Science Abuse

If by that you mean, I wont have allot of money,t hen you may be correct. I wIll, however, have allot of assets. As for going broke, that is not correct either. If I blow $500,000 on a house,t hen I have a $500,000 house, 100% positive equity. So, supposed I don't have a job and I blow the whole million, I'm still not broke. I have a house that I can hock for $400,000+, or I have a shit ton of equity that I can borrow against. The pitfall of lotto winners is spending like they have no limit to the cash. This results in bleeding cash on things from with you cannot get it back: Travel, booze, coke, whores, cars that depriciate 50% as soon as you leave the lot, etc. Many of them actually lose loads of money gambling. lol

If i was making a Mil, you bet your ass I'd spend it, I'd start with a house, paid in full. The rest would be cost of living, more education, and cars. You do bring up another point: Who is in DC making the descisions about how much favor the wealthy people receive....? Wealthy people.

Ahh not the same context, though. -First off, you're talking about generating power, not using it up. If you were to present the same thing as "I spent lots of time and money on something that consumes allot of fuel", then it would be along the same lines. You'd be accounting for a large amount of a resource for recreation, while lower power cars could use to do work. Thus, we Americans are paying more for fuel. The worlds markets are making it harder for us to acquire the resource. -There isn't a finite amount of horsepower. When you make more horsepower, it's not coming from anyone else's engine. When you lose horsepower, it doesn't go to some one else's engine. This is all hypothetical, though. We all know that FCs don't make shit for power.

I don't need to offer a solution, history has already pointed it out. There isn't one. You have build up and revolution, redistribution, then build up and revolution, etc. I'm just pointing out that it is accelerating as a result of legislation that promotes it. It's just like weather. An imbalance builds and builds until there is a storm, then things are nice for a while. I can't stop it, and you don't want me to. Equilibrium is what you would call communism. Also, your wrong in saying that I want the have-nots to be given money that they don't earn, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they are worth more than they are earning, and the top tiers are worth much less than they are earning. like the image said "you need us more than we need you".

pdqgp: How can you be so far off, you didn't even try to address what I was saying. I said was pissed because you weren't paying attention, your retort was "So you mad because I pointed out several people...". The hell, man, can you read? And no, you didn't post several anything that fit anything, again you probably didn't read the criteria. You are stupid, so you speak loudly/strongly in the hope of drowning out arguments, rather than debating them. Wouldn't be so bad if you didn't suck so bad at spin doctoring. YES! This man gets it, you get a pint! We cannot afford to stimulate the economy, and we damn sure cant afford to set appreciable amounts of money aside for investments. If the 160 people made 10g more a year and maintained their consumption, they could have over $2mil a year in available investment money or screwing around money, either way, it's blood back into the system. This comes from displacing pay, it comes from the top and brings up the bottom. or Do what the Romans did, sack a country when you need cash, stimulate the economy with plunder.

Proof that you're not paying attention, and you wont because you don't want you to. You even quoted half a sentence to make yourself look better. The whole sentence: It is not communism because I'm NOT telling you that "No one should have more than they need" In light of this obvious twisting bullshit, this thread is a waste of time. Your trying to twist things to make them bend to an unrelated argument that you want to make. You opinion say that the rich are good and welfare is bad, but math says differently, and math is the only truth in existence. Evan, you and I should hang some time. I'll leave on chest thumping, since that is where this is going: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1664/fuzzyup2.jpg

This is true...but where are they? Nevermind that the saved money isn't befitting the economy nearly as much as it would if spent, just ask yourself: If I had to put 8.2 million dollars somewhere, would I put it in the Delaware County bank?" Chances are, it would end up in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. But you're focusing on a snapshot, what it's doing now. At some point, that money is going to be pulled, as well as any intrest and profit made from it. Secondly, the X% that some one is making off of that $8mil is nothing compared to the benefit of 160 people spending $7.6mil of it. Absolutely not, and I addressed this at the end of my last post. The way I put it was, "you make as much as you can spend." You still have every motivation to make money, with the exception of "I want to swim in cash like a McDuck." You want to make millions so you can buy a private jet and live on an island? Do it! For the love of god spend it, so people can keep making private jets and islands. Think of wealth like a resource, because it absolutely is. Just like air, everyone needs some of it to survive. Suppose people began compressing and storing the earths air, sucking it out of the sky and tanking it some where. If some one was holding more air than they could breath while you struggled to get enough O's to pressurize you house, would you think that he deserved all that air because he could afford a big enough compressor to obtain it? He worked hard on that compressor, he should have the right to as much air as he can get! Beleive it or not, there is the same amount of wealth on earth today as there was during the hunter gatherer days. The difference between now and then is simply marketing.

Wrong. People will always need to eat and stay warm, therefore there will always be occupations. You guys are (almost) all missing the point entirely, meaning that I will type for hours and hours and make no headway. You're so caught up in what you believe that you cannot see the data. The economy, and therefore the nation, is better off with more people controlling the wealth. It is not communism because I'm not telling you that "No one should have more than they need". I'm saying that no one should have more than they can spend. You still get your profits, you still get your capitalism, you still get your freedom. But you also have the responsibility to maintain the economy that has supported you. Million dollar PROFIT, not just earning a million dollars over time. Get yourself a million cash-backed dollars of spending power (no credit). Welfare rats aren't good, but they aren't as detrimental as the blue bloods. The welfare money stays within our boarders. Regarding winners and losers: There are none. This isn't a game, this is a system. Everything you do effects everything that everyone does. Why should winners help the losers? Because if they don't, they will end up losing too. History repeats itself. On the subject of history: I'm not a communist, neither are any of you, but if this keeps up, our grandkids will be. This isn't new, follow the same lines of economic progression throughout history and tell how well it's worked out....? It doesn't matter if it's an aristocracy of nobles or one of "income elite", they all get their heads cut off when the masses hit rock bottom and get pissed. The distribution of wealth will continue along these lines until it is corrected, either by those controlling the money or those who loot their mansions. Vilfredo Pareto says so. I'm done, youkids have fun with this one. (Re: my work, I kept this open in a word doc and added to it as the day went on. I multi-task )

Looks good, but Harley isn't making any money off of it.

If we were talking about a slight difference in wealth, then you would be absolutely right. Unfortunately, this simply isn't possible anymore, there is too much of an advantage held by the top 3%. I challenge you to make a million dollars by working hard. You cant do it (outside of professional sports). Some time, some where, you're either going to have to lose your shirt, or fuck somebody over. Keep in mind, those guys aren't "making" money, that term is misleading. An economy has a certain amount money to go around. If you want to control X amount, it has to come from somewhere. There are firms out htere that make massive amounts of money by buying up companies, liquidating them, and laying of all of the workers. this happend at my last job, though they kept our line of chinese-made parts. We weren't struggling, we were doing well, but our owners were old and decided to sell. They got their money, the firm got thiers, and everyone who worked hard to make the company what it was got axed (some had been there from the begining). 6 people made a load of cash, 30 people got laid off, and we were doing well. the people controling the cash are misusing it.

The point you guys ar emissing is simple: Our money is worth more in many hands than it is in few hands. If I were Wagoner, I'd be happy with a few hundred thousand a year, and I'd expect to be fired if I didn't improe the company. But I didn't grow up loaded, he's acustomed to nicer things. You posted while I was writing, look below: Actually, I am. I don't like him because he's being paysed gobs of money to suck at something, I could suck at it for half the price! And you guys blaming the poor, you have indeed missed the point. They are a burden, yes, but htey are a burden to the taxpayer, which is us. ALSO keep in mind,t hat the welfare money that we are giving them is passing through them and back into the community. Even though they didn't make the money, they are stimulating the economy with it. The entire post centers on the (Republican) idea that money must be spent to have a strong country. A bunch of people holding on to their money and not psend it is what closes buisnesses down. A pertienet and current example: New cars. Buying a new car is pretty much fiscally stupid, they depriciate and don't do anything better than an off-lease used car. Suppose 20% of the car buyers realaize this next year, and buy used instead of new. What happens to the auto makers? They lose, they lay off, unemployment goes up, welfare goes up, but the taxes funding it go down. Everythign is effected by everything. Our fiscal responcibility kills the dollar, but WE HAVE TO horde our pittence, because we're struggling to stay fed. The people controlling the wealth are doing just that, controlling it. They move it around, grow it a bit, but mostly just sit on it. They have to SPEND it, put it in other peoples pockets, so that they can put it in other peoples pockets, so that they can put it in other peoples pockets, so that they can put it in other peoples pockets, etc. The capitalist Economy is a circulatory system, and we're developing a a huge clot at the top. Those 160 people represented over 7 million dollars being put into local shops, services, banks, and mortgage firms. If they get laid off, then that 7 million dollars dissapears AND a huge deffecits apears, because there are now 160 people sucking down 5 or 6 million dollars in unemployment. Shops close, taxes go up, etc. Why did this happen? So the upper teir people could hold onto their peice of the pie. What do they do with all that money? Effectively nothing, they become the clot. Like I said before, working capital doesn't count, because it doesn't stay anywhere; "You can use my money, but I want it back." So we see a downward spiral. The wealthy sacrifice the workers to maintain their wealth...but it is those very workers that buy crap and contribute to the wealth. Consider, all the people that GM laid off used to get GM discounts. So, when time came to buy a car, many of them went for a new GM. Now that those million or so people don't have jobs, they aren't buying cars, sales are effected, more workers get laid off, etc. I'm trying not to sound like I'm advocating a communist "redistribution of wealth", because communism doesn't work. BUT, we need to take the trillion dollar clot from the people on the upper crust and spread it around to the working people so that they can spend it on houses and Pontiacs and Harleys and CONDOMS and trips to the lake. Some of you say "Oh they earned it,t hey have that money for a reason, etc!" Donald Trump. How did he make his first million? He inherrited it. It is much much easier to turn a million dollars into 2 milion than it is to turn $20 into $40. Dick Cheneys total gross investment in halliburton back in 99 is now worth about 3x what he paid for it. How do people get super rich? They start out rich. CEOs? Have you ever met one? Do you know what they do? They make loads of moeny because they can, plain and simple. They are not given a salary, so much as they are patted on the back by investors and the board. They've been getting X percent more every year for the last 150 years, and it's not because they are worth it. There are people getting multi million dollar bonuses while they drive their companies into the red. Sorry guys, if you don't grow our wealth, we don't grow yours.

I'm a carpenter, don't forget my local ecomony. The point was more that we need to stop voting for people who coddle the rich.

Rich people are bad for the economy, and trickle down doesn’t work. You've all heard me say this before, but here's some fodder: This is an example that trucked through my head a few minutes ago, so I thought I’d write it down. To illustrate, I’ll use the example of Richard Wagoner and some laid off GM line workers. Lets establish annual pay, first: Wagoner; $8,200,000 (2005) Line worker: $50,000 (there abouts. Fair wage for a bolt installer, shut up UAW) For the comparison, we’ll hypothetically knock Wagoner down to $200,000 a year (Poor guy must be starving) With that free’d up $8mil, we can employ 160 line workers (insurance etc not included). Now, ignoring the fact that poorer people tend to have more kids, we’ll just focus on individuals here, in a periodic consumption kinda way, starting with daily. The worth to the economy is measured by how much they spend and put back in. I’ve giving Wagoner a big benefit of the doubt, making him out to be a much better consumer than he probably is. To summarize, we’re comparing an $8.2mil Wagoner vs 160 $50k workers. Daily: -Meals *Wagner, 3 meals x $50 (he don’t eat white castle). $150 into the local economy. *160 workers, 3 meals x $10 (we eat crap, but can afford Arbys because we have jobs) $4800 into the local economy. Workers > Rich Weekly: -Fuel *Wagners jet is thirsty, he burns 300 gallons a week @$3; $900 into the economy. *160 workers. In 2005 the average yearly consumption per capita was about 540 gallons, divided by 52 is 10.4 gallons a week, times 3, times 160. $4992. (You and I know that commuters use much more, and the non-drivers swayed that survey. But I needed data) Workers > Rich Monthly: -Housing *Wagner, lets round way up and say he spends $10,000/mo on his domestic properties. *Workers: You’re not affording more that $1000/mo, so $160,000 a month. Also keep in mind, houses are consumers too, 160 homes will require more plumbers, electricians, masons, etc. -Water: *Wagner: round up to $1000/mo, lets say he had fountains and pools. *Workers: About $50? x160 is $8000 -Energy (Consuming allot of this is bad, but for Republicans sake, we’re only focusing on money) *Wagner, lots of gas and electric for his big place, $2000/mo *Workers: Who pays less than $200avg/mo for a small house? No one. $200x160 is $32,000 -Media *Wagner gets the illest shit, pays $1500 a month on cable, satellite, phone, internet, and movie rentals. *160 workers just want cable and internet, average it at $80/mo (wish mine was that cheap), $12,800 Stuff: -Audio *Wagner gets the top of the line, best you can buy. $0 into the national economy. He damn sure didn’t buy an American stereo/TV. But, lets say that the store/salesman made $2000 off the sale. *Workers, same deal. Our crap is cheaper, but we buy allot more of it. The stores just have to make $13/head off of us to beat out Wagner. Believe me, they make more. Walmart – Sanyo profit margins are much higher than B and O. -Cars *Wagner has an impressive stable….it’s probably all German and Italian. But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he buys a top’o’the line GM vehicle from every class: $90k XLR, $60k Escalade, and a $200,000k RV. So, $350,000 *Workers: We have our jobs, we can afford a new base G6 for our family: $18k each, $2,880,000. Vacations I give up here, this wont be counted. This will again be a huge skew because Wagners will spend $3000 on airfare to go someplace outside the US, but 160 trips to “the lake” will probably average $500-$1000 each. I’ve spent enough time, but this is enough to get the point. Rich people are bad for the economy because they are poor consumers. “Oh but they invest”...Working capital is not earned income, so it’s not here. Furthermore, they invest some beyond our borders (if they’re smart), so not all of it trickles down. In point of fact, very little is trickling down. Any econ folk want to tell us what our dollar would be worth in the following comparison: Lots of people making a little money A few people making allot of money So, that’s my hair brained idea, and may well be flawed. I leave it to you all to go at it. Something that you cannot argue against: $160 people making $50,000 a year will put ALLOT more money back into the local/national economy than one guy making $2,000,000 In the very limited example above, Workers spend almost twice on annual food consumption than Wagoner spends on everything, all year (1,752,000 vs 627,558). All told, the 160 workers made $8,000,000 and put $7,397,184 of it BACK into the local economy. The $602,816 remaining, divided over 160, means that the workers have $3767 each to spend on clothes, soap, vacations, etc. It all comes back. (Not even mentioning credit debt) Wagoner, on the other hand, made $8,200,000 and only spent $627 558. That is $7,372,442 that does not go back into the economy. “Oh, but he invests it!” Not all of it, but lets go with you guys, lets say he invests it…for how long? It will eventually be cashed out, his $8.2mil is his money. Chances are, he has good enough brokers that he will pull out quite a bit more than he put in. In the end, the economy still loses. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Reagan was a charlatain, and “trickle down” only trickles up.

"The most efficient way to turn gasolene into noise without the pesky biproduct of horsepower". I have to agree on this one, the Nostalgia isn't lasting. People can't be stupid with their money like they could in mid nineties. If they're going to buy a bike, it will have to be cheap and reliable.

You've got to be more specific, the couties over there can pass laws just the same as our states can. I'm sure that gun ownership in London is restricts, but are the laws you've sited applicable inthe boonies? If so, I've seen allot of law breakers running round with rifles and shotguns. As for Australia, pretty much everyone bwetween Perth and Sydney has a rifle, it keeps the casuaries in check. Again, the Ausies have laws broken down by region. City cops get flashlights, while toothless blokes in the outback drive around with 3 rifles hung in the back window of their Hilux. DC is full of assholes that NEED to be shot, I can see why they wouldn't want to have concealable weapons in town. Just another reason that you don't want to live in DC.

So you're telling me that you cant own a fire arm in Britain, Australia, or DC? Because you're wrong in all 3 cases. Go to the Ausie "outback" or the Britsh "countryside" and you'll be hard pressed to find some one not carrying a firearm while roaming their property. Hell, in 90% of Australia you would be an idiot for not carrying. In the cities, you don't need them because a violent criminal is going to shoot/stab you before you even know that you'll need to pull your gun, any conjecture is a manipulation of statistics. If you want to stage your own revolution, the carry laws wont exactly be applying, so who cares? You've got it good here in the states, the hell more do you want?

Has anyone else heard about this? Is history repeating itself?

I respectfully submit that your humble opinion is absolutely wrong. First: Who has tried to take your guns, honestly? No one with any power at all. Some are trying to make it harder for you to buy certain kinds, but no one is taking anything. A mountain has been made of the gun-control mole hill. Not even the evil Hillary would have the audacity to try anything of the sort, it would be political suicide. Second and most importantly, regarding context: When some one comes to you and tells you to give up your weapons, or you'll be killed, THEN and only then can you evoq the great warrior king. Until then, the Gun crew is just looking for something bad assed to say. It's disrespectful that a pack of people that are just crying about not being able to buy assault rifles would dare liken themselves to such an epic and selfless act as the Spartans and Thespians sacrifice at Thermopylae. If you want to quote some one in the same context, use any quote from Ralphie in 'A Christmas Story', like why he would need a BB gun: or

I know exactly what it means, that's why I asked. Get what? You can't just put "come and get them" in your sig and not tell us what we're trying to take from you. The gun crews love of it is pretty stupid. (I'll send this one to the kitchen!) Btw, good luck accurately spelling out the correct pronunciation with English phonetics, it's just no the right OS.

Get what?

From another Ebayer: Gets down to 40 below in Nigeria all the time.

Auctioning these boots: http://cgi.ebay.com/Millet-Everest-Mountaineering-Boots-US-11-5-w-crampons_W0QQitemZ290184171715QQihZ019QQcategoryZ1299QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem The bidder has no clickable history or feedback...wassup?

PM box full: I think the Torque Converter would make a good Xmas gift, same with the Tires and the mustang Clutch plate (TKO came with 2)!

It's probably for sale because he cant get it to run. Better know your shit if you buy that thing.

No dice. Its actualy fine beads of melted glass. Anything that removes them will scratch the glass up and make it worse, requiring polishing.