utabintarbo

Agreed, but nobody seems to listen. AGW-deniers are looked at in the same way as Holocaust-deniers. Disgusting.

Deflation, a bond market dislocation, the collapse of tax revenues. And then the real bad stuff happens. I'm long guns, ammo, and gold. Not much else.

Fixed that for you.

As do I. Not so sure about Joe Sixpack yet.

There's a difference? Well, I suppose one is doing it out in the open.

Your playing right into his .....hands.

Everything old is new again. <insert Santayana quote here>.

Luancy?

Considering Larry King is legally dead, it hardly seems fair, eh?

This may be OT, but I think the use of this phrase, if anything, gives the subjects accused credit for being smart enough to know the difference. In actuality, they are either "being wrong on purpose", or they are simply too ignorant of the facts/science to be considered. Unfortunately, these same subjects are often politically powerful or influential, and must therefore be dealt with. Inferring intent is not that terribly difficult either. If you can demonstrate that a "reasonable person" can determine that 2+2=4, and the subject flatly denies it, one can only conclude that the subject is "willfully" deciding to be ignorant of the obvious truth. This sort of thing happens in courts of law all the time, often with people's lives on the line (IIRC, it is the primary difference between 2nd & 3rd degree murder[iANAL]). Obviously, with different fact sets. I think the problem lies with the definition of a "target market" for our rhetoric. If we accept that there is nothing likely to change Al Gore's mind on AGW, or the average Imam's mind re: atheism, we can focus our efforts on the rest of the audience, where we are more likely to find the occasional open mind. Pointing out their "willful ignorance" of the evidence, or the consequences of their stance is a perfectly valid method of showing (our target market) the folly of their ways.

No.

The first ~1/2 of this article plausibly describes the functioning of fractional and full reserve banks, including the economics of the 2 systems. Might play to some of the issues that have arisen here.

Non sequitur: A completely free society does not necessitate internal strife. Prove it or take it back.

All true, within the context of an LFC economic model. That was not where the author was coming from. It is also not where we are likely to be anytime soon. So yes, there is some pragmatism showing through there. The object of the article was to explain MTM, and propose a possible solution in the current politico-economic climate. Given the alternatives (as he sees them), this is pretty close to the lesser of all evils. YOMV.

I wonder if the asshats promoting this stuff will turn of the refrigerators that house their beer. Probably not.

This formula works quite well in certain environments, especially in fast-growing smaller companies. As companies get larger, and/or the growth curve flattens (or even slopes negative), additional "input" is sometimes required. I was once an employee of a small start-up. One of 8 employees (including the owners) in a very fast-growing sector. Originally, I made great gains (in both money & responsibility) using merely the formula above. After several years, the growth curve started flattening, one owner sold out to the other, and being the best at fulfilling the job description was no longer enough. Added value needed to be shown. As the company pretty much remained small (in terms of number of employees) and the owner retained almost all of the power (on a side note, those are related), the benefits of office politics remained minimal. It did exist, however. OTOH, in my present situation as a contract employee at a very large manufacturing firm with a steeply negative growth slope, political maneuvering is all but essential, as I must prove (with or through my boss) that I am effectively indispensable (or at least that dispensing with me would be sufficiently painful). This is because the guys making such decisions are far removed from the subjects upon which they are deciding (kinda like Congress/Real Life ).

It wasn't exactly in jest, as the sick irony you point out was exactly what I was trying to get across. Not really anything to laugh at.

Heh. Good luck with that. I hope your right, but I remain dubious.

"Innocent" life must be protected. Obviously, the 9-yr.-old brought the rape and pregnancy upon herself.

Fairly good article re: MTM.

And besides, what exactly would be "Off-Topic" on a philosophy board?

Company politics is mostly about marketing and spin. One must market one's self to the appropriate humanoids and spinning one's achievements so as to impress said humanoids. As long as one has actual achievements to market & spin, this should not involve any dishonesty or fraud, therefore no ethical compromise. That said, it is a PITA, and at a certain point you may decide it isn't worth it. This will likely limit your promotability. It is what it is.

Yeah, I think that about covers it.

Is it good for business? No. But it is reality. And it becomes more pronounced the larger the company. IOW, your co-workers are probably right. But there is a way to play the "game" (to a certain extent) without compromising your ethics. Just realize that it may impose a ceiling at a certain point .

Perhaps he is looking for a bit of reflected royalty. As if being seen hob-nobbing with the Queen were sufficient to have him be seen as an equal to the Queen.