OT: James Arthur, the perfect market and the perfect op amp

But you've still got a long way to.

You've failed to extract the gist of my argument, which was that Barack Obama thoguth that the SS cheques might be in danger because he was anxious about the level of disruption that the Tea Party Republicans might be prepeared to create in Congress and in the world outside of congress.

Since you have this happy delusion that the Tea Party Republicans are concerned about the welfare of the US as a whole and are consequently prepared to use extraordinarily robust political tactics in a legitimate desire to change the President's worrying course, you can't imagine that they'd sabotage the day-to-day workings of congress merely to apply extra pressure.

The rest of us - presumably including Barack Obama - were less saugine in the run-up to the debt limit increase, and there were legitimate fears that the Tea Party idiots would go in for wholesale wrecking, which might well have disrupted the mechanisms involved in getting out the SS cheques.

As it turned out the Tea Party eventually blinked - but not before they'd provoked Standard and Poor's into down-grading the US credit rating.

In short, you think that the President was lying because you couldn't envisage the kind of situation that he - and other people equally sceptical about the rationality and judgment of the Tea Party faction

- perceived as a possible scenario.

This failure of perception doesn't entitle you to describe other people's sincerely held - if possibly mistaken - beliefs as "lies". It is conceivable that Barack Obama was lying for political advantage, but it strikes me as much more likely that he perceived the situation from a point of view that you can't share and had formed an opinion - that you can't credit - that the SS cheques were actually in danger.

You believe quite a few things that I know to be outright wrong. Why can't you understand that Barack Obama might believe something that you "know" to be outright wrong?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sure. And by ignoring the bulk of the argument you can get to post all sorts of snappy one-liners. They do demonstrate how shallow and ill- informed your opinions are, but it's a bit late for you to do anything about that.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That's the English Prof i want. Any texts written by that Prof? I had the extraordinary fabulous luck to get to get not just one but = three supremo History professors. I switched from hating History to loving it ever since.

If it is punishment to do that, why do you do it? Are you a self-hater?

?-/

should

very

incentive.

can

I saw plenty of that kind of thing in California when they were stupid enough to still have an inventory tax. The retailers would put on sales each year end, often below what they paid for the goods, just to get rid of it before tax inventory day (Jan 1st). It jacked up supply chains and everything. A classic example of stupid tax policy.

the

(Assuming

=20

=20

=20

=20

government

governments

The

Letting

borrowing?

sell

not

they

sense.

actually

local

off the

start

anyway

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions. Or maybe = you are not really understanding the concept of standards.

?-(

more

e very

Sure, and the ninja loans were a product of the "Community Reinvestment Act" CRA that forced banks to make risky loans in an effort to avoid "redlining". Another democratic idea that doesn't work.

-Bill

He doesn't do much of it - just skims until he find a bit onto which he can tag a smart-ass comment. Some of them are remarkably stupid, even by his depressingly low standards.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

t more

the very

n?

James Arthur has been arguing this for years, but it seems to be a myth devised by right-wing Republicans as a stick with which to beat the Democrats.

"Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA."

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There was no inventory tax in the UK. This was a classic example of rewarding specific employees for doing things that *damaged* the companies productivity and profitability to maximise their own bonuses.

It was a classic example of "What you measure gets controlled".

Regards, Martin Brown

He just likes to bitch. As the mills improved theior saws, they had to mill less to somooth the lumber. So, they reduced the spacing in the saws to reduce the waste. I wonder if he's ever seen a real sawmill?

governments

Letting

the

My Grandfather Godwin had a water-powered saw mill... all kinds of leather belts running everywhere ;-) ...Jim Thompson

English was one of the worst classes. Other than the TA was a braless T-shirt wearing hippy uber-leftist, well, the TA was an uber-leftist. It was clear from the first day that the way to pass was to pass oneself off as a leftist.

Vermont had a town inventory tax. The Town of Essex Junction had an inventory tax, but the town of Wiliston (across the river) didn't. Like your example, the tax was based on inventory on a certain day (Jan 1, IIRC). I always wondered why IBM didn't move all their inventory from their Essex buildings, across their bridge, to their Wiliston site once a year. ...or keep the inventory in another state.

They finally told Essex to remove the tax or they'd remove themselves. THey mostly did both (building their 300mm fab in NY).

If you don't want something tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it. That's why we have so few jobs and so many poor. ...why governments are growing and the private sector is shrinking. Why the UK has riots...

You seem to have a problem with literacy. Not, by any means, the first time.

governments

Letting

the

You can't read either. Get help Michael.

I see. It's technologically impossible to produce and sell smooth studs that are actually 2x4.

Thanks for explaining that.

Now please explain about the driveways and parkways.

John

Since all the lumber companies sell undersized 2x4s, it's a conspiracy, a RICO felony.

John