I don't think that Putin cares what Obama has to say nor would he believe anything he said.
Probably a global war is not the best solution to the "extinction by over population" path that we are now on. Some sort of birth control quota might be better but the religious nuts would be opposed as this prevents them from making more believers. The pope would have a heart attack. Only the Chinese could pull this off. Unfortunately population growth probably cannot be legislated so what else is there? Somehow we need to get the world population down to about 3 billion or less. When we run out of resources we will get well below that via mass starvation but that isn't a good solution either. Going through a few decades where humans start eating other humans isn't that appealing either. Maybe an engineered virus that kills off 2/3 of the population and does it quickly to minimize suffering is a humane solution. But that won't happen either. Death by cannibalism will probably be the default scenario because we won't do anything and that is the path we are now on.
Maybe when we send aid to others we can trade food for testicles until they no longer need our food. We can be generous. One year supply of food for two testicles. Sounds like a bargain to me. And it will make the farmers in the US money by supplying all the food. And I can imagine that you can ship the testicles to some part of the world where they eat them for some reason like to increase their virility. Everyone is happy.
If you can't even feed yourself then why would you want kids anyway? Especially when the father is nowhere to be found. Of course there may be a problem of people cutting off someone else's testicles to get the food but the end result will be the same. No sense in worry about things that are out of your control. Right?
Another way to put it is to say modern economies balance between capitalism and socialism. Too much either way can lead to trouble. Some day people may evolve to where more socialism is possible. For now I would settle for a fair balance.
1. No let's have a fairer system and stop the rich from stealing from the rest of us with their high paid lobbyists ans Supreme Court rulings.
2. Adjusted for inflation wages for the average worker have not risen in 40 years and the minimum wage is lower now than 40 years ago when adjusted for inflation.
3. The Citizens United ruling. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING??
4. The poverty rate has risen because your rich buddies caused the worst financial crisis in 80 years and we are just now starting to get back to something resembling normal.
5. You're the one who said the poor are getting poorer but aren't really poor. Those were YOUR words Clyde.
6. But my dear Moron those countries have far more government than we do and higher tax rates thus blowing your case to bits!!
Poor baby, did the Dem make you mad? Interesting how the right-wingers believe in the Constitution except for the part about free speech.
Let me be sure I understand: a major global war would be healthy. Is that what you're saying?
As for a U.S. response .... If you were President, what would you do? Do you think that Putin will be kept in check by strong language?
The size of the Federal government and government in general is declining under BO. There are fewer government employees now than when BO took office. Every month, government has fewer employees ... about 29,000 fewer last month as I recall [that's a one month decline]. Our employment statistics would look better except for the relentless decline in government jobs under BO. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all added lots of government employees, but don't let a few facts get in the way of a good story boyz.
After posting the query I realized the REITs may be able to treat the transaction as a 2013 event. Thanks for the verification!
He is forcing me to consider making a dump everything decision on Monday.
Putin has been looking at reacquiring the satellite states that were lost in 1989 for a very long time so I suspect we can expect more of this as the US reduces its military force. Eventually the Soviet Union will be reinstated if Putin has his way. And China wants to own the entire South China Sea and would not mind having the resources in Australia and Africa. It should make for interesting news. Much more interesting than if we kept our military force and thus forced them to play nice. Maybe the world needs this so they can come to grips with what people are really like rather than having the illusion that many have conceived under a well behaved world that we have had under US military intimidation. What we are about to get is a reality check. This will be healthy. And besides, the eventual carnage that may result will help reduce the world's population which it is a good thing in the long run. And once they are all dead they won't know the difference anyway. And it will help cancel out the massive amounts of green house gas emissions resulting due to a major global war.
If you had plans to move to Eastern Europe I would put those on hold until it can be determined if diplomacy works. But keep in mind who will be in charge of that effort so don't get your hopes up.
There is nothing on these messageboards but people buying ideas off the rack and using off the rack arguments to defend and attack.
I prefer to think for myself.
Economies consist of three or four factors of production within constraints of pervasive scarcity: resource producers, investors, and income earners. A fourth arguable factor is entrepreneurship. This we know from Econ 101.
One framework for understanding economics is to recognize that each of these factors are broad political interests - producers, investors, income earners - which are in a perpetual, dynamic struggle for primacy.
A study of economic history suggests this struggle-for-primacy is subject to limitations imposed by systemic instability such that the successful approach to primacy by a given Factor-Interest will inject instability or sub-optimal mal-adaption in the entire system.
Modern market economies with representative governments, within an environment of intra and inter-national political competition, have produced balancing mechanisms with some measure of succcess so that finding 'sweet spots' in each Factor-Interest can create optimal aggregate economic outcomes best understood as a John Stuart Millian outcome of a reasonably wide possible dispersion of prosperity.
Its all a matter of balance.
As with any Balancing Mechanism, it all depends on the breath of the plus or minus.
We are at the point where the Investor and Resource Factor-Interests have achieved a level of primacy that is approaching balance bounds, necessitating engagement of our civilizational Balancing Mechanisms.
The irrational, agrressive, brain-stem conservatives here will not understand a word of this and will struggle for a moment to find a reply from the shelf of responses provided by those who do their thinking for them.
The response will be : "that sounds like socialism"
He makes stuff up. He can't provide links because he has never researched anything that he says. Thus he has no links to give. If you challege him he responds by making something else up. He never questions his own conclusions. It doesn't even occur to him because he does care if he is wrong. My guess is that he is used to being around people with similar low stardards and thus feels like it is normal behavior. I think that he imagines that some people believe him. I can't imagine that other liberals believe him. If a conservative were to make similar erroneous claims I would wish he would stop.
That is another theory however l am not aware of any research that shows that we have been able to measure the solar flux that hits the earth and then correlate that with temperature variations. We could do this from space and I know that they are are studying the sun but I did not know they were doing it for this reason. It would be interesting to know if they have concrete evidence that the solar flux varies. Do you know of any researh papers on this?
I didn't invest in 1987 but I thought that crash was caused by an investment strategy they called portfolio insurance which caused a chain reaction sell off market wide. That strategy is no longer used. After that they added the triggers that cause the market to close to prenent such extreme sell offs.
And reducing that would make a big difference. It is really tiresome that people say do nothing because one thing won't solve the whole problem.
That's another problem. Researching global warming is a source of funding for colleges and some research groups. If you tell the man with the money that he doesn't need to research it anymore then the pay checks stop coming. For the people doing the research the goal is not to solve the problem. The goal is to keep getting more follow on research contracts. So you do whatever accomplishes that goal. You can count on human nature to cause people to do and say what the money man wants in this regard. It is all about the next pay check.
No I asked for EVIDENCE. It's a concept you guys seem to have real problems with. Of course it involves using your brain
First time we tried trickle-down capitalism, we ended up with third-world income inequality. Shut the #$%$ up.