is quite a funny figure when you consider that the superfund doesn't even get 1 billion a year. the superfund is a governmntal agency that was created to clean up supertoxic sites. every american lives on average within 8 miles of such a site. currently the superfund has barely enough resources to keep its current cleanup projects ongoing. impossible to take on new projects! less than 20% of the known supertoxic wate sites are treated due to a lack of funds. i do not have to be called a tree-hugging environmentalist when i remark that most of this waste will end up in the drinking water if the sites are not treated. the question is just when, not if.
5 billions a month - you could prevent a catastrophy from happeningby cleaning up your house before you mess up another one. this drinking water problem is a much more serious threat than terrorism ever will be...
but of course - democracy to iray (rofl)
i wonder how this period will be called in future history books - the period in which america bankrupted itself and lost its superpower strength? or will it be "the biggest economic crises in the developed nations that ever happened". could also be "the failure to contain environmental pollution due to economic interests of the united states".
next time, better don't go to the elections.
Alpha, we are talking monetary policy and how it affects economics. Your name calling reflects real immaturity, as is your lack of appreciation for how the growth of money market funds, and their reserve requirements, have affected monetary policy. This in turn revolutionized repo and GSE processes. All very important influences on monetary policy. You really enjoy talking on subjects you know very little about! Must be that lawyer training... you sound very small...
Hey blabber puss. You are almost funny. If you think "the heavy use of money market funds instead of savings accounts," has caused some kind of quantom change in economics, you are sadly lacking. There has been no quantum shift nor have the fed rules 'drasticly' changed. If you want to make these statements, have the capacity to cite the change and the effect. You are so full of it. No wonder your economics are as soft as your Iraqi reasoning.
lol! You are reading that '60s Samuelson tomb and presenting out of date nonsense. Fed rules have changed drastically the past 25 years. So has the monetary system and its mechanics. Want an example? The heavy use of money market funds instead of savings accounts. Do a little homework... What is the reserve requirement of a money market account and how has the reserve requirement of savings accounts changed over the last 25 years? Alpha, why do you talk with such little knowledge? What is even worse, you don't even do any research when challenged. Just talk, talk, talk...
Samuelson out of favor. With whom, you, other Neos, the supply siders. As for the Fed being a bank monopoly using economics to its responsibilities and butter up the bottom line, I think you will have to explain yourself. Fed hasn't changed much in the past 30 years. Maybe even 60, so you will have to spell out what you think it is doing which is or is not, its modern responsibility. That is if you can.
Economics is not a science, no matter what the bomb making, award giving enterprise wants you to believe. Its art. Samuelson is out of favor today. His artwork has been eclipsed by others. On the other hand, the Fed is all about a bank monopoly that uses economics to cloak its responsbilities and butter up the bottom line. Stick to banking. Learn it, don't just pontificate on it using old artwork.
I could possibly use some updated Eco 101 tomb, so I will take that part of your post under advisement.
In your case however, a refresher on Samuelson would be a good first step.
Alpha, your Economics 101 course, with the Paul Samuelson tomb, is terribly out of date. You need a refresher course before you spout your nonsense. It tends to help and upgrade the conversation. But... you are a lawyer, and lawyers are trained to attack people when the lawyer knows nothing of his subject. That course you learned well, but such a focus on such a lowly course leads to those lawyer jokes.
REGARDING: Alpha, have you looked up Bernanke yet? I see you were quite embarassed with this low key, name calling retort. Learn your subject, come back and we'll discuss.
RESPONSE: You are acting like a game-playing moron.
Please offer those thoughts of the professor that are applicable to any argument you are attempting to put forth.
You are a waste.
You have no idea how to dialogue logically and objectively.