Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 350 (606152)
02-24-2011 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by cavediver
02-23-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Or maybe help set in place the risk mechanisms in Barclays Capital that meant that over a decade later it was one of the only major financial institutions in the Uk not to require a bail-out....
One of the ways that you can recognize when someone is lying about their qualifications is when they can't get the details of the lie right. Liars typically get caught up on the little things:
quote:
City fury over terms of Barclays bailout
Barclays faces the possibility of an investor revolt after announcing it is taking cash from Middle-Eastern investors, at a hefty cost, as an alternative to accepting the UK government bailout which its rivals HBOS, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland...The resulting transaction will leave Middle-Eastern investors with a substantial chunk of Barclays. Under the plan, the bank is paying 14 per cent interest for 10 years on some of the preferred-like shares being used. That is the highest rate yet being charged for bank capital, and all the more when compared to the 11-12 per cent the Government is asking from other banks in cash.
http://www.independent.co.uk/...barclays-bailout-982269.html
Don't really get the sense, there, that any magic "risk mechanisms" saved Barclays from financial ruin; they just seem like they'd prefer to cut deals with Middle Eastern loan sharks than take money from the government. Presumably that's a decision made by the top executives, so that they don't have to give up multi-million-pound bonuses like the guys at Lloyd's had to.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:28 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by cavediver, posted 02-24-2011 6:00 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 6:48 AM crashfrog has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 152 of 350 (606179)
02-24-2011 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
02-23-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
crashfrog writes:
And no, most stock market activity is not "gambling".
Yes, it is. In any stock market, somebody is selling and somebody is buying. The sellers are selling to the buyers. Since trading stocks doesn't create value, trading stocks is a zero-sum game.
It's even worse, Crash. The deck is stacked against the average middle-income investor. It another casino-house-wins-again game. Stockbrokers and Derivative Traders have managed to prove themselves worse scum than Lawyers and Politicians - and - hey, that's very hard to do.
It's one thing to be addicted to gambling with your money to the point where you lose your house and your family. That's bad.
But it doesn't compare to gambling with somebody else's money and losing their houses & families, such as we saw come to a head right at the end of the 8-year ripoff of the USA by the Bush-Cheney cronies.
It's a negative sum game for all but the top 2%.
The only guy they caught was Bernie Madoff. And Bernie wasn't even a player in the big ripoff! Thousands of vicious venal criminals got away truly scot-free.
"Oh, Bernie Madoff
What are you made of
That you went & made off
With all their money?"
as opposed to:
"The gang with the cash put your bonus parachute
Into your offshore accounts & left the country destitute"

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 11:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 153 of 350 (606192)
02-24-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
02-23-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Taq writes:
Trading shares does not take capital away. It just trades hands.
cd writes:
Why would anyone buy those shares if those shares do not receive a dividend? What do you think drives the capital appreciation of those shares? Why would anyone ever buy a share that does not compensate for the risk inherent in that share?
crashfrog writes:
For resale.
cd writes:
Sell it for what?
crashfrog writes:
For money, stupid. What else?
I'm sorry, but you are simply being too stupid to teach here.
cd writes:
What do you think drives the fluctuations in the stock market?
crashfrog writes:
Perceptions of the value of owning shares in various companies.
And what would those perceptions be if shares never paid dividends???
Jesus, this is so fucking painful.
So, in net, there's no money to be made on the stock market
So why do all the pension and mutual funds invest in equities? Are they just hoping that their fund is going to be a winner, yet summed across all funds, there will be no net gain. So 100 funds invest $100 billion in a closed equity market, and at the end those funds will still be worth $100 billion, only with a different and random distribution across the 100 funds? Is that how you think these funds work?
Another question... why do these funds invest in equities, but (typically) not FX?
I really can't be arsed trying to explain further to an idiot who's accusing me of lying. If anyone else is actually interested in this, we can start a thread and I can explain properly. Just to be clear, I have little to zero interest in attacking or defending this capitalist structure. I just like facts. And I don't like idiotic bullshit being spread by people who should know better.
but the available evidence
You do realise that your link is about making gains *over and above* those made by *the market*, not above zero?
Of course almost all activity on the stock market is a gamble. How could you have worked on the stock market and not have realized this?
Yeah, amazing isn't it
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 02-26-2011 2:40 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 154 of 350 (606194)
02-24-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
02-24-2011 12:05 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
One of the ways that you can recognize when someone is lying about their qualifications is when they can't get the details of the lie right. Liars typically get caught up on the little things:
Crash, you really need to know about these things to be able to talk about them. Barclays was viewed as sufficiently sound that investors (whomever they may be) were willing to risk the investment. That is the crucial matter. The Fed and Treasury were not investing in the banks they were bailing out because they thought it was a good investment risk
And cut out the accusations of lying, you {don't let him get to you, breath, breath, and relax...ahhh}
Edited by cavediver, : expletive removed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2011 12:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 02-26-2011 2:31 PM cavediver has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 155 of 350 (606195)
02-24-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
02-23-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Yes, it is. In any stock market, somebody is selling and somebody is buying. The sellers are selling to the buyers. Since trading stocks doesn't create value, trading stocks is a zero-sum game. If a given stock transaction would wind up making you money (say, you sell the stock for $10 more than you paid for it), then someone else must have lost the exact same amount of money.
So, in net, there's no money to be made on the stock market - only money to be passed around. The gamble is that you'll be one of the winners instead of the losers, but the available evidence is that there's no reliable heuristic to guarantee this.
I'll try and help CD a bit explain why this is false.
Suppose this is true, suppose it is a zero-sum game. How then can the market lose money, in whole ? If, every time someone makes money, someone loses elsewhere, then it goes the other way around: if someone loses money, then someone elsewhere makes money.
Now, I don't remember the exact figure, but during the 2009 crisis there was about a thousand billions dollars that 'vanished' from the market. This means a whole lot of people lost a whole lot of money. Where are those who made the equivalent profit ?
I find it quite amusing that you question my intelligence, yet you display here quite the arrogance, in a situation where you are showing your own stupidity/ignorance. (sounds a bit creationist-like don't you think: ignorant/stupid and arrogant about it )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2011 11:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 156 of 350 (606196)
02-24-2011 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
02-24-2011 12:05 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
One of the ways that you can recognize when someone is lying about their qualifications is when they can't get the details of the lie right. Liars typically get caught up on the little things:
If Barclays bank has interested overseas investors having foreign capital to bail them out rather than getting domestic bailouts from the government then this is indeed a point in favor of Barclays bank.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2011 12:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 02-26-2011 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 157 of 350 (606222)
02-24-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Rahvin
02-23-2011 12:42 PM


Re: Very interesting reading
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
Nuclear power is by far the cheapest method of power generation, and modern reactors are extremely safe.
According to a article in the Wall Street Journal Nuclear Power is considered to expensive and dangerous. All the "pro" points seem to be based on conjecture. The Case For and Against Nuclear Power - WSJ
I admit I do not know anything about it but what I read in the media. But from what I read it is not the way to go imo. The sad thing being it may be our only viable option.
Green peace has produced a article about Frances nuclear plants.
That considering the source is of course bias. But it is referenced.
As far as" a coal plant releasing more radiation" is concerned, heh, tell the to the residents at Chernobyl. Oh my bad, they're all dead from radiation poisoning.
The thing is the rest of the world is doing it. So it will be a matter of time before our country follows.
What good is it if you are the only kid in the pool who is not dropping a turd in the water. The pool is still full of shit.
http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/frenchnf2008.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 12:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2011 12:15 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 02-24-2011 12:20 PM 1.61803 has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 158 of 350 (606230)
02-24-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by 1.61803
02-24-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Very interesting reading
According to a article in the Wall Street Journal Nuclear Power is considered to expensive and dangerous. All the "pro" points seem to be based on conjecture. The Case For and Against Nuclear Power - WSJ
The article you posted is filled with inaccuracies.
The "danger" of nuclear power in America is more one of public opinion than actual risk. As I said, other nations like France generate the majority of their power from nuclear reactors, have been doing so for decades, and have been doing so without incident.
The "cost" of building a new reactor in the US has been due to amazingly expensive permit and approval fees. The actual cost of runing the reactor is far, far less expensive per megawatt than other methods of power generation.
There are many speculative "hey, we could do this" techniques involving nuclear reactors, but some of them have not only been tried, they're currently in use today. So-called "breeder" reactors allow the reprocessing of spent fuel to continue the nuclear fuel cycle beyond a single use. This makes nuclear power even more efficient. It's used in France and other parts of the world right now...the only reason the US doesn't is because of some rather fooling nonproliferation executive orders from the 60s that didn't make sense then and make less sense now.
The risks of nuclear power are tiny. Chernobyl was an ancient reactor design by today's standards, and still needed so many individual failures to happen all at once...honestly, it's almost like they had to try to fuck up so badly as to cause that disaster. Nuclear reactors do heat up the bodies of water they use to dump heat, but there are other solutions for that - and that water isn't radioactive (the water in direct contact with the reactor's radiation is kept in a closed circuit).
Uranium is plentiful. There are economic ways of even retrieving fuel from sea water. There's enough fuel to power the world for decades (most estimates say centuries or more, but let's be conservative, shall we?) even at current growth rates.
I admit I do not know anything about it but what I read in the media. But from what I read it is not the way to go imo. The sad thing being it may be our only viable option.
It is our only option. But even if it weren't, it's still the best option. Our current power infrastructure relies on coal, oil and gas burning. These are amazingly harmful to the environment. They are direct contributors to the greenhouse effect, cause acid rain, and as I said previously, they actually pump more radioactive material into the atmosphere than any nuclear power plant. Even if we weren't going to run out of fossil fuels, nuclear is still cheaper, cleaner and safer.
Green peace has produced a article about Frances nuclear plants.
That considering the source is of course bias. But it is referenced.
...you believed what Greenpeace said about nuclear reactors?
You're an idiot then. Seriously, you shouldn't trust them if they tell you the sky is blue. They're propagandists, not dealers in fact.
As far as" a coal plant releasing more radiation" is concerned, heh, tell the to the residents at Chernobyl. Oh my bad, they're all dead from radiation poisoning.
Oh please. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster in history, and it was an aberration. It's never happened since, anywhere. And you cannot seriously compare the radiation of a fucking meltdown with the radiation of a normal, working coal plant.
Under normal operating conditions, a coal power plant pumps out more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear reactor by far.
Of course, fossil plants aren't immune to disaster either. I recall a recent explosion in the San Francisco area that wiped out most of a neighborhood when a natural gas pipe went off.
When was the most recent nuclear disaster of any kind, anywhere? The 80s?
The thing is the rest of the world is doing it. So it will be a matter of time before our country follows.
What good is it if you are the only kid in the pool who is not dropping a turd in the water. The pool is still full of shit.
Uh huh. Maybe you should try reading material on nuclear power that wasn't written by Greenpeace. That was the equivalent of having fucking Ray Comfort explain the Theory of Evolution!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 11:36 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 12:57 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 182 by DBlevins, posted 02-25-2011 2:11 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 183 by DBlevins, posted 02-25-2011 2:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 159 of 350 (606232)
02-24-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by 1.61803
02-24-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Very interesting reading greenie lies
1.61803 writes:
As far as" a coal plant releasing more radiation" is concerned, heh, tell the to the residents at Chernobyl. Oh my bad, they're all dead from radiation poisoning.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. Someone has fed you bad information.
Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster
The following is a list of those known to be killed or severely injured from the accident, numbering seventy personnel.
Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia
The bottom line: 70 people were killed or severely injured.
Another Wiki report:
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[76][77] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified in the general population affected by the disaster as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years, thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.Some 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from Pripyat.
Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia
You seem to have fallen for some of the lies greenies and other lefties used to scare people into thinking nuclear power is vastly more dangerous then it actually is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 11:36 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2011 12:39 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 162 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 12:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 160 of 350 (606239)
02-24-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Coyote
02-24-2011 12:20 PM


Re: Very interesting reading greenie lies
You seem to have fallen for some of the lies greenies and other lefties used to scare people into thinking nuclear power is vastly more dangerous then it actually is.
For the record, Coyote, I'm a pretty hardcore liberal, and I'm also a huge supporter of nuclear power as the cheapest, cleanest, safest and most plentiful method of power generation currently available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 02-24-2011 12:20 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-24-2011 1:31 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 166 by Coyote, posted 02-24-2011 2:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 161 of 350 (606247)
02-24-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Rahvin
02-24-2011 12:15 PM


Re:cheap safe power hooorayyyyy!!!
Ok so my sources are apologist and filled with inaccuracies and I am a idiot. Nice chat. Way to spurn discussion. I did not dispute nuke plants as a option. I also admitted the bias in the green peace article. But if Nuclear power was the golden answer we would have zillions of them by now. Our current situation of using hydrocarbons turned out what? Clean and safe eh? But Hey I like driving and heating my home.
I said Nuclear plants are expensive and dangerous. You say they are cheap and safe. Who is being a naive idiot?
And as far as greenpeace goes, fulmanating at the mouth about the source because it conflict with your views is silly. You did not even read the article did you? I stand by original statement that nuclear power plants are both dangerous and expensive hot water heaters. If you have data or articles that show how safe and cheap they are feel free to post them. I will at least read them. Otherwise your opinion is of no more value than greenpeaces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2011 12:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 1:29 PM 1.61803 has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 162 of 350 (606248)
02-24-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Coyote
02-24-2011 12:20 PM


Re: Very interesting reading greenie lies
Dude, bad information or not 20 years later the place is a radioactive ghost town.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 02-24-2011 12:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 1:44 PM 1.61803 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 163 of 350 (606253)
02-24-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by 1.61803
02-24-2011 12:57 PM


Re: Re:cheap safe power hooorayyyyy!!!
I did not dispute nuke plants as a option. I also admitted the bias in the green peace article. But if Nuclear power was the golden answer we would have zillions of them by now.
Not necessarily. Because building nuclear power plants is not just a pragmatic but also a political question. It could perfectly well be the "golden answer" and not have "zillions of them by now" if people were not irrationally afraid of nuclear power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 12:57 PM 1.61803 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 164 of 350 (606255)
02-24-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rahvin
02-24-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Very interesting reading greenie lies
I'm also a huge supporter of nuclear power as the cheapest, cleanest, safest and most plentiful method of power generation currently available.
Where do we stand on decommissioning costs? Long term storage costs? Final waste disposal costs? These very long term issues are what have always caused the most rational concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2011 12:39 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2011 2:20 PM cavediver has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 350 (606259)
02-24-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by 1.61803
02-24-2011 12:59 PM


Re: Very interesting reading greenie lies
Dude, bad information or not 20 years later the place is a radioactive ghost town.
Sure. And in order to get Chernobyl to do that they had to deliberately push it to test it to the point of failure. And in order to do that they had to breach thirteen separate rules about how the reactor should be managed. And for that even to be possible they had to have a reactor of that particular design, because if modern nuclear reactors fail they just stop working.
Now look up how many deaths in the USA have been caused by nuclear power.
Now look up how many deaths have been caused in Pennsylvania alone by coalmining.
I don't say that nuclear power is a silver bullet for all our energy problems, but it's certainly worth thinking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 12:59 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by 1.61803, posted 02-24-2011 3:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024