nova - Viewing Profile: Posts -

Jump to content

Welcome to

Welcome to -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.



Member Since 08 Dec 2009
Online Last Active 2 minutes ago

In Topic: math isn't my strong suit but this just doesn't seem sustainable

Today, 09:18 AM

The trajectory of the country is not sustainable for some very simple reasons.

Simple concept.  Wealth  and "stuff" are one and the same.  Money and other forms of wealth is only valuable because it can buy the "stuff" that you need and and want.  Thus wealth can be considered equivalent to stuff.

Therefore, the only way to really grow wealth, is to make stuff.  Things and ideas that people can use.

Gov't does not create stuff.  Gov't does things but it never really creates stuff of economic value.  Therefore gov't doesn't create or grow wealth, it only siphons off of the available wealth.

Only the private sector creates stuff and therefore only the private sector grows wealth.

Over the last 100 years, the percentage of available wealth dedicated to running all levels of gov't, where it doesn't produce more wealth, has grown while the percentage dedicated to the private sector has gone down significantly.

The end result is the stagnation that we see now, where the only episodes of prosperity are artifically inflated asset bubbles.  So called generational GDP, the 30 year rolling average of average annual GDP growth, has dropped from around 6% in the 50s to just over 2% now.

That is to say, as the burden of gov't has gone up, the rate of economic growth that an individual can expect to see in their lifetime has dropped nearly 4 percentage points.

And the burden of gov't is continuing to go up.

In Topic: math isn't my strong suit but this just doesn't seem sustainable

Today, 09:10 AM

View PostForwardRebels, on 17 April 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

I am no progressive. Smokes likes to Trolololol me with that jibe, but I am a Libertarian, and yes, I supported Ron Paul.

You think QE is a good policy? Why?

View PostARfanNmem, on 18 April 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

From what I've read, they were frustrated that low interest rates weren't causing massive investment and thought this would free up banks to lend more.  It basically made bankers a Posted Image-ton of money and little else, so I'd say it was a bad idea.  But Krugman told me it worked and there is no inflation and all is well...

What's ironic is that Krugman spends his days bitching about inequality when it's his preferred policies of QE and loose money that are the 2nd biggest driver of inequality in the US today.  All that hot money has gone into asset markets, driving up prices, and guess what, poor folks don't own assets, rich folks do.

Incidentally, the #1 driver of inequality in the US is simple demographics.  People make more $ as they get older, peaking about age 50 to 60.  With the boomers getting older, the biggest chunk of the population is right there in that 50 to 60 range skewing the numbers when comparing to 20 year olds who can't find a job...

In Topic: The Official Handgun Discussion Thread

Today, 08:05 AM

View Postsmokeyone, on 17 April 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

And the Beretta PX4 series

That's one I'd actually stay away from.  Their particular implementation of the rotating barrel action can lock up so tight on malfunction it requires a mallet to free up.... O_o

The FNs are fine service pistols though.

In Topic: Global Warming Nonsense

Yesterday, 08:49 AM

I'd also like to point out, that it appears as if this will become a moot point long before it ever becomes a real problem given measured climate sensitivity.

Between this....


and this...

Probably before I'm an old man we'll be using heat from a fusion reaction to thermolytically split water and produce hydrogen, then use the same heat to drive the catalytic reaction of hydrogen and CO2 harvested from the atmosphere to produce liquid fuel.  In other words, we'll use a clean primary energy source to capture and reuse all the CO2 we've already put into the air....

In Topic: Global Warming Nonsense

16 April 2014 - 01:09 PM

View PostGatorUnvrsty, on 16 April 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

I care what the guy who's been taking icecap measurements for the last decade or so has to say about his findings and conclusions;

That right there is one of the primary issues.  In terms of climate, a decade of scientific data is nothing.  10 decades of data isn't much better.  In the grand scheme of things, we have basically 35 years worth of solid climatic data, especially as far as temperature is concerned.  We've got about another 70 years of so so weather data.  And on top of that we've got about another 100 years of sparse sketchy data by the likes of the Royal Navy.  Absolutely everything else is "reproductions" based off of sparse limited data and some assumptions.

Its a little presumptious to say that we have any idea what the normal climate or rate of climate change is much less what the effects will be.

Historically there's a fair bit of evidence humans have tended to do better when things were a little warmer.  More than one civilization experienced their peak during periods that the available evidence indicates were climatic optimums somewhat warmer than what we're now eperiencing.  On the flip side there's evidence that people have done worse during periods when things were somewhat cooler, with effects like crop failure and resultant famine being prevalent.