|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
The idiocy of Ed Dolan
Espressopithecus (Java Man) (who?) anonymously wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Why have speculators been allowed to drive the prices of housing beyond the reach of so many? I wasn't aware that is the case. Is it? How do you know this? When large numbers of new houses and condominiums are bought by people who have no intention on living there, but rather intend to "flip" the property for profit, it is a good indication. This was common in Chicagoland and SE Wisconsin in recent years, and stopped only with the recent decline in housing prices. Markets generally include speculators, but whether speculation causes significant market distortion depends on how much of the buying and selling they're doing. Aside from your observation that "large numbers" of homes were bought by speculators, what evidence do you have, if any, that they were a large enough component of the market nationally to cause distortions? It was bad enough that municipalities in the Chicagoland area were considering tax penalties for new houses and condos held less than 6 months by the original purchasers. Was that a political response to voter panic or was it actually based on facts? There was certainly a very high turn-over on new property purchases. Normal people do not do that unless circumstances (e.g. job loss or transfer) dictate. Good work -- never let the lack of data get in the way of a conclusion! Java Man has failed to present any data for his alternative conclusion. BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How *logical* you are! Sarcasm It was your original contention that "large numbers of new houses and condominiums are bought by people who have no intention on living there, but rather intend to "flip" the property for profit". I asked whether you had any evidence that speculation was a large enough factor to result in market distortion. You provided no data to support your position, and I noted that fact. It's not up to me to prove that speculation didn't result in market distortion. It's up to you to prove you're correct, or to admit you can't. Which you've basically done, but you're too dishonest to admit it. Oh Bull. Flipping of properties was reported quite often in the local media at the time. That a "housing bubble" was created by speculation is bleeding obvious. You still haven't answered the question. I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. Here it is again. ========================================= Markets generally include speculators, but whether speculation causes significant market distortion depends on how much of the buying and selling they're doing. Aside from your observation that "large numbers" of homes were bought by speculators, what evidence do you have, if any, that they were a large enough component of the market nationally to cause distortions? ========================================= Put your finger under the words and read each one, slowly. Then try to answer the question instead of offering your uninformed opinion. I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. To repeat, what evidence do you have, if any, that they (the numbers of homes bought by speculators) was a large enough component of the market nationally to cause distortions? I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. Next. The answer appears to be that you don't have any evidence. That doesn't mean there weren't speculators! And that doesn't mean speculators didn't cause a bubble. It simply means you don't have any evidence of it. Why not either provide evidence, or admit you don't have any? I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. Read for yourself what the economists who are not toadies of the system have to say. (Hint: they agree with me). Of course now the new housing market has practically collapsed in the region, with developers suspending or canceling projects, and design and construction firms laying off employees left and right. And how much of that is because of stupid people taking out sub-prime mortgages from stupid loans officials working for stupid managers? Stupid or greedy? What do you think? Anyone who puts their own financial future at risk by doing something that can be foreseen as excessively risky is stupid. But the people doing so are mainly risking the money of others. And you don't think that's stupid??? Not when the government practices socialism for the rich and will cover for mistakes. People who take out loans they can't afford to pay back are stupid. Senior managers who take inordinate risks with the equity of their shareholders are stupid. Senior managers who risk their jobs by doing so are stupid. Well, the senior managers were smart enough to have guaranteed themselves "golden parachutes". In every financial crisis, those that started out with real money usually benefit - they can swoop into the depressed market and buy assets on the cheap. What is "real money"? Is a modest amount of money held by a small investor who is smart enough to wait for a bubble to burst not "real"? Sorry if Java Man has trouble with common use of the English language. It seems to me you're simply noting that the smart get richer. Yeah, the poor can crash the market by selling off huge amounts of stocks, then buying them back during the bear market. Right. Can the rich? Do you think they do? Historical evidence indicates so - after every stock market crash, those with cash reserves have swooped in and cleaned up. There is evidence that the Red Sign people have been involved in such activity, but that gets suppressed for some reason. Besides, the government has usually been there to bail out the rich (e.g. Chrysler Corp, the S&Ls of the 1980's, Bear Stearns) when they foolishly speculate. They don't bail out the rich. They bail out the companies, but the shareholders are usually severely punished by the market, as they should be. How are the shareholders punished when taxpayer funded subsidies allow the company to become profitable again? The government is NOT taking over the failed company, and later selling it back to the private market. In the case of Chrysler, those that held their stock through the bailout did quite well once the company recovered. Those who bought the stock when it was low (or took it as compensation like Lee Iacocca) did very well. Personally, I have a problem with governments bailing out companies except in very exceptional circumstances, and so do most of the rich. Most of the rich on what evidence? *You* are asking *me* for evidence to support my points????? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Can dish it out, but can't take it? No, I think it's laughable that you persistently refuse to provide evidence to support your points, but you expect me to do what you won't. Don't you? Two can play the game of pretending to be obtuse. I don't waste time providing evidence for people who have consistently declined to justify their own positions. So you first. Is this a little kids game? Personally, I think some of the bankers who set the qualifying criteria for these sub-prime mortgages should be sued by their shareholders. Why? Is not the federal government bailing out the lenders (while letting the individuals fend for themselves)? It hasn't bailed out the shareholders in the financial institutions that have been decimated by these predictably stupid practices. And why shouldn't the shareholders sue these dumbasses? Because this is America, and corporate leaders can do no wrong! More of your well-established bias. No, the bias of the rich owned media and their apologist pundits. There's always a devil, isn't there? You and the Pope have more in common than you think. Only the naive would believe that the world of business, media and politics is only composed of decent people. Do you know of any large group of people doing anything, anywhere, that is only composed of decent people? If so, please tell us about it. Non sequitur. And if not, why should the world of business, media and politics be any different than the rest of society? Society should take charge and throw the scoundrels out, instead of fawning over them as if they were superior beings. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
Ads |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
The idiocy of Ed Dolan
Espressopithecus (Java Man) (who?) anonymously wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions? Stereotyping again, huh? Strawman arguments are equally likely to be offered by up by left- wingers as right-wingers. How is it stereotyping when I am referring to individuals on this newsgroup based on their postings? "Right wingers" means certain individuals on this newsgroup? Coulda fooled me. Pay attention to context. Pay attention to what you write. Learn to interpret context. Does Java Man have a macro that generates accusations of stereotyping? Only when I see it, which is often in your posts. Or do certain points hit too close to home? Yes, I don't like to see entire groups stereotyped by people who are too lazy to think beyond the superficial. When entire groups share characteristics, there is nothing wrong with bringing that to attention. In the few cases that they actually DO share common characteristics, feel free to continue using blanket statements. That is what I have been doing. No, you haven't. Yes I have. Demonstrably incorrect. No, correct. (Hey, this is fun!) But you've already proven that you don't know what characteristics are shared by, for example, the Directors of the United Way of NYC. However, you continue to include them in your insulting stereotypes about wealthy people and corporate leaders. What stereotypes? That wealthy directors of charitable organizations are in it for personal aggrandizement, not to do good works. That wealthy people who contribute their time for a charity or make anything but an anonymous donation are motivated by self-interest rather than charitable sentiments. That is a willful misinterpretation of what I wrote. I did NOT make the all-inclusive statment Java Man is claiming, nor did I make the claim about donating time, UNLESS that donation of time is being promoted. Wrong. This is the first time you've added the "unless" clause. Wrong. If I'm wrong, prove it and I'll withdraw my comment. Provide a link to the first time you added the "unless" clause in our discussion. I am sorry if Java Man has trouble understanding context. BWAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA! I offer to withdraw my comment if you'll prove your point, and what do you do? You chicken out. I accept your concession of defeat. Are you four years old? I note you still haven't taken me up on my offer, which, by the way, still stands. If I was wrong, provide a link to the first time you added the "unless" clause in our discussion. It should be quite simple if you're right. Prove your own point. Sheesh. And you stated that only anonymous acts were charity, and many times you opposed my statements that directors donate time and cannot do so anonymously. Only yesterday did you finally concede that directors cannot serve anonymously for governance reasons. The intent is what is important. If a person makes a donation and requests anonymity, but that request is violated, it would still be a charitable act. You say that only anonymous gifts are charitable, despite persistently refusing to provide an accepted definition of charity requiring that it be anonymous. Your argument? "Billions of people know it". Sorry, not good enough. The entire population of the world once "knew" it was flat. Besides being logically obvious, it it a tenet of one of the world's major religions. Duh. And that makes it correct? Like these: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../atrocity.html Learn to read. Start with the definition of "besides". All kinds of atrocities are part of one or another of the world's major religions. That is nothing to recommend it. And as for it being logically obvious, you're again making the mistake of mixing logic with values. It is "logically obvious" to some in Afghanistan, for example, to kill an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant. Learn to read. Start with the definition of "besides". Neither your claim that your definition is supported by a major religion, nor you claim that it is "logically obvious", supports your erroneous claim that only anonymous charity qualifies as charity. I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. But feel free to persist with your mistakes. ;-) On commercial websites, one often see biographies of company executives or principals. When they list membership on boards of non-profit organizations, that is definitely self-promotion. This denies the importance of publicizing charitable work in creating a culture of volunteerism within the community. You apparently don't want the rich to take leadership roles in giving something back to their communities. You reject the importance of the rich showing leadership by allowing their charitable donations to be publicized to set a good example for other rich people to follow. And you remain ignorant about what good works are done by many, many rich people. Why to the rich fight tooth and nail to avoid paying their fair share of taxes if they have such a concern for society? "Fair share"? Fair according to whom, and by what standard? We have been over this several times. I am sorry you can not understand. I doubt it. Java Man has been deliberately obtuse in not understanding common concepts and language. Hell, by your definition, neither Albert Schweitzer nor Mother Teresa did charitable work because neither was doing their charitable deeds anonymously! Furthermore, this is not a logical interpretation of what I wrote. Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer. Did you read the minds of them when they were alive? Maybe they were doing what they did for selfish reasons - but this is in the realm of speculation. Actually, it's in the realm of advancing ridiculous rhetoric to try to weasel out of a failed argument. But you know you're doing that, don't you. Not at all. Does Java Man real minds like "Dear Carl"? No, I don't read minds, but perhaps I have too much respect for your intellect? So Java Man admits he KNOWS nothing of the motivation of Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer, despite trying to use them as a rhetorical club? Based on quotes attributed to Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer, they were either serial liars or very charitable people. Which do you think they were? ;-) How the hell would I know - I never met either one? Furthermore, the two choices offered by Java Man are not the only possible ones. So, you don't know, but you're willing to say Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer may not have been charitable to support your argument. Good one! ;-) Logically I am correct. Sorry. I have no problem with offending people with the truth. Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer. Paste function stuck? Repetition increases comprehension. Notice how many repetitions it took you to admit you were wrong about directors serving anonymously. Did you read the minds of them when they were alive? Maybe they were doing what they did for selfish reasons - but this is in the realm of speculation. Who does anything for purely unselfish reasons? At any rate, you're apparently prepared to argue even a ridiculous position to avoid giving an inch. Who does anything for purely unselfish reasons? Since most people who do charity work feel an inner peace and increased happiness, it's difficult to say what they do is purely unselfish. Indeed. So, you don't know them, have never met them, have never heard of them, but you feel knowledgeable enough to comment on their motivation for serving on the Board of a charitable organization. Sound right? Question based on a false premise. Sheesh, what is it with this tactic? I never commented on their specific motivation, since I do not know if they are taking efforts to publicize what they do, or if they would rather it remain private [1]. And here's a clue for you (all): people who carelessly stereotype are soon unable to see differences among those they stereotype, even though individual differences are ubiquitous in virtually every large group. Java -- "They all look the same to me." Java Man has confused listing a common characteristic with false stereotyping. No, not FALSE stereotyping. Just stereotyping. Stereotype: 1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. My contention is (unfortunately) not conventional, nor is it a mere opinion. It's conventional for you. And it's formulaic and oversimplified. Opinion presented as fact. It's clearly conventional for you, and your position on these matters is both formulaic and oversimplified. Opinion presented as fact. Are you saying it isn't conventional for you? Are you saying it isn't formulaic? Are you saying it isn't oversimplified? Are you saying I should believe anything you say? ;-) I am saying that Java Man can not see what is staring him right in the face. Sure, I can. I see that you're a serial stereotyper. Java Man has been deliberately obtuse in not understanding common concepts and language. 2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type. Certainly not any popular or common use set image. Psychology: general mental image that is held of a group or class of people that is usually oversimplified. An advertiser may feature a stereotypical user of his product in order to encourage the audience to identify with the user. For example, housewives are often used in advertisements for cleaning products. Classification by a common characteristic is not stereotyping. What proportion of a group must fit the stereotype before one can classify the members as conforming to a stereotypical description? Say, 50%? In the case I have made, it is nearly universal. Don't let a lack of data get in your way! In the case I have made, it is nearly universal. It's your statement -- provide some data to back up your opinion. Provide your own data to prove me wrong - or are you just into Usenet stalking behavior? Even in usenet, among serious, mature people the burden of providing evidence falls on the person making the claim. If you consider asking you to be mature and responsible to be "stalking", then I guess I'm a stalker by your definition. But you sure have a daffy dictionary, Humpty Dumpty. ;-) I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. If 50% is enough, the statement "Women are of below average intelligence" is a fair description. Do you agree we should be using this kind of stereotyping statement? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If not, what proportion of the group must conform to the descriptors before it's acceptable to use general and negatively stigmatizing statements? Most. What does "most" mean? 51%? 70%? Or? Most means what the common usage is. What do YOU mean by "most"? Why are you so reluctant to take a position? Look up most in the dictionary. Most means most. Is that most of the time, or all of the time? I am not writing a dissertation for Java Man's deliberate obtuseness. But seriously, why are you so reluctant to give us some insight into why you feel justified in stereotyping entire groups because of the behaviour of some members of the groups? Java Man has been deliberately obtuse in not understanding common concepts and language. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
The idiocy of Ed Dolan
Espressopithecus (Java Man) (who?) anonymously wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , sunsetss0003 @REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote: In article , cyclintom@yahoo. says... "Espressopithecus (Java Man)" wrote in message ble.net... On the other hand, I think there's something wrong with the idea that the majority should be able to legislate that I can't keep what I earn -- they don't think of it as *my money*, they think of it as *theirs*. Many people, like a few here, believe that somehow it is THEY who have allowed you to make money and that you therefore owe something to them for all of your hard work. Especially those who don't like the market's judgements about the value added by capital, leadership, innovation and vision. You forget legislative favors ("pork"), no-bid government contracts and "consulting" fees, exploitation of the third world (enforced by the US military), monopolistic practices, executive overcompensation, etc. For which you blame "the rich". Nasty, aren't they all? ;-) Who else but the rich have the money and influence to do these things? No one, of course. They don't all fall in the same category. But the rich all benefit from the policies, whether they advocated for them or not. Pork? Senators grubbing for votes. No-bid government contracts? They should be illegal. Funny how the no-bid contracts almost always go to the rich and well connected. Are you saying that all those construction companies run by indigents with no business experience or connections are being shut out? ;-) Do you have something real to contribute, or are you just stalking? Define "real". ;-) Java Man has been deliberately obtuse in not understanding common concepts and language. Face it -- by definition, most contracts of EVERY type, whether open for bidding or not, go to companies with experience and a strong track record. Experience and a strong track record ALWAYS result in connections. And there's nothing wrong with connections -- there's no substitute for first-hand experience with the contractors you're hiring. More errors occur when people hire companies about whom they know nothing. Connections as in having donated campaign cash, hiring ex-politicians to lobby for you, awarding contracts to relatives of personal friends. Yeah, those are sure as hell the right way to spend taxpayer money. But hey, that is fine for the "see no evil" crowd. Be my guest -- when faced with a choice between a contractor with a strong track record which you have hired before and got great results, and contractor whose work you don't know, and who doesn't have a strong track record, choose the latter. That will keep you out of trouble. ;-) Dude, you pre-qualify contractors to insure that they are capable, and then you take bids. Been done successfully time and time again by both private entities and the government. The Cheney/BushII style no-bid contract is simply a way to rob the treasury, and transfer middle class paid taxes to the already rich. Similar things happen on the state and local levels, when "consultants" [1] who are related to politicians receive fat fees for producing useless reports. Exploitation of the third world? It's fruitless to discuss this with anyone who attributes no value to capital, leadership, vision, personal risk, and managerial work. Another case of Java Man making false attributions about my positions. You have been very reluctant to reveal what your positions are. When I wrote this, you had not yet conceded that there's no practical alternative to the market for establishing value. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT MARKETS BEING RIGGED? Lots. Just like you. For example, what proportion of all market transactions have been rigged. Java Man admits to NOT understanding "lots" about how markets are rigged. Admission noted. Unless Java Man confuses an argument for overvaluing compared to labor with one for no value at all - but that would indicate very poor comprehension of the written language You can't have it both ways -- refuse to answer questions, yet expect people to understand your cryptic "positions". WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT MARKETS BEING RIGGED? "see above". [Yawn] And what is particularly strange - most of these same people would fight tooth and nail to keep what they have after fighting tooth and nail to steal what's yours. "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too". I know I annoy some by harping on stereotyping, but what got me started was the number of people who made harsh but ignorant judgements about the rich when I know many rich people who serve on boards, giving their precious time very generously to worthy causes. Here's the bottom line on "wealth" - usually it is obtained by one lucky and talented individual in a family. He passes it around upon his death. It almost always disappears in two generations. Yes, it's a common pattern. It's often said that a family-owned or - controlled company lasts 3 generations or less. It may take longer when an exceptional pool of capital has been amassed. And there are other exceptional cases where the children inherited not only the company, but also the founder's talents and appetite for hard work. That is why the very rich hire lawyers, accountants and investment advisor's to amass more wealth. The "three generations" applies more to middle and upper middle class families. And you think this should be . . . what . . . illegal? Why is Java Man asking ridiculous questions? What I wrote was a statement of fact, not an opinion of what should be. Your posts are full of confusion about what is a "fact" and what is an opinion. I was merely trying to understand what your opinion is. But you apparently don't want to say. Why did Java Man introduce a red herring? I wanted to give a nod to your Alma Mater. [Yawn] There are exceptions of course - if the person is so successful and his inheritors conservative enough and lucky enough to properly invest the inherited money, the family fortune can grow. But this isn't usual and shouldn't be taken as a natural law as people such as Tim McNamara and Tom Sherman appear to believe. They are rare exceptions, to be sure. Of the millions of companies started by entrepreneurs in the US in the past 50 years, a small fraction remain family owned and successful. Meanwhile, ignorant morons assume that because they don't see what these people gave, they gave nothing. What's worse is that the ignorant morons believe that the rich have the responsibility to give and they have the right to demand. Too often true. Show me a person who created tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in added value of goods or services solely through their own efforts. That would be fruitless with you. You've already shown that you don't accept the market's judgements about the value of people's contributions. The market is rigged by those with power and influence to their benefit. The world is stacked against you. You may as well quit. ;-) And if you were not born rich but think you have been competing on a level playing field, you are either ignorant or stupid. Life isn't fair, anywhere, under any system. Including compensation of executives and the relative share of profits from creating added value that go to labor. Java Man admits I am correct! I admit you exaggerate, as usual. Java Man has been deliberately obtuse in not understanding common concepts and language. Accept it and start creating the life you want. Whining about unfairness is a self- fulfilling prophecy -- everyone who does it has adopted a mindset that keeps them among the legion of losers. Dude, if most people were like you, society would never progress because attempting to redress wrongs would be dismissed as whining. Oh, those slaves forced to work in the fields 16 hours a day for a subsistence diet are just whining. Of course, I think Java Man does know the difference between stating a legitimate grievance and whining, but likes to throw the accusation of whining out there. Only where it's obviously whining. Java Man must be reading through whine colored glasses. [1] This is why many engineer firms who offer real services have been going away from the term consultant to describe themselves. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
The idiocy of Ed Dolan
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Could you guys take your OCD someplace else? What, I thought this thread was a beta test. |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
The idiocy of Ed Dolan
Donald Munro wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote: Could you guys take your OCD someplace else? What, I thought this thread was a beta test. Infinite loops can be a real pain. Bob Schwart |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The idiocy of Tom Sherman | Andy Evans | General | 362 | August 28th 08 02:18 AM |
The idiocy of Ed Dolan | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 1 | August 16th 08 05:59 PM |
The idiocy of Tom Sherman | Anton Berlin | Racing | 3 | August 16th 08 05:12 AM |
The idiocy of Tom Sherman | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 0 | August 16th 08 12:23 AM |