Lurker > red sox 777

Also, it sort of horrifies me to think that for many immigrants and tourists, the first part of the US they see is New York.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Your college allows rape? Which school is this?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

5% decline in gold in a few hours after Bernanke didn't announce QE3 and hinted at trying to squash inflation. To the economists of the Cleveland Fed, I suggest you start looking more at gold prices when you try to calculate inflation expectations.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/data/inflation_expectations/index.cfm

The Cleveland Fed says the public's expected inflation rate is 1.34%. Have they lost it? There's no way the public expects an inflation rate that low. I'll read the paper in more detail later, but their methodology appears to be based on inflation swap derivatives.....I wonder who is doing all the buying and selling of these things.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Sexual harassment is actually a crime though (and a tort). Freedom of speech doesn't enable you to commit crimes, like fraud, for example.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577253170034011512.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Oh boy, Bernanke admitted that we are going to be getting some temporary inflation.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, there's nothing about schools I've attended worse than administration cancelling controversial events. Not nearly as odious as speech codes.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And any school that does that should immediately have its federal funding revoked because that would be a First Amendment violation straight up.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

They make you sign speech codes. I suppose it's true that the majority of students don't read them, and never happen to be victimized by them, but that's basically the same argument as "who cares about the patriot act, *I* have nothing to hide!"

I've never signed any such thing. Nor heard of a college that required it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Colleges don't teach that kind of thing more than students teach it to each other. Loads of people manage to make it through our college system without suffering any indoctrination like that.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Many people don't really believe in free speech. And never have.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

That's possibly the worst argument I've seen on this board.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Decent results tonight. Romney won Michigan and Arizona, Paul managed to beat Gingrich in Michigan.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, the only thing you can do about judges not following the law is to let an appellate court overrule them. I mean, if it were on the books that you couldn't mention sharia, this judge could still do it anyway.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Would you agree that given this decision, Oklahoma's decision to amend their constitution to prohibit judges looking to Sharia law is appropriate?

I was going to say that I think Oklahoma's law was great, but now that I think it, it's a bit more complicated an issue that I thought before.

Do judges have free speech? If they do, how can we ban them from talking about sharia in their opinions? For example, say a judge was writing an opinion upholding a law banning same-sex marriage. He might have a sentence in there that reads something like, "Looking at legal codes throughout the course of human history, in such codes as the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Twelve Tables, the Code of Justinian, Sharia, and English Common Law, we find that marriage is only ever contemplated as between opposite sexes."

Would this reasoning be disallowed under Oklahoma law? It's fine to say that judges should consider nothing but the Constitution, statutes, and precedent, but the reality is that it's not so simple. If it was, we wouldn't need a judiciary because it would always be obvious what the law was. For example, the 4th Amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure. Well what on earth does unreasonable mean? If you were a judge, and you weren't allowed to use any external sources, such as common sense, custom, history, statistical evidence, etc. in your opinion, how could you write an opinion explaining your decision?

It's clear that external sources like common sense must be allowed. But then, why single out Sharia as something that cannot be cited?

It's very clearly established in US law that Sharia cannot be cited as binding law. We didn't need Oklahoma's amendment for that.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Shrugging this off as a mistake seems kind of ridiculous.

Well, a mistake on the part of whoever made that judge a judge. Not a reasonable mistake on the law. It is troubling I agree but I wouldn't be too alarmed until you see an appellate court spouting similar reasoning.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

This will be appealed. I doubt the judge's ruling will stand.

There are thousands of judges across the land, this judge is just a state court trial judge. Some of our judges are inevitably going to make mistakes, and it's not terribly alarming unless it happens in an appellate court.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

This discussion makes me think that environmentalists should love Standard Oil. Less carbon emissions!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

But as demand increases, it becomes worth it for Standard Oil to either pump more out of the ground, or explore shale options for themselves.

Not while they still have non-shale reserves left. It's better for them to just keep pumping up the price for a long long time. So you're right that eventually, all the oil will be used, but it will take longer. Which is just as bad as saying consumers get less.

With a more competitive market, companies would want to invest in shale because they want to increase production. They would get a higher market share that way. Standard cannot increase its market share because it is already at 100%. So yes, eventually they will go to oil shale, but much later. In the meantime it's better for them to sell half as much oil at double the price.

Well, much like the hyperinflation deal, I don't own ENOUGH BP for it to be worth my while to see massive gas prices. Anyway, the oil spill let me lower my cost basis, and I'm confident it'll come back eventually, so it's not a huge deal for me.

I doubt that unless you drive a lot, or have a vehicle with low MPG. Much like the hyperinflation if you do the math, I think you'll find that it works out favorably for you.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

But consumers won't get less oil TOTAL because the total demand for oil will be unaffected.

But the total supply is lower. The amount of oil consumers get is the lower of demand and supply. They can't get oil that isn't taken out of the ground no matter how much they demand it.

I've owned a bunch of BP for awhile. Still underwater because I bought the first half BEFORE deepwater horizon. Getting close to even though.

Ouch on the oil spill. Let's cheer for $9 gas (coming to a gas station near you within 5 years!).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Suncor may present a modern example of why what Standard Oil did could be bad, by the way. There is a ton of oil in Canada and the US in the form of oil shale/oil sands. The problem is that it is expensive to extract. As a result, companies like Suncor do not break even until gas gets around the $2 mark.

If Standard Oil hadn't been broken up (ignoring for the sake of argument the fact that oil companies are less powerful at controlling prices than the governments of oil producing nations nowadays), no one would bother investing in oil sands, despite the massive amount of petroleum in it. It would be impossible to turn that oil in the ground into profit, because Standard could just cut oil prices to below $2 (still way above the profitability point for normal oil) and force them out.

What is the result? Consumers get less oil. That is why it is bad. Of course, if you don't care that consumers get less oil total, then you may not care.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, as someone who just bought Suncor stock, I am now rooting for higher oil prices. $5 gas, $6 gas, $8 gas? Let's do this.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And I agree that monopolies are bad. Competition is good, concentration of power is bad. Monopolies are anticompetitive so they are bad.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

In fact, in many ways publicly traded corporations are hypersensitive to small changes. Let's say Wal-Mart has Revenue of $200B and costs of $180B. It then has $20B of profit, and with a price/earnings ratio of 10, the stock is worth $200B. Now, 1% of Wal-Mart's customers suddenly decide to stop visiting, but too late for WMT to adjust by buying fewer items from suppliers. Revenue does down to $198B, and profit goes down to $18B. That's a loss of 10%. If the P/E ratio stays the same, the stock will also fall by 10%. That's a paper loss of $20 billion dollars to shareholders right there. Each dollar not spent at WMT resulted in the shareholders losing 10 dollars.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

You really think, say, Walmart would cease to exist if you stop shopping at it/supporting it?

If everyone who thought like you did the same, yes!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

say a corporation says "you will buy our product or we will shoot you" or maybe "you will buy our product or you will starve to death." what am I going to do about it? nothing. I can gather everyone up and we can use violence to annihilate them altogether, but that's it.

This is not a corporation. This is a government.

what if a government does the same thing? well, I have more options. I can still use violence as a last resort, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants" etc. but I can also vote whoever is responsible for that out of office. I can send money to politicians who don't want to kill me. I have every option I have with the corporations, plus I have a direct vote. a government would have to seize control of business/agriculture completely and remove my right to vote to be in the same position that a powerful corporation could be in. and in that case, it wouldn't be meaningfully different from a powerful corporation.

Do you really think your vote counts in a totalitarian regime?

in response specifically to the last couple posts: I think corporations only have to be responsive to our needs as long as there's competition.

Bingo

which I think it's fair to say does not last without force backed by popular government. monopolies didn't stop existing because they didn't make sense, the government forcibly broke them up and put rules in place to prevent them from happening (mostly) because the public was outraged about how they were being treated. we've already had an era of unregulated business and it was a disaster for the public, while being great for the few people who controlled these massive corporations. no one but a strong federal government can challenge that kind of power.

No. There are probably more companies that have used government to enforce their monopolies than vice-versa. As for the monopolies that were broken up, they were broken up. They were not broken up by being regulated by rules, they were broken up by a legal action seeking to break them up. No regulation is needed, what is good is more competition.

And it's silly to say that without a strong government, the trend will be towards consolidation into massive conglomerate monopolies. You might get some, but not many, and no more than you would with a government. Less than you would get with regulation, which as I have been explaining is inherently anticompetitive in nature. The goal is to spread out power in many different locations, and that is best accomplished with little regulation.

And the era of unregulated business (1840 - 1929) was the greatest period of growth in our history. It was a time of very rapid improvements in prosperity. We went from a backwater nation to the richest, most prosperous, country on earth.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

They have claimed, legally, the right to have a secret list of people they are allowed to kill, to include American citizens.

Do we really need to sweat the details here?

Key word is claimed.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And if you're a shareholder, you're practically a demi-god to these corporations. They will kiss your ass so hard, because without you, they are literally worthless.

I don't know about that. Maybe if you're a really big shareholder. I feel confident if I walked into McDonald's and announced I was a shareholder, I wouldn't even be able to get a 1 cent discount on my food.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Nah, the US government totally claims powers like this, they just haven't bothered to exercise them just yet.

If you mean that some people in the executive and legislative branches claim such powers, that's true. But they have not been held to have them legally.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Right, but I will always have a say in government decisions. And if I can make compelling arguments for a cause, my power increases for that specific issue. I will never have any say in any company's decision unless I'm a stockholder. My ability to influence them by my shopping habits is marginal. Maybe for small businesses fighting for survival, you can say they're sort of democratic because they have to be extremely responsive to their customer base's needs. But large corporations, no way.

I am opposed to any large body of power ruling over me if I have no say in it.

Large corporations do not rule over you. If you wanted to avoid doing business with any company in the US, you could. They have no power to force you to do anything.

Also, I daresay your decisions as a consumer matter a lot more to any company that your vote does to US politics. What distinguishes wonderful companies that grow and grow from companies that go bankrupt? How much consumers buy their products. If a company was so callous as to consider you as insignificant, then it'd have to consider everyone else in your position insignificant too. Well, that's a lot of people, and I probably would not invest in such a company. Because it's going to alienate all its customers.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The power to build a gigantic plate making it so millions of people can never see the light of day.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I think the worst case scenario is what you see in FFVII.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I do think the rich should be taxed at whatever rate the public decides on. if the rich don't like the decision, they can make compelling arguments for why they should be taxed less.

Me too, and I think that rate should be a lot higher than for the bottom 80%. But I don't agree with regulation, only taxation and perhaps legal action under anti-trust laws to break up monopolies that are too large for comfort.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Either way, this doesn't make me afraid of corporations. I might oppose them on this issue. But they're not a terribly fearful lot.

It's all about concentration of power. The more power any one entity has, the more you should fear it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

You're forgetting about China, which refuses to even countenance the idea of lowering emissions. Their emissions go up 10% a year and are now higher than the US's.

Of course corporations have a right to defend themselves in the political process, if they are about to be deprived of a lot of profits. I'm not sure how this is supposed to generate fear of corporations- if the voters wanted to, they could get people elected who want to cut emissions. They don't, for whatever reason.

To the extent that corporations have too much control over government, the answer is to deregulate. With less regulation, corporations will not be able to wield government as a sword to harm others. Global warming doesn't fit this pattern, and is an unusual case. But I'm still not seeing anything to fear.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Global warming is one issue on which we need international action, because there is no incentive for anyone by themselves to cut emissions. But as for people spending money to campaign for something, I'm not scared of that. It's their money, they can spend it how they wish. When they come to your house to confiscate your electric car and force you to drive a gas guzzler, then it will be time to fear!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

You vote the most important parts of government into office. You will never have a vote in any corporate decision unless you are a shareholder. Even as an employee, as part of the company, you have no voice. A government is only accountable to no one if it doesn't hold free and public elections.

You have a huge voice in any corporate decision. You are a customer. You can refuse to buy their product! On the other hand, you cannot say no to the government. If you do you will be hauled off to jail.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, tyranny is the same as heavy, heavy, regulation. Look through history: when has any country ever experience tyranny through a lack of regulation? Never!

As an example of why regulation is bad, consider the 10% margin I mentioned earlier. Now we have regulations that don't allow us to use less than 50% margin. But who does this rule hurt? Banks and the profesh came up with options, derivatives, etc. that allow them to get the leverage they desire. So the regulation ends up doing nothing more than limiting the choices of the common people.

I am fine with a tax, a progressive income tax. The problem is when some central planner tells people what they should do. People don't need a central planner to protect them from their own voluntary choices. They may need a government to redistribute wealth and provide for a number of great goals like education, the military, space research, etc., but not to regulate the people.

If you want to end corporate influence in politics, stop the regulation! What company would bother spending money to influence a government that did not regulate? The government would no longer be in a position to do anything to help them.

You don't need to fear corporations unless they are using the government. We don't need regulations to protect us from corporations without government, we need less regulations to protect us from corporations in cahoots with government.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Why would you be more scared of big corporations than a big government? A big government is far far bigger than even the biggest, baddest, corporation out there. It is also accountable to no one, because it makes and enforces the laws.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

It's a fictionalized biography of a really great trader with a very interesting approach to speculation.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the book is that the way it portrays the times (early 1900s), everyone apparently traded on thin margin in the 5-10% range. That's actually a lot more fair than the way it is now, where banks/investment professionals/rich people can still find ways to hyperleverage their money, but the common person cannot. The regulations are trying to protect common people from their own stupidity, when the real danger is not the stupidity of common people, but the concentration of power/risk in a few places.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Muffin, have you read Reminiscences of a Stock Operator? If not, I think you would really enjoy it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

If it was 700k, you may as well up the stakes and sue them for 7 million for causing you emotional distress.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, if the American people are in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, they can do it themselves. Nothing stops them from sending them a donation. You can even get a deduction on your taxes. The government should not be in the business of charitable giving.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I think politicians are so messed up about this - they talk about what their views on birth control are, or what is at the root of the immorality of the country, etc. why not commit yourself to Democracy instead? is there any candidate like that? RP certainly didn't seem like he was, and of course the other Repubs were not either.

I'd love for a candidate to say "whether we use public funds for planned parenthood should follow the will of the people. we'll put it up to a vote or look at public polls and make a decision based on that. because what the public actually wants to spend it's money on matters. they're paying the taxes."

That's exactly what candidates are supposed to do and should do. They announce their position, and the voters choose the one they agree with. If you want public funds for Planned Parenthood, vote for Obama. That's democracy.

Also, if you want a candidate who supports whatever is popular, I suggest Mitt Romney. That's what he does!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

States are less powerful. Concentration of power is the dangerous thing. Just as having banks too big to fail is bad. It's not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.

Also, state reps are more directly answerable to their constituents. The great contradiction with Congress is that their approval rating as a whole is something like 10%, but incumbents win reelection something like 80-90% of the time. Why? People blame Congress, but not their own Congressman. That's much harder to pull off in a state. You can't blame the politicians from the rest of the country.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Predictions:

Obama vs. Romney, Romney wins: Stock market goes up substantially the next day.
Obama vs. Romney, Obama wins: Stock market goes up a little the next day.
Obama vs. Santorum, Obama wins: Stock market goes up substantially the next day.
Obama vs. Santorum, Santorum wins: Stock market goes down the next day.
Obama vs. Gingrich, Obama wins: Stock market goes up substantially the next day.
Obama vs. Gingrich, Gingrich wins: Stock market goes down the next day.
Obama vs. Paul, Obama wins: Stock market goes up the next day.
Obama vs. Paul, Paul wins: The stock market has a fit and we get one of the biggest one-day declines in history the next day. Meanwhile the price of gold skyrockets.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And the primary reason I want a president who is Protestant is that the President is also head of state in addition to head of government, and must fulfill the duties of a head of state, namely to represent the country as its leader. This is the function of the Queen in the UK, for example.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'd like to point out with this that I feel you're really just buying into the false stereotypes propagated by leftists of Republicans as stupid, bigoted, idiots who will only vote for someone who is exactly like them in every conceivable way. The "battle lines" have been redrawn since the 1960s. The Culture War in America is no longer fought between Catholics and Protestants, it's fought between the Religious and the Religion-haters. Catholics and Mormons and Protestants have MUCH more in common with each other than they do with the militant atheists of the world.

Well, I'm basing this more on my own experiences as a Protestant, and specifically, with evangelicals. Religion ought to be more important given the rhetoric used by people. If your main idea is to vote for the most godly candidate, how could it be possible to have the 3 leading Republican contenders all not be Protestant?

At least for me personally, the candidate's religion matters at least somewhat, and I was under the impression that it mattered a lot to others. It's no good to say that they have the same positions on moral issues, because I don't think the government should legislate morality anyway, and besides true religion is not about morality but about God (this is my belief).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, why is only 1 Republican candidate Protestant, and he is not the favorite of the religious right? Seriously, people, your candidates are two Catholics and a Mormon. I know the moral majority believes strongly that the end justifies the means, but something is wrong with your thinking here.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.