this point. You inferred I blame Bush. However, I've never disagreed with the fact that presidents have very little control over the economy.
Sorry I pushed the Clinton button...
-
It has everything to do with the market, because GS didn't want to have a large portion of its index represented by an illiquid contract. Obviously you missed that explanation by Vergeler, who also said that GS does not want to be a leader, but a follower. Now that's an awesome conspiracy tactic. Follow the market, yet have it act in the way that you intend. Simply brilliant. No wonder they're the smartest guys on Wall Street.
Never mind the fact that the index is composed of heavily traded contracts on major global exchanges, and here we are three months after the initial decisions to reduce the gasoline weighting, and the price keeps going down. Oh, those wily Goldman bankers.
I guess the other quotes are irrelevant? That article states how influential the index can be and was on unleaded prices. I quoted Vergler on the explanation. For one, he's not with GS. Yes, they don't want to be a leader in the new product--they don't want to influence its price. However, their action on "not wanting to influence the price" for the new product, caused price changes in the old unleaded product--and the FT article said it was a significant influence.
The gist of the article you link to (and the NYT article) supports the idea that GS's move DID influence the price of unleaded, and it was significant. Are you now disputing the gist of that article? Or since it's the position I've taken all along, is it that you have no choice but to continue to dance around and try to dispute that fact?
Conspiracy or serendipity for Bush? More likely serendipity, but the connection with his new T-sec allows for the possibility of the first. The link I initially found makes that contention. While I lean toward serendipity, the former wouldn't surprise me either. Because after all, no one has ever tried in the past to influence prices....
-
This is fantastic news! The Dow has grown 0% since the previous high in 2000--under Clinton!!!!
General Pace is a good American
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Tillman's is an editorial which expresses his beliefs; the other is a statement of fact that the Army's recent strategy to reduce violence in Iraq has not worked.
No need to read them though, you already know the truth...