utabintarbo
-
Posts
252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by utabintarbo
-
-
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.
-
Some people have no sense of humor.
Fixed that for you.
-
As do I.
Not so sure about Joe Sixpack yet.
-
I thought Obama was?
There's a difference?
Well, I suppose one is doing it out in the open.
-
Screw the Pope...
Your playing right into his .....hands.
-
Everything old is new again. <insert Santayana quote here>.
-
Luancy?
-
This took place on 3/13. Who do you think had the upperhand in this debate?
Considering Larry King is legally dead, it hardly seems fair, eh?
-
This phrase alone tempts me to disregard everything you say. Virtually anytime this phrase shows up in a debate of any kind, it is an indicator of one thing, and one thing only: dogmatism. Pure, unadulterated dogmatism. When you use this childish phrase, you are not accusing your opponent of being wrong. You are accusing him of being wrong on purpose. It is an accusation fundamentalist Christians use against non-believers. It is an accusation Muslims use against non-Muslims.
It is used frequently on this board, in support of all sorts of things, including capitalism. The problem with this statement is that it clouds the legitimacy of real arguments. If you're arguing with a socialist and you use this phrase, it clouds any rational argument that you make in favor of capitalism. Why? Because, firstly, the rest of the debate is likely to be taken up by him defending himself against the absurd accusation that he somehow "knows he's wrong," but continues to insist on the validity of known falsehoods. Secondly, as I've already said, it is the argument of religious fanatics who know they cannot use rational argumentation to convert their opponents.
Disagree with environmentalists/socialists all you want. But do not presume to know their innermost thoughts. Do not presume that they somehow know that they're wrong, but keep on professing falsehoods out of some inner evil that drives them to destroy value. Because, however ridiculous you may find their arguments, rest assured that they find yours just as ridiculous. And if you use an argument like that, they have every excuse to write you off as a religious nutjob, regardless of whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or an atheist. It makes people who use rational arguments against environmentalism/socialism look stupid, by virtue of their association with you.
...
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.
-
Kinda makes you prefer Obama
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.
-
Maybe not a rational argument, but there is a practical argument. That is, one can argue that the continuity of a stable and prosperous society that is predominantly free is preferable to a completely free society riven by internal strife.
Non sequitur: A completely free society does not necessitate internal strife. Prove it or take it back.
-
That article explains the issue well, but his solution is off base. He suggests that if one cannot get a price-quote, one should be forced to sell 10% of the asset in order to get a price. That's trying to solve a problem caused by one control, by instituting more controls. Instead, the real solution is to remove the control.
In general, the government has no business telling companies what standards they must follow in evaluating their assets. The government must decide this only for those businesses where the government itself is standing behind that business in some way: e.g. by guaranteeing its debt directly or via institutions like the FDIC. In such cases, the solution is to remove that underlying government interference, so that the government no longer has a reason to specify standards.
As an interim solution, some temporary suspension of MTM while doing government-required calculations of things like "required capital" does make sense as a step toward removal of government control.
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.
-
When I read "politics at work" I immediatley thought of the typical union workers who, instead of doing what they are supposed to do, has made it their job to find things to complain about.
The politics I like to play can be sumed up as follows:
Do your job and do it well.
Arrive early, go home late
Always ask for more work and new things to learn
Take on any new responsibility when the opportunity arises, even if it's the first day at the job
Be professional
When it's time to negotiate the salary point out the things you have done and apply for higher positions when people are needed there.
I don't know what other games people are playing, i've always figured that being good and taking credit for it should be enough.
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
). -
You say that in jest, but really, that is what they believe. She is a human being. She has been born and is therefore already guilty. She is guilty of being a human being.
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.
-
...
Ergo we dodged a bullet. Now when the cowpie hits the fan. It's all Democrats all the time. Also, the Republican Party can (whether it will or not is another matter), craft itself as a credible, freedom-oriented alternative.
Heh. Good luck with that.
I hope your right, but I remain dubious.
-
From this "god" awful article...
If "life must always be protected" then protecting the life of the 9 year-old was the right thing to do.
"Innocent" life must be protected. Obviously, the 9-yr.-old brought the rape and pregnancy upon herself.
-
-
And besides, what exactly would be "Off-Topic" on a philosophy board?
-
How do you play the game and maintain your ethics? I see sort of a Roark vs Keating. of course keatings ethics are suspect.
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.
-
Wait, what I meant to say was....
Yeah, I think that about covers it.
-
Do you notice the politics at work? Do you engage in the game? Some of my co workers feel that in order to get ahead at work, they have to play the game. Do you ultimately think this is good for the company?
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 .
-
How appropriate that the Obamessiah is more interested in meeting the Queen over an elected official.
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.
Junkscience
in Environmentalism
Posted
Agreed, but nobody seems to listen. AGW-deniers are looked at in the same way as Holocaust-deniers. Disgusting.