This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 236237238 239240 ... 502
7111
« on: February 25, 2015, 03:19:51 PM »
On the bright side, they probably aren't condescending jerks sneaking pictures of people playing a game to point and laugh at them on snapchat.
FUCKING #SHREKT U C K I N G # S H R E K T
7112
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:58:33 PM »
Why not? The beauty of capitalism is having the freedom to do what you want with the money you have earned.
Hence buying favours from the government, which precludes that freedom to others, is anti-capitalistic. There's literally not a single capitalist economist who genuinely advances this kind of economy, which is why we call it crony capitalism or, in its most extreme form, corporatism. It is a perversion of capitalism. I mean, why else would people like libertarians and Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan decry the purchasing of governmental favours which hinder competition and freedom?
7113
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:09:14 PM »
No. The mods are just spunknuggets.
They're nowhere near efficient enough to be Nazis.
7114
« on: February 25, 2015, 11:52:54 AM »
And in other news, 10pc of British Muslims claim to know another Muslim who is sympathetic towards ISIS, while 27pc say they feel sympathetic to the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack.
7115
« on: February 25, 2015, 11:46:13 AM »
How isn't it? They're using the system to gain the best business advantage.
Like the way private businesses do that in Russia? Because Russia's so obviously a paragon of capitalism. Government favours are not a part of capitalism.
7116
« on: February 25, 2015, 11:14:23 AM »
For illuminati fans, it's good to note that Warren Buffett was against the pipeline because he owns railroads currently used to transport oil. It's more expensive and far more dangerous than the pipeline, but at least we're saving the environment, right?
That's not even an Illuminati thing - that's just capitalism.
How is artificially depressing competition via government policy capitalism?
7117
« on: February 24, 2015, 05:13:58 PM »
I will say, however, that I don't approve of this specific veto.
7118
« on: February 24, 2015, 05:13:18 PM »
Right? I think that number is hilarious in contrast to the picture that [American] conservatives like to paint of Obama being some iron-fisted ruler who won't let anything pass.
I really don't get why conservatives hate the use of vetoes. I mean, vetoes are a good thing, they temper the excesses of the legislature; the two biggest vetoers post-Kennedy were Ford and Reagan. I'd criticise Obama for not using the veto enough. But conservatives who hate the use of vetoes in the first place? Yeah, they're probably fucking worse.
7119
« on: February 24, 2015, 05:05:01 PM »
but I'm dreading how everything with my grandfather is going to go down. Thinking about the what-ifs, even after the fact, can get to the best of us. Just focus on managing the situation on your end, man, your grandpa sounds like a strong guy and your grandma will probably hold up better than you expect even if she practically breaks down after he goes. People pretty much always overcome adversity like this, it's just a fact of life. I'm sure these are mostly words on a screen, since I can't possibly establish any emotional connectivity on a forum, but honestly the main thing to try and do is just be honest with yourself about the situation and not think about how it could've played out different.
7120
« on: February 24, 2015, 05:01:10 PM »
I knew it was low, but three?
Fuck me. That's awful.
7121
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:59:44 PM »
That's gonna be a lot harder when my girlfriend gets here though.
I honestly wish you the best of luck, man.
7122
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:51:00 PM »
Just over a week ago, my grandfather was diagnosed with a very rare cancer in the final stage. I can't think of the name, but there's basically tumors growing everywhere in his body (behind the eyes, brain, brain stem, lung, heart muscle, throat...). Only one in a million of all cancer cases are like this. The doctors gave him another month or two at most. Strange feeling, as I've never really lost a close relative before. My girlfriend's rushing over as soon as possible to say her goodbyes and such.
I wasn't planning on posting much about it on the flood, but this thread is a pretty good occasion, I suppose.
Fucking hell, man. You holding up all right? How's your grandpa taken it?
7123
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:48:11 PM »
He was a communist
Fuck, that must've been shitty back in the day.
Yeah he was in hiding for years. People were straight trying to kill him.
Sounds like you could write a goddamn book about the guy's life.
7124
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:47:42 PM »
I just wanna see how you guys respond to my argument.
7125
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:37:55 PM »
He was a communist
Fuck, that must've been shitty back in the day.
7126
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:33:04 PM »
I wasn't celebrating his death, you asshole. Instead, toasting his life.
That's the fucking attitude people need to have. My great-grandmother went blind and got dementia before dying in a hospital ward. Not a peaceful, dignified death but I have no idea why the last few years of somebody's life is suddenly the metric we use to judge people who've lived nearly a century. The sheer amount of historical experience she must've had was immense; that's what matters about people.
7127
« on: February 24, 2015, 04:29:37 PM »
Fuck, man. Sounds like he was a proper bloke.
7128
« on: February 24, 2015, 03:51:18 PM »
Besides satisfying Challenger's gooky weebery, of course.
7129
« on: February 24, 2015, 03:47:37 PM »
It seems from the 2001 study you linked that savings are decreasing with the rise of welfare because, as welfare programs increase, equity limits are being relaxed, allowing people to spend more on vehicle assets (i.e., dumping more money into their cars).
Though the significance level was high, the actual effect seemed to be relatively marginal.
Thanks for clarifying; I didn't get the opportunity to read it properly and must admit I was playing fast and loose with that paper >.> I haven't properly looked into the mechanics behind savings rates so I'm still fumbling around in the darkness somewhat.
7130
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:59:34 PM »
I'm not advancing this as a solid hypothesis, though. It's just an interesting phenomenon to note; there may not be a link between the two, but I'm inclined to think there is. Even if its as minimal as government transfers depressing normally low levels of household savings.
7131
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:53:41 PM »
That's a dubious conclusion. Was there any hypothesis testing in this research, or just a graph?
Not on my part; I read an article by Alan Greenspan which enunciated the correlation so I see if it fit a graph. There is, however, also this 2001 and apparently little known study by the University of Chicago which essentially makes the same point: Alternatively, by providing households with a consumption floor during times of temporary unemployment spells or subsidizing medical care when the household experiences a health shock, governmental welfare policies could reduce the household’s income uncertainty and thus reduce their need to save for precautionary reasons irrespective of discount rates (Hubbard et al. 1995; Gruber and Yelowitz 1999; Neumark and Powers 1998; Ziliak 2001). The high replacement rate of income provided by Social Security for low lifetime-income households can reduce their need to save for lifecycle reasons. Aside from decreasing precautionary or lifecycle motives to save, government welfare policies may have additional ‘direct’ effects on household saving incentives. In order to receive many forms of government assistance, households may not have accumulated assets above the federal or state mandated limits. edit: fucking formatting
7132
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:41:27 PM »
 Or it's at least correlated with such a trend. Ah well, all the more reason to not want a big fuck-off welfare state.
7133
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:33:11 PM »
I'm disowning you. No gook of mine is going to be a fucking weeb.
7134
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:05:58 PM »
You can also listen to it, if you don't want to read it.Nick: The third key theme is 'The Greens will ensure everyone has a secure, affordable place to live. How would that be brought about?
Natalie: A couple of things that we want to focus on. In terms of council housing, we want to build 500,000 new social rent homes.
Nick: Good lord, where would you get the money from for that?
Natalie: Well, what we want to do is fund that particularly by removing tax relief on mortgage interests for private landlords. We have a situation where...
Nick: How much would that bring in?
Natalie: Private landlords at the moment are basically running away with the situation of hugely rising rents while collecting huge amounts of housing benefit.
Nick: How much would that be worth, the mortgage relief for private landlords?
Natalie: "Erm... well... it's... that's part of the whole costing."
Nick: Yes, but how much would that bring? The cost of 500,000 homes, let's start with that. How much would that be?
Natalie: "Right, well, that's, erm... you've got a total cost... erm... that we're... that will be spelt out in our manifesto.
Nick: So you don't know?
Natalie: No, well, err.
Nick: You don't, ok. So you don't know how much those homes are going to cost, but the way it's going to be funded is mortgage relief from private landlords. How much is that worth?
Natalie: Right, well what we're looking at with the figures here. Erm, what we need to do is actually... uh......... we're looking at a total spend of £2.7... billion.
Nick: 500,000 homes, £2.7billion? What are they made of, plywood?
Natalie: Erm, basically what we're talking about is 500,000 new homes and basically each one pound spent on this brings back £2.40...
Nick: Yes, but what is the total cost of 500,000 homes?
Natalie: [Long, long pause] Erm... it's a cost of £60,000 per home.
Nick: £60,000 per home?
Natalie: Because what we're talking about is, is the opportunity for...
Nick: That can't include the land?
Natalie: Well, what we're talking about is, what we want to see is the possibility of, um, of homes being built...
Nick: That's not much more than a large conservatory, £60,000. So where's the land, how are you going to pay for the land?
Natalie: [Even longer pause] Right, well, what we're, what we're looking at doing is, is... is basically *cough, cough, cough*
Nick: Are you alright?
Natalie: Yes, sorry, as you can probably hear, I have got a huge cold.
Nick: I'm terribly sorry to hear that.
Natalie: So, so what we need to do is, is social rental homes.
Nick: Right. Still don't see how you're going to get this... some at £60,000... you don't actually know how much this is going to cost, do you?
Natalie: Uh, yes, we've got a fully-costed programme which we'll be releasing, which will be released...
Nick: Shouldn't you be aware of what that cost will be now?
Natalie: Uh, right, yes. So what we're talking about is £6billion per year. So the current budget is £1.5billion a year.
Nick: £6billion? That will be attained by taking mortgage relief from private landlords? That's £6billion-worth is it?
Natalie: And we're also looking at investing... [long pause]. Yes, well, it's... we've got the fully costed figures here.
Nick: You've said that on a couple of occasions. How much does mortgage relief from private landlords bring in then?
Natalie: [Long pause] *cough, cough* Basically, we're talking about an overall saving of £4.5billion.
Nick: What? Mortgage relief is worth £4.5billion a year?
Natalie: And this is other saving as well, from private landlords as well, we're looking at housing benefit reforms and what we also want to do is bring in caps on private tenants.
Nick: Yes, do you think you could have perhaps have ginned up on this a bit more Natalie Bennett?
Natalie: *cough, cough* Uh, I think that we're talking about a whole range of...
Nick: No, you personally, do you think you might have ginned up a little, might you have read into this a little more in hindsight?
Natalie: What we're talking about is a whole range of issues this morning, ranging from the economy, the NHS.
Nick: Yes, I've only time for two unfortunately. I wish I had more time.
7135
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:00:00 PM »
im British, we're jealous, of course i am
We're not jealous, we just hate everyone, including the ourselves.
A whole lot of you really seem to love Muslims though.
*London, Birmingham and the Government.
This is pretty much exactly correct.
7136
« on: February 24, 2015, 01:58:08 PM »
...how does that mean I have no life?
Fuck, I don't know. I always try to make an insulting first post on new threads. I can't help it when I'm given poor material to work with.
7137
« on: February 24, 2015, 01:56:45 PM »
Wait, why the cunting fuck do you have a friend called ISISisCool who listens to nothing but Kanye West?
7138
« on: February 24, 2015, 01:54:28 PM »
>lacking this much of a life
>being cool
Pick one. And only one.
7139
« on: February 24, 2015, 01:50:08 PM »
Take a moment now to go over what you saw, recollect it clearly, even write down now what you know that you saw (memory is a funny thing and our brains try to add detail that we didn't actually experience)
This is literally the best thing you could've said, given your avatar.
7140
« on: February 24, 2015, 01:47:38 PM »
Dear everybody who is choosing some point in the future:
What the fuck is wrong with your definition of "history"?
Pages: 1 ... 236237238 239240 ... 502
|
Show Posts