my girl loves it, and my girls fucken dank too, proper bang tidy, unlike my ex who was fucken DUT

fucken footleng caught me with some kush the ova day an all

this day is fucken peak man

wankers

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 17, 2014, 12:30:15 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on November 17, 2014, 12:27:12 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 17, 2014, 10:57:21 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 17, 2014, 10:51:00 AM

Well yeah, the point of quantitative easing is to raise that asset's price. Not sure why they expected anything otherwise.

Because Keynesians think monetary policy is ineffective at the ZLB.

I have no clue what that means

Basically, as soon as interest rates hit zero, there's nothing the Fed can do.

Can't they artificially hike up rates though?

Except you don't want that during a recovery. Rates are low in order to stimulate borrowing.

Let me pose a question to you: Why are you so against feminism?

It's such a disgusting misrepresentation of reality.

Feminists in Middle-Eastern and African nations? Fuck yeah, right with you.

Feminists in England? Fuck off, and deflate your ego.

Haram.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 17, 2014, 11:01:28 AM

El Bustin'.

That was you on Bungie.net you fgt

What?

I don't know why, but this actually made me laugh.

Law degree reporting in, bitch.

Ya fuckin' ruined it.

Well, I don't know what a semester is, so I'll just talk about what I'll be doing in my first year of University.

Introduction to Social Policy A+B
Foundations of Politics
Finding out About Social Policy: Research Methods
Principles of Economics A+B
Quantitative Economic Methods A+B
Introduction to Political Economy
Introduction to the Economy, Business and Government

From Bloomberg; a bit old, really.

Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda led a divided board to expand what was already an unprecedentedly large monetary-stimulus program, boosting stocks and sending the yen tumbling.

Kuroda, 70, and four of his eight fellow board members voted to raise the BOJ’s annual target for enlarging the monetary base to 80 trillion yen ($724 billion), up from 60 to 70 trillion yen, the central bank said. An increase was foreseen by just three of 32 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News. The BOJ also cut its forecasts for inflation and growth in Japan, the world’s third-biggest economy.

Facing projections for failure to reach the BOJ’s 2 percent inflation target in about two years, and with the pressure from a higher sales tax, enlarging the stimulus at some point had been anticipated by analysts for months. Kuroda opted not to telegraph his intentions in recent weeks, leaving today’s move a surprise -- sending the Nikkei (NKY) 225 Stock Average to the highest level since 2007.

“It was great timing for Kuroda,” said Takeshi Minami, Tokyo-based chief economist at Norinchukin Research Institute, one of two who correctly forecast today’s easing. Minami noted that it follows the Federal Reserve’s ending of quantitative easing, helping highlight the differing paths for the U.S. and Japan, which has the heaviest debt burden of any country. The yen sank 2.1 percent against the dollar to 111.55 as of 6:02 p.m. in Tokyo.

Today’s decision comes almost 19 months after Kuroda unleashed his initial asset-purchase plan, with the intention of doubling the monetary base. That move similarly drove up stocks and undercut the yen. Since then, a more competitive exchange rate has triggered higher corporate earnings, and asset-price gains have expanded Japanese households’ net worth.

Keynesian economics would have you believe that quantitative easing would have no effect during a liquidity trap, and just sit in excess reserves. However, with the announcement of monetary easing in such a situation, we see asset prices rise.

Go monetarism.

You can pretty much apply that to any government agency or program. "I don't agree with x because I don't trust them." If this is simply a matter of trust then there's no real logical argument to be had.

You have a point, but it's a tenuous one. I don't much trust the Interstate Commerce Committee or the CIA much, either, but I'd rather focus my attention on the misdeeds of the NSA or, in my case, the GCHQ because of their relative impact in comparison to other governmental programmes.

Because these arguments could be used for both sides. I actually see it as an accomplishment that they've narrowed down the list of suspects so far that one in two of the people on the list are connected to terrorism.

Again, you don't seem to understand exactly how the system works. The U.S. government only places people on this list that they have an interest in, they aren't filtering names through and hoping they're connected to terrorism. Ordinarily, the system would work where people would be placed onto the list by virtue of having a connection with terrorism in the first place.

The second argument is just the same, I see it as a strong intelligence and counterterrorism tactic. The implication goes no further than to say they wouldn't turn a blind eye to look at your porn habits if you've done something illegal.

I could qualify radicals as "people who aren't terrorists". Like the Metropolitan Police asked for citizens to report information relating to anarchists.

Nope.

And I lost marks for that belief on a Foundations of Advanced Mathematics exam I did a few years ago >.>

Fuckers.

Anybody who trusts the government that much is a fucking sperglord. I've mentioned before how almost half the people on the U.S.'s watch-list aren't connected to terrorism, and how the government has collected porn habits in order to discredit radicals, and both times you came up with facetious answers. So, basically, you're either being a rusemaster again or just an idiot.

Conversation is impossible either way.

You could ask the same question of politics, to be honest. However, psychopathy is most prevalent among CEOs at around 4pc, whereas the general population has a psychopathy rate of around 1pc.

So people like Ted Bundy don't deserve fair trials by their native governments? Everybody deserves a fair trial. I don't care who you are or what you're beliefs are, as they don't matter when it comes to a universal human right

Again, justice =/= war.

why should he be killed because others that hold ideals like him are a threat?

Threatening ideals + threatening past behaviour = a threat.