FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day! (Page 18)

  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  31  32  33   
Author Topic: Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day!
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
The Spoiler Effect, if you have had say, for 60 years the Pirate Party and the Ninja Party exchanging power back and forth for the entire time and then Samurai decides to enter the race thinking everyone is tired of the "same old" parties;

What happens is that there is a portion of Ninja voters who prefer Samurai over Ninja, but really don't like Pirate; so what happens is that they punish their own interests by voting for Samurai, and suppose he manages to snipe away 9% of Ninja's voters in a close election it means he hands the victory over to Pirate; even though a majority of the people did not vote for Pirate.

So third party's in a FPTP system like the United States mathematically trend towards two party systems because any and all votes for a third party hands the election over to the party whose platform you do not support; forcing you to strategically vote.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ricree101
Member
Member # 7749

 - posted      Profile for ricree101   Email ricree101         Edit/Delete Post 
From a technical perspective, that debate was a nightmare.

There were constant audio and connection problems.

Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My problem with it is that I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. It's preferable for people to make gradual and incremental progress using their own money and their own goals and their own research, based on what looks profitable.
What about when-as with consumption of fossil fuels-those people demonstrate a huge unwillingness to actually work towards that kind of progress? People actually *say* they want to work towards such profess regularly. Does government have no responsibility to see a looming crisis and act?

Also, I do take issue as others have with the notion-which I'm not quite sure you hold to-that sacrifice is somehow inherently evil. It would be a sacrifice to compel through insurance or code that their home has a decent smoke alarm system, but only if you look at it from a certain POV.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Dan, was it evil for FDR's Administration to mandate Americans sacrifice in order to win the war? I also point out corporate and income taxes were as high as 90%.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
I would've thought the best argument for a gas tax is that gas has huge externalities that need to be priced in so the market can achieve efficiency.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people.

Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
There's also not a very good intersection between the poorest and people on minimum wage.
quote:
Even under the assumption that there are no employment effects, "only 10.66 percent of total [minimum] wage increases accrue to workers belonging to poor households." Given that 10.3% of households are in poverty, increasing the minimum wage is only slightly more effective as an anti-poverty measure as would be distributing money at random across households.
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2009/11/more-on-the-ineffectiveness-of-minimum-wages-as-an-antipoverty-measure.html
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Dan -

quote:
My problem with it is that I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. It's preferable for people to make gradual and incremental progress using their own money and their own goals and their own research, based on what looks profitable.
But America is a country, not a business. What you're describing can be an incredibly messy, costly, and possibly dangerous process. It would be one thing if we're talking about, say, the cell phone market. The government has no vested interest in telling people what kind of cell phone they should buy. It might have an interest in forcing people to pay a tax to support 911 service, but not telling them they have to buy a smart phone instead of an old flip phone. So if that market works itself out messily or whatever, it's no big deal because we're essentially talking about luxury items.

But the national energy market isn't a luxury item. It's the life blood of the entire nation. Financiers on Wall Street crashed the entire economy while trying to maximize profits, and they did so at incredible expense (and via massive destruction of wealth) to the American people. So I think it's silly to say that government has no role in protecting the nation from looming problems. I fundamentally believe that the government has a role, a duty in setting national energy policy to decide five, ten, twenty years out that our current consumption of fossil fuels, even if you leave out all the global warming stuff, represents a clear and present danger to the long term viability of the nation, and can seek ways to guide the nation toward better alternatives. Getting America off of oil will take decades, probably generations. And that's if we start now. If we wait a couple decades until we have to, because oil ran out or becomes prohibitively expensive, and THAT is the moment we start exploring alternatives, man, we've already lost. You don't just shift a national economy and way of life from oil to something else by snapping your fingers, not without huge, huge problems.

I simply want to avoid those problems by planning ahead.

quote:
Eh... sort of? The market doesn't have a reasoning mind, so it's silly to ascribe motive to it. So in that sense it's not good or evil, in the way that I could be good or evil.

But, taken as a system for trade and cooperation between individuals, it can be considered good or evil the same way that a rival system (say, communism) could be, or the same way that some other abstract system of interaction (say, murder) could be.

In this context, good and evil don't represent a morality system we're ascribing to a non-reasoning concept. Good and evil represent value judgments we are placing on the systems in question.

In that context of "good and evil," I would say that a free market is good. Not evil, and not amoral, but actively good.

You'll need to elaborate further and explain why. I'm not sure I get the connection between murder and the free market system. Well, you wouldn't like the connection I would make using those two things. [Smile] What is the difference, to you, between "morality" and "value judgments"?

quote:
You're implying that a "disparity" is a bad thing (bad in the context above). I don't get that. It's like the whole "income inequality" stuff going on lately.

I don't think there's anything inherently bad about income inequality. If anything, income inequality (between free citizens) indicates a society where there is less oppression and more opportunity for outliers and individual success. Lots of really horrific and oppressive societies, past and present, had great income equality.

I don't understand the income inequality bogeyman.

Because as the money amasses into fewer and fewer hands and leaves people behind, all sorts of problems are left in the wake. Money equals power, especially so in our society. More money in fewer hands slowly turns the nation into an oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy on top. By the way, I think ever since Citizens United, we're pretty much at that point anyway, but that's another discussion. It means less access to education, job training, etc etc. We tried it once, during the Gilded Age, and the country was a mess. Lots of people defending that time period like to point to the immense wealth created, but they ignore the fact that that wealth largely went to a very small minority of the super wealthy and a tiny middle class. Most workers weren't so jazzed at their living conditions.

And there are other concerns. Stagnant wages and wealth accumulation at the top is bad for our long term viability when what, 80% of the economy is based on consumer spending? How do you keep that engine going if people don't have any money to spend? Keeping dollars moving and keeping them in the hands of the masses is what our economy is based on in recent years. That system is currently broken because the people themselves are broke. The majority of the recovery in recent years involved wealth creation at the top, which hasn't done much to spur growth nationally.

So I believe for reasons of basic fairness, equality, and for economic reasons, income inequality leads to a worse off nation.

I also think your 'income inequality means we're a freer society' is highly questionable, if not outright farcical. Such a statement depends entirely on how you view oppression and opportunity. I think we have very, very different views on that, in part because I think you underplay the role that income inequality has on limiting opportunity.

quote:
Oil companies sink huge quantities of cash into R&D for a reason. When it's more profitable to frack or to build wind turbines or nuclear plants or whatever, they'll do that! Unless the government is incentivizing them not to, I suppose.
Ah, and there's part of the crux of it. When it's more profitable for them. But that assumes that the costs incurred by the energy company alone are the ones borne by society. That's incredibly, demonstrably false. And that's one of the reasons why government has a role to play, because government can visualize the cost to society as a whole, not just in a single industry, and can try to find best fit solutions that make the nation more efficient and cost effective as a whole. Exxon-Mobil has no such interest. I don't think that makes Exxon-Mobil evil, I just think that's a shortcoming of allowing a country to be run by corporations under the rubric of the free market system. It doesn't produce outcomes that are great for society as a whole unless tamed and guided by an external governing force.

Furthermore, it's incredibly inefficient. They might keep spending more and more money trying to find ways to get more oil out of the ground (and that's the vast majority of what they do), but it would be better for the country if that money was spent on another form of fuel entirely. Because they can maximize profits, with the price of oil so very, very high.

I think maybe we're getting bogged down here a bit in conflating a couple things too. There are energy consumers and energy producers. Oil companies are not energy consumers, they are producers. GE is not an energy consumer, it's an energy producer by creating wind turbines. Oil companies have no vested interest in hoping the price of anything goes down. They have a stranglehold on oil because the world runs on it. As far as they are concerned, the price can go up as high as can be borne and they'll simply reap the profits.

Government can look ahead to these sorts of price shocks and add some stability to the long term viability to the energy market. I don't care if the market wants to sort itself out messily when it's something like video games at stake. But when it's longterm national energy policy? There's a vested interest in not just leaving it to multinational conglomerates out to make a buck. There are other concerns at play.

quote:
The problem with this attitude is that you're just pivoting to avoid the individualist position. You're saying "people are collectively better this way," which, even if factually true (and I'm not conceding that right now), avoids the actual crux of the difference.
Say more about this. What's the crux of the difference?

quote:
This is an interesting claim. For argument's sake, could you give me a concrete example we could look at?

I think it will get back to the distinction between actual force, and responsibility denial that uses the idea of "force" as a shield.

Off the top of my head?

I'm forced to buy bundled cable when I'd really prefer to only watch a couple channels. The cable company is forcing me to subsidize a bunch of failing channels that would otherwise not exist if they had to survive on their own.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Can someone rename this the "dan's technological singularity will solve all problems eventually so it is evil to keep society from consuming as much as they want or whatever" thread and make a new election/debate thread or something
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll re-rail the thread when something happens.

But regardless, I suspect we'll be done pretty soon.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people.

Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.
Well, right. Energy costs effect almost every good and service in the economy. It's quite literally what fuels everything else. [Smile]

Mucus: Yeah, I'm aware that minimum wage doesn't do what it's supposed to. In fact, the very poorest and unskilled members of a given society are generally the people that get screwed the hardest by minimum wage laws. That being said, I was pretending the minimum wage functions as intended in an attempt to keep the example simple. I didn't want start that derail/argument too. [Wink]

And I just noticed Sam's complaint. Sorry for the derail.

Lyr: I have a partially complete response to you. Should we start a new thread or something? Or do you expect we'll be done soon enough that it's okay? Oh, I just checked and this is your thread, heh.

Well, I'm going to get some sleep. I'll finish my post tomorrow.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.

Well, right. Energy costs effect almost every good and service in the economy. It's quite literally what fuels everything else. [Smile]
Do you seriously not understand the problem with your math, or are you just being cute?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post 
Amanda Palmer is awesome. Did you know that Ian Fleming (and James Bond himself) loved scrambled eggs? There's a great recipe somewhere.

Who needs love when there's Southern Comfort?

Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Do the exact numbers really matter here?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Corrected in what way? Because from where I sit, she was wrong on the facts, and if Axelrod fed her the fact then he's wrong as well (or, you know, spinning).

The President referred generally to 'acts of terror' in his Rose Garden speech, but not specifically to the Benghazi attack as being an act of terror. He then spent two weeks steadfastly refusing to refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack, even when pushed on the issue by reporters, even after other elements within the White House and State were doing so. The President was very cautious about the application of the specific term to the specific case (and rightfully so, I would say). To assume that the general comment about "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech was referring specifically to Benghazi requires that you ignore the following two weeks of careful evasion of the issue by the President.

I am not sure what you mean by weeks of careful evasion. Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.

"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."

Pretty sure that labels it as a terrorist attack.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Do the exact numbers really matter here?

It's not a question of exact -- the 10% is arbitrary, as far as I can tell. It's the notion that it's the same percentage of everything (which makes no sense at all) that I am objecting to.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am not sure what you mean by weeks of careful evasion. Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.

"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."

Pretty sure that labels it as a terrorist attack.

I was aware of the Letterman quote when I made the comment, and of all the Administration's many statements about the attack it comes the closest (other than perhaps the Rose Garden comments) to saying it was a terrorist attack. But I don't think it does, for a few reasons: (1) he couples 'extremists' with 'terrorists', providing plenty of semantic wiggle room, (2) terrorists can attack without it being a 'terrorist attack'; the coupling of the two connotes a coordinated, planned effort, usually by a group, rather than the possibility of an uncoordinated action by people who happen to be extremists or terrorists, and (3) the setting was very informal; if the President were truly going to make a significant foreign policy statement (which I believe labeling the attack a terrorist attack would have been, again because of the connotation that the attack was coordinated and directed by a terrorist organization) it seems more likely he would have done it through his spokesman, or in person during a news conference, rather than during a stop on a late night talk show.

I don't think any of this was wrong. I think the President should be cautious about making assertions about events, particularly assertions that would lead to possible strikes against organizations in a fragile country trying to rebuild from a civil war. The real question, to my mind, is why the intelligence process worked at the rate it did. It took a couple of weeks before the news broke that there was no Cairo-like protest at all. Why did the Administration think there was, and why did it take so long for them to correct that misperception? I believe President Obama was (probably) accurately reflecting the state of knowledge at the time. My concern is that it seems to have taken what I would consider an inordinate amount of time for a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what occurred to be corrected, and when it was there was no information given about why it took so long.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka, if energy costs go up 10%, why the cost to the poor of buying gas and running the AC in their big homes goes up 10%, and the cost of everything will also go up 10% because that is the only cost in producing everything.....That $1.00 Big Mac will cost $1.10 because the cost of frying it, and delivering the beef, and even growing the beef will...um...
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post 
I win this argument:

http://xkcd.com/1081/

Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I actually don't care at all about the derail even if it is getting kind of into la-la land, i just am amazed how little the debate is actually being talked about

except i shouldn't be, because besides the "binders full of women" comment it was just more of the same, sure as death and taxes, it was just an exercise in talking-pointing around the moderator's questions. "That's an excellent question! Now, to preface my not actually answering the question, an inspiring anecdote prior to talking about what my opponent won't do or did wrong which has nothing to do with an actual response"

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Aros:
I win this argument:

http://xkcd.com/1081/

Cute.

More relevant: http://xkcd.com/1122/

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Dan -

Why don't you post your response to me in a new thread. It'll really only last as long as either of us has the patience to respond, but we should try to get this thread back to the election.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I'm not really sure. It might be more relevant to the election. But it's probably less relevant to this thread. [Razz]
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Prices are elastic, a 10% increase in fuel costs may not automatically mean everything goes up 10%. Especially since fuels tend to be subsidized for lower income earners.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am not sure what you mean by weeks of careful evasion. Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.

"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."

Pretty sure that labels it as a terrorist attack.

I was aware of the Letterman quote when I made the comment, and of all the Administration's many statements about the attack it comes the closest (other than perhaps the Rose Garden comments) to saying it was a terrorist attack. But I don't think it does, for a few reasons: (1) he couples 'extremists' with 'terrorists', providing plenty of semantic wiggle room, (2) terrorists can attack without it being a 'terrorist attack'; the coupling of the two connotes a coordinated, planned effort, usually by a group, rather than the possibility of an uncoordinated action by people who happen to be extremists or terrorists, and (3) the setting was very informal; if the President were truly going to make a significant foreign policy statement (which I believe labeling the attack a terrorist attack would have been, again because of the connotation that the attack was coordinated and directed by a terrorist organization) it seems more likely he would have done it through his spokesman, or in person during a news conference, rather than during a stop on a late night talk show.

I don't think any of this was wrong. I think the President should be cautious about making assertions about events, particularly assertions that would lead to possible strikes against organizations in a fragile country trying to rebuild from a civil war. The real question, to my mind, is why the intelligence process worked at the rate it did. It took a couple of weeks before the news broke that there was no Cairo-like protest at all. Why did the Administration think there was, and why did it take so long for them to correct that misperception? I believe President Obama was (probably) accurately reflecting the state of knowledge at the time. My concern is that it seems to have taken what I would consider an inordinate amount of time for a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what occurred to be corrected, and when it was there was no information given about why it took so long.

That is reasonable. I am not experienced enough to know what is involved in the kind of investigation they are doing. I certainly don't believe that the President or the people doing the investigation have done anything so deliberately wrong or deceitful as to deserve the attacks they have been getting over this. It is difficult to see Gov. Romney's action as legitimate criticism rather than a purely political "gotcha" attempt. This is especially true given his hasty first response and the remarks I posted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.

Well, right. Energy costs effect almost every good and service in the economy. It's quite literally what fuels everything else. [Smile]
Do you seriously not understand the problem with your math, or are you just being cute?
Well, I would hope that whether I understand or not you would still think I'm cute. [Razz]

But I may not be understanding your objection, no. Sorry. I mean, it's not going to map perfectly, of course, and some sectors will be more effected than others. But, as Darth_Mauve put it when he was trying to be satirical, energy costs certainly effect McDonald's in regard to their frying, delivering, and yes, even growing the beef for their Big Macs.

Was your point that increasing the cost of energy wouldn't map to a uniform commensurate increase in prices everywhere? Sure, I'll concede that. Especially in the short term. A lot of those fluctuations just get absorbed, if they don't look long-term.

So realistically, in the short term, a 10% increase in energy cost could easily reflect as a <%10 increase in costs for a consumer.

I did that notation right, right? Less than? Yeah, that looks right.

Edit: Shig said I did it wrong, and google agrees. < is less than and > is greater than. Oops!

[ October 19, 2012, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
Just popping in with some math pedantry that isn't that relevant: a 10% decrease is not the equal and opposite of a 10% increase. It's very close in this case, but it's not exactly the same. (Consider what happens at larger percentages: what's worse, a 100% pay cut or a 100% price increase?)

Right! Math pedantry over. Carry on!

Edit to add: The Math Pedant says that less than is actually "<", Dan. [Smile]

Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
But, as Darth_Mauve put it when he was trying to be satirical, energy costs certainly effect McDonald's in regard to their frying, delivering, and yes, even growing the beef for their Big Macs.

You really, really missed Darth's point.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Shigosei:
Just popping in with some math pedantry that isn't that relevant: a 10% decrease is not the equal and opposite of a 10% increase. It's very close in this case, but it's not exactly the same. (Consider what happens at larger percentages: what's worse, a 100% pay cut or a 100% price increase?)

Right! Math pedantry over. Carry on!

Edit to add: The Math Pedant says that less than is actually "<", Dan. [Smile]

But in school they told me the alligator eats the bigger number! [Frown]

(And yeah, your other point is well taken, good distinction.)

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
But, as Darth_Mauve put it when he was trying to be satirical, energy costs certainly effect McDonald's in regard to their frying, delivering, and yes, even growing the beef for their Big Macs.

You really, really missed Darth's point.
Apparently! Well, if you understood it, maybe you could clarify for me. [Smile]
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
modifying my other post, now rename thread to "an extremely ungodly basic lesson in goods elasticity and the price elasticity of demand, election talk GTFO"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Insults and hostility don't actually work on me, Sam. [Smile] But if you'd like me to stop derailing the thread, say that, instead of sniping and then immediately retreating as soon as I address you directly.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
But in school they told me the alligator eats the bigger number! [Frown]

It does. X < %10 reads "X is less than 10%." Because 10% is the bigger number.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Shigosei:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
But in school they told me the alligator eats the bigger number! [Frown]

It does. X < %10 reads "X is less than 10%." Because 10% is the bigger number.
Yep, google already clued me in to my mistake. I've gotten them mixed up for twenty years, and somehow I suspect this won't be the last time. [Grumble]
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Obama was on The Daily Show last night and is not getting hammered for calling the Benghazi deaths not "optimal."

It was a fairly run of the mill interview. Stewart tried to get him to expand a bit on some things, but he mostly gave a somewhat less formal version of his stump speech, though he did admit outright that he had an "off night" at the debate. One wonders how he could do such a decent job nutshelling the positives of his administration to Stewart in about 10 min, but such a terrible job of it at so many other venues.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
Eh, I have to think about it for a moment sometimes, too. It's not the most intuitive thing ever. [Smile]
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I created the Election Thread Annex for people to post non-election stuff from this thread in, in attempt to re-rail this thread to the election.

If people don't mind, please move non-election stuff over there.

Thanks.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Insults and hostility don't actually work on me, Sam. [Smile] But if you'd like me to stop derailing the thread, say that, instead of sniping and then immediately retreating as soon as I address you directly.

in the future, remember: (1) asking you three straightforward questions is not 'sniping,' (2) reading the answers and understanding that your mode of engagement is best left to others — and the answers were mostly satisfactory for my curiosity anyway — is not 'retreating.'

additionally (3) know what I am doing now from actual insults and hostility, and it will serve you well

I'm just completely amused with how much derail-power has been exerted on this thread.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll keep it brief because I want to respect Lyr's decision to try to re-rail the thread, but just to clarify, I wasn't characterizing your questions as sniping. Or your lack of response as retreating. I took your questions at face value. You can respond, or not, as you like. No worries. [Smile]

The constant amazement/amusement at the derail is what I was calling sniping, and the "I don't care if we get on topic" is what I called retreating. And the way you've expressed both of those sentiments is definitely a form of cavalier, too-cool-for-school hostility. Maybe you don't do it intentionally? I kind of doubt it. It's okay either way, though.

Anyway, sorry Lyr, any future comments like this I'll take to the other thread, I promise.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Threats to assassinate Romney explode after the first two debates.

quote:
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 17, 2012

Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue, Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the presidential race.

As we reported yesterday, in addition to threats by Obama supporters to riot if Romney wins, innumerable Twitter users are also making direct death threats against Romney.

The primary reason given for Obama supporters wanting to see Romney dead is the fear that he will take away food stamps.

If the tables were turned and conservatives were making death threats against Obama in these numbers, it would be a national news story. Indeed, the mere act of hanging empty chairs from trees as a reference to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech was hyped by the media as a deadly sign that conservatives were out to lynch black people if Obama won.

However, the major networks have remained completely silent on the disturbing trend of Obama supporters threatening to resort to violence if their candidate fails to secure a second term.

Twitchy has compiled a laundry list of assassination threats by Obama supporters made during and after the debate, and more continued to flood in this morning....

Link: http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

Let me simply remind certain of my most derisive critics in this forum that this is exactly what I predicted four years ago. Riots and threats of violence, including assassination. And again I repeat, how confident can we be that Obama will follow civilized custom and give a gracious concession speech--and not give in to his strong narcissistic tendencies and indulge in negative denunciations of "racism," if he loses (which it is now looking more and more likely that he will).

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
You predicted there would be threats made against a presidential candidate four years ago?

Try this.

The secret service has to deal with multiple threats daily against the president and presidential candidates. Why do you feel Romney is an outlier in this case?

President Obama has not made mention of assassination attempts made against him, he hasn't called for his supporters to use violent means to stop Romney from being elected, he has no history of asking that supporters harm other people. Violent or weapon based imagery are not a feature of his rhetoric.

You can find plenty of places on the internet where people are advocating violence against just about anybody.

Nobody on the left is rioting, if Romney is elected, we will do exactly what the right did when Obama was elected, accept the president elect, regardless of who he is.

Hopefully this time with more grace than many of Obama's vocal critics have exhibited, where they wasted years of discourse trying to talk about him being from another country, or just not American thus disrespecting that great office, and besmirching it.

You are making something out to be an anomaly which in reality has been the norm for decades.

Link of assassination attempts made against Presidents.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Goodness, Ron, do go more into detail about what exactly you mean by your suggestion that Obama is not civilized...as though it weren't perfectly clear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, realtalk: given the nature of ron's real and testable delusional mentality, it's probably not real clear. It's not clear to him. There's no rational apprehension of it that we can unpack, just the effects as they float to the surface of his mind. If it's ultimately about something that he would feel uncomfortable about us finding out about, then he has thoroughly put up a dissonance wall that prevents him from consciously self-recognizing it.

WE HAVE NOW DESCENDED to where ron is literally posting infowars links. There is nothing here to engage.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is nothing here to engage.
If you want the mice to leave your pantry, stop leaving food out for them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Well the secret atheist commie Kenyan Muslims aren't going to just stop running for President, nor is Ron going to just stop being nutty and dishonest, so we may as well play with the mice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
There is nothing here to engage.
If you want the mice to leave your pantry, stop leaving food out for them.
"Do Not Feed The Trolls" has never been good advice, in any incarnation. (that is a serious not dismissive thing it's just like not how it works, whether talking about real trolls, really bad posters, or rons)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
The thing is, it's not just the troll, it's the splash damage. I think you're all dead on in your responses, but Ron posts one crazy pants thing and then I have to read the fifteen responses that follow that all more or less say the same thing. And you never get anywhere.

Could we at least designate just one person to respond to him if we're so set on countering everything he says with something? At this point, I'm not so much worried about hoping he'll go away if we leave him alone as I'd like to limit the eye strain from reading all the responses.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I nominate Lyrhawn for our Designated Ron Responder position.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I nominate Lyrhawn for our Designated Ron Responder position.

I second the nomination.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The thing is, it's not just the troll, it's the splash damage. I think you're all dead on in your responses, but Ron posts one crazy pants thing and then I have to read the fifteen responses that follow that all more or less say the same thing. And you never get anywhere.

Could we at least designate just one person to respond to him if we're so set on countering everything he says with something? At this point, I'm not so much worried about hoping he'll go away if we leave him alone as I'd like to limit the eye strain from reading all the responses.

If we get ten of the chronic Ronsponders in on this I am so so down, but you are battling against the weird mix of incredulity and offense and amusement that someone like Ron brings to the table
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I nominate Lyrhawn for our Designated Ron Responder position.

I'd have to decline for health reasons.

I don't think my blood pressure could take that high stress a position.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  31  32  33   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2