Miscellaneous News. - Page 32

But...he was just stating facts, so why does it matter?!

But it doesn't matter much. He's said similar things in the past (and here and here and here) which is what made this one so believable among both critics and supporters of Krugman.

Even if Krugman didn't say that, everyone thought he did because it sounded like something he would say.

Of course it's not true. That's the point of the broken window fallacy.

Hmmm...who shall I believe in their economic analysis and logic? Frédéric Bastiat or Hands Sandon?

Hmmm...tough one.

No, really...I'm waiting for your logical and fact-based refutation of it.

How much of the post WW2 economic boom was actually due to the war effort?

Was it not the baby boom afterward that actually stimulated the economy?

Liberal racism is so funny.

I thought war was hell, but heres a worthy competition:
Los Angeles Times: Seoul's intellectual pressure cooker
Welcome to hyper-competitive Exam Village, where 20,000 people study around the clock for law school entrance tests, civil service exams and other trials.

Heres a telling excerpt:

That reminds me of the Gold Rush, where the real money was in selling gold prospecting tools to the prospective prospectors.


Given the stress these people endure it wouldnt hurt.

It might be subjective of me, but I feel lucky having been younger during the Thirty Glorious Years.

What terrible luck we're having. If only the hurricane and earthquake had been more destructive.

I assume there is a news story in there somewhere?

It's a reference to the morons and their moronic belief that the destruction that comes from things like war, earthquakes, hurricanes, et al is "good for the economy" and will "create economic growth."

Well that would be an asinine position to hold, wouldn't it.

Yes. Unfortunately it's more commonly held than you'd imagine and by otherwise reasonably intelligent people.

Yes, it is. Who was it that said we need a "New Pearl Harbor" again? Oh, those wacky Democrats!

Don't know. Whoever it was is a moron. A sick moron.

Yet they got what they were asking for (911) and look where that got us. You and I can both agree that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are both right on this issue.

http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

Not sure that means what you think it means.

"The process of transformation" could refer to either the re-tooling of America's military, as suggested by "911myths".

It could also refer to a "military takeover of the Middle East".

It could also refer to "both".

In strictly logical terms It could refer to "neither", although that appears to be an unlikely option.

If, as suggested by "911myths", the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay referred to "retooling America's military", then why would these ongoing efforts be such a controversial issue? Common sense tell us that the adoption of new technologies, (ie the said "transformation") in military organizations happens by default, and as such does not warrant a "catalyzing catastrophic" incident as suggested.

The Pentagon/DoD has always enjoyed a virtually limitless budget to keep ahead of the rest of the world: US military spending, has for a long time has rivaled the combined military expenditure of the rest of the world (including Russia and China), and now stands at around 42% of global military spending (!). Politicians from both sides regard cuts in military spending as a "no no", especially if it threatens jobs in their state, district or city.

Prior to 9/11, some of the first items on the Bush Jr. agenda (January 2001) was preemptive war against Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2001 Bush cabinet was loaded with the same people who authored that same R.A.D. document. They are all heavily invested in the US military-industrial complex. They are all hardline pro-Israel activists, many being dual US-Israeli citizens. They openly promote the "Zionist" political ambition ie the establishment, by force if necessary, of a "Greater Israel" within the MidEast. They also happen to be universally Islamophobic.

The explanation fe "transformation" put forward by alternative "911 groups" has far more traction that the "911myths" baby formula/ conspiracy yarn/pabulum. The key to 9/11 is all about motive. It's hardly surprising that the all important parameter of "motive" has been systematically excised from discussion of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent actions/effects.

The "they hate our freedoms" motive, put forward by President Bush just after 9/11, sounds like guilt transference, aimed at the demographic group/faith (Arabs/Muslims) towards which the US establishment has, for decades, demonized.

Bloomberg | China Faces Dwindling Labor Supply

Excerpt:

Some entrepreneurs already felt the pinch, moving to other golden lands of opportunity and adventure, like Laos or Vietnam.


Not to mention these countries and territories not being totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot.

For jobless, more sleep and TV, but also more unpaid work:

Obama Outsmarts Himself on Speech:

I'm sure nothing bad could come from this.

I'm sure nothing good can come from this. Nothing at all.

Nope. Probably not. At least not enough to make it worth the risk of the government having a complete biometric database of every one of its citizens.

But I forget...you actually trust the government.

Sarcasm aside, you're both right. It goes without saying that it will be misused, and that serious violations of personal liberty will occur. It's also necessary for state security, medical care and the increase of state influence in everyday life (income redistribution/welfare) that will never be turned back.

Not all bad, but close.

It would be nice to know the assumptions and probabilities behind the two estimates (cost and benefit).



It is? Care to elaborate? Because from what I can tell 100 ppb is about 0.00001%. That's 1/100,000th of a percent.

That's very unscientific of you. GEE, LOOK, THAT NUMBER IS SMALL! SMALLLLLLLLLLLL!

If you wanted to truly show that the number was insignificant, perhaps you could provide a scientifically tested benchmark of what would be considered to be a level of pollution that is truly unhealthful. But no, you just gasp at what seems to be a small number without grasping how truly large or small it may be on the appropriate scale.