Hm, gas was 30 dollars a barrel before the war, and over 70 dollars a barrel now, no ones benefiting huh?
Excellent post harris.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Didn’t hear a denial. [/quote]
Of course you didn’t – because it is completely irrelevant. Denying it or confirming it would be a betrayal of my belief that it IS irrelevant.
By the way, as someone with a major in Philosophy, I’m kinda suprised you missed the qualifier I used (Platonic) to describe my “crush” on Nephorm.
Then again, the fact that you either missed it or have no idea what it is, should be no surprise for anyone.
I’m sure your students by now are able to make fun of you constantly without you even noticing.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Also, aren’t you some sort of half-assed economist?[/quote]
Since you asked…
My MS is in Economics, yes. So technically you can say I’m an Economist. You’ll have to define “half-assed” in that context for me though, I fail to understand what that means.
I also teach courses to Graduate Students (MBA) that are Economics-oriented.
I also have one Ph.D. in the field of Game Theory (applied in both Macro and Microeconomics), another one in the field of Chaos Theory (applied in Macroeconomics) and I just finished one last one in the fields of Nuclear and Quantum Physics (my father was a Physicist, I’ve always had a passion for the field, and what can I say ? I just had to do it), so pick one of those if you want to call me other names…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That makes you qualified to judge others’ mental state, based on an internet forum?[/quote]
Of course it doesn’t. And that was exactly my point: if I can have you and others teach me about subjects I have doctoral degrees on, I sure can play that game too and start dispensing medical advice… Qualifications are clearly irrelevant here.
But maybe there’s hope – I read you taught Calculus and Physics?
Maybe we should be discussing Physics then – how about the mass of Neutrinos, or about Gravity and Dark Matter?
If you want to discuss Calculus, maybe we can talk about something really basic that people can follow, like solving Differential Equations in |R^4? Or maybe we can talk about Probability Calculus, specifically about Bayesian theory?
Knewsom,
I found a few links that I think do a pretty good job of explaining the smoke and mirrors involved w/r/t the projected surplus.
I’ll say this though, the current administrations fiscal discipline is absolutely in the toilet. Please don’t interpret my posts as a defense of Bush’s fiscal handling. Most conservatives are appaled at the spending that is going on.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37847aea3bb0.htm
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/rememberC.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE2/budget.html
What we’ve been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Didn’t hear a denial.
Of course you didn’t – because it is completely irrelevant. Denying it or confirming it would be a betrayal of my belief that it IS irrelevant.
By the way, as someone with a major in Philosophy, I’m kinda suprised you missed the qualifier I used (Platonic) to describe my “crush” on Nephorm.
Then again, the fact that you either missed it or have no idea what it is, should be no surprise for anyone.
I’m sure your students by now are able to make fun of you constantly without you even noticing.
Headhunter wrote:
Also, aren’t you some sort of half-assed economist?
Since you asked…
My MS is in Economics, yes. So technically you can say I’m an Economist. You’ll have to define “half-assed” in that context for me though, I fail to understand what that means.
I also teach courses to Graduate Students (MBA) that are Economics-oriented.
I also have one Ph.D. in the field of Game Theory (applied in both Macro and Microeconomics), another one in the field of Chaos Theory (applied in Macroeconomics) and I just finished one last one in the fields of Nuclear and Quantum Physics (my father was a Physicist, I’ve always had a passion for the field, and what can I say ? I just had to do it), so pick one of those if you want to call me other names…
Headhunter wrote:
That makes you qualified to judge others’ mental state, based on an internet forum?
Of course it doesn’t. And that was exactly my point: if I can have you and others teach me about subjects I have doctoral degrees on, I sure can play that game too and start dispensing medical advice… Qualifications are clearly irrelevant here.
But maybe there’s hope – I read you taught Calculus and Physics?
Maybe we should be discussing Physics then – how about the mass of Neutrinos, or about Gravity and Dark Matter?
If you want to discuss Calculus, maybe we can talk about something really basic that people can follow, like solving Differential Equations in |R^4? Or maybe we can talk about Probability Calculus, specifically about Bayesian theory?
[/quote]
This is simply absurd bullshit. Put a picture up of your 3 phd’s (though I imagine that can be faked) on here, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. Very few people on this planet have the ability, time, and discipline to do anything near that.
The ones that do would probably not be interested in a site like this, and they wouldn’t say arrogant bullshit about how the Netherlands is better than another country (namely, the USA), American students suck, or spout your psychosis-babble.
I still think your a janitor at Stanford. You couldn’t get a job in academia and this is your outlet to pretend how great you are and how we all suck.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wow, we had a surplus for a year! And how much did Clinton do, to rein in spending?
A lot of the current debt is being run up by war – a war that might have been nipped in the bud if Clinton had gone after terrorists, instead of ignoring them.
All of that is somewhat beside the point: The dems ran things pretty much for 40 years. Remember Reagan’s stumping for a line-item veto? And yes, he’s guilty of overspending as well.
We’re on the verge of bankruptcy and a national calamity, and Clinton had a surplus year. Wow!
Wonder why we don’t see as much about this stuff anymore? Alright, I enjoy a little conspiracy stuff now and then. 
A lot of the current debt is being run up by Bush and Cheney’ buddies profiteering off the backs of dead American children while simultaneously CUTTING taxes. Something no other president was dumb enough to do.
And please enlighten us as to how the Iraq War is Clinton’s fault.
Fucking moron.
Harris,
Get a clue: Insulting me doesn’t work. It simply makes you look like the low-life that you are.
You honestly believe that young men are dying so Bush and Cheney’s buddies can make money… that this was done for oil or profit? Is this in the same league with Jews introducing AIDS into the black community, or Bush deliberately destroying the NO levees?
You are simply evil. That’s not an insult, just a statement of fact. You are an evil thing. I was about to say ‘man’ but its not possible that someone who uses such vile language, who has such pure hate in his heart, qualifies as a man. You are just an evil thing.
Goodbye.
Why not try and be a man yourself by addressing his points one by one, ignoring his petty insults (they ARE petty), and admitting when you’re wrong (and you HAVE been), instead of simply calling your opponent “evil”? Your behavior hasn’t been stellar, and you’ve failed to make a strong case for what you advocate. You gripe about spending and simultaneously blindly follow Bush in your support of the war and all bush’s policies.
This is only an example of your hypocrisy, there is more evidence of it, but I suspect that I don’t need to mention it to get through to you. Take a look in the mirror, dude. I think you need a little perspective on your own life and self before you spout any further advice on the course our nation should take.
I ask that you take this for what it truly is - friendly advice, not an insult.[/quote]
Thank you for acting like a gentleman.
When I’m wrong, I admit it. Look at the HIV thread I started – I admit later that I was wrong.
I do not support President Bush in the war. He was not aggressive enough, did not use enough troops (as General Powell said) and his spending is WAAAAY over the top. Does this mean, like Harris said, that Bush is killing children for money? He just accused the man of being a murderer!! Where’s YOUR outrage? You let that slide??
I appreciate your sentiments. Realize that guys like Harris and Vroom are NOT gentlemen. I do not speak to them as I would to a rational adult. I speak to someone like these guys as I would in my formerly proletarian-manner: “Listen louse…”
HH
This isn’t true at all H2. You start off discussions painting people like Harris and I (in fact all people with liberal leaning viewpoints) as evil dupes, then act offended when we strike back.
Sometimes you get what you give, but I don’t expect you to follow along with a complex concept like that!
Since people have been talking about the national debt throughout the years I thought that I might add a link to help clarify things.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
Date Amount
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00
As of 05/01/2006 the National Debit is $8,351,568,193,125.12
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
So in presidential terms: Under Reagan the debt increased approx. 1.5 trillion over 2 terms (8 years), under Bush I the debt increased approx. 1.4 trillion over 1 term (4 years), under Clinton the debt increased approx. 1.6 trillion over 2 terms (8 years), but under Bush II the debt increased approx. 1.7 trillion in his first term (4 years) and has increased approx. 1 trillion about half-way though his second term (2 years and counting) and is increasing each day.
Thought that this might help.
The really frightening part in the scenario is that people now elect officials based on their ability to ‘manage’ the economy. To keep their jobs, whoever is in power will automatically increase spending. To do otherwise will slow down the economy, cause job losses and the politician loses next time out.
Based upon compounding of debt, there has to come a time when either the debt goes into default or the government simply prints currency at will. Either one is not a very viable option.
I screwed up the link (as Hspder so happily pointed out) but it said that in roughly 75 years, we will owe 4 times more than we are worth. I would think that, long before then, lenders will not want any more dollars.
Maybe then we’ll use them for napkins!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is simply absurd bullshit. Put a picture up of your 3 phd’s (though I imagine that can be faked) on here, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. Very few people on this planet have the ability, time, and discipline to do anything near that.[/quote]
You don’t know my age, and you have absolutely no idea how many Ph.D.s the average Stanford professor has. You’d be surprised. It takes a lot to not only get here, but to stay. You also have no idea what’s involved in writing a Ph.D. thesis, so obviously you cannot understand that it becomes easier after you wrote your first one. My first thesis took 5 years to write, but the other two only took 3.
Your statements just show how ignorant you are.
Anyway, I really couldn’t care less about what you believe or don’t. It’s irrelevant over here, as I said. Even if everybody took my word for it, it would change nothing. The only reason I mentioned it was because you asked.
I could waste my time scanning and posting any documentation I have proving my credentials, but not only I’d have to take my real name out, you’d have no idea how the real thing looks like, so that would be completely pointless.
If you really want to verify, ask me something really esoteric about any of the subjects I mentioned – something you cannot find an answer to on the Internet.
As you do that, you might want to test my knowledge of any of the 5 languages I’ve claimed to speak fluently (English, Portuguese, Spanish, French and Dutch), since you probably don’t believe that either.
I asked you a basic Physics question that you didn’t answer, so I’m guessing here that you’re really not a Physics teacher… Which brings me great relief, really, since the idea of you butchering Physics is just too hard for me to handle.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The ones that do would probably not be interested in a site like this, and [/quote]
Why? The information in this site is actually of extremely good quality, even at an academic level. It is no wonder, since most of the regular contributors also have doctoral degrees.
You might argue some of my colleagues wouldn’t bother arguing with you, and you’re right. The thing is, I care too much, and I like arguing politics with Republicans – and I can’t find any over here (as BB likes to point out, there aren’t many in the Academic World). Maybe I should change that and start talking only to people who agree with me. But that would be no fun, would it?
Academics have been having “flame wars” over the Internet for decades now. I have been having heated arguments on newsgroups and bulletin boards since I was 13 years old. If you actually spend any time around us, you’d see we’re very passionate about our work and our beliefs, and tend to argue a lot. Arguing is one of the fundamental parts of research, and we have to do a lot of that.
As Zap puts it, we’re catty.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
they wouldn’t say arrogant bullshit about how the Netherlands is better than another country (namely, the USA), [/quote]
I’ve never said that, and you’re an idiot if you actually thought I did. I left The Netherlands, and I said multiple times I love the US.
I do point out positive aspects of some Dutch policies, which is no wonder, considering that all of their interesting indicators (from GDP per hour worked, to abortion rates, to quality of life) are higher than ours. They have pretty good ideas, that’s all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
American students suck[/quote]
I never put it that way, nor I wanted to. Remember, I am also an American, and to some extent I am still a student (all teachers/professors must be also students). I just said American students are not the best in the World, and they should be. Not only most of my colleagues agree with that – especially considering how many foreign professors Stanford has – they were saying it much before I was.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
, or spout your psychosis-babble[/quote]
If you don’t realize there’s something definitely wrong with you (mentally), that’s just one more symptom of psychosis…
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Thought that this might help.[/quote]
As I and other Economists have mentioned before, the debt, in absolute terms, is very not meaningful, much like it is not for individuals; what matters is the ratio between debt and either potential income (GDP) or true income (Government income ~= Taxes).
To use a concrete example, a guy that makes $200,000 a year owing $10,000 on his credit cards is VERY different from a guy that makes $30,000 a year owning $10,000 on his credit cards.
I’ve posted a chart on the debt-to-GDP ratio multiple times, and you’re more than welcome to build one on the debt-to-Income ratio (based on whitehouse.gov budget numbers).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The really frightening part in the scenario is that people now elect officials based on their ability to ‘manage’ the economy. To keep their jobs, whoever is in power will automatically increase spending. To do otherwise will slow down the economy, cause job losses and the politician loses next time out.[/quote]
That might have been true for the last few Republican presidents, but Clinton was indeed able to increase the GDP more than he increased debt. Hence the GDP-to-debt ratio improved.
He showed there are ways to improve the economy through investments that actually get a return (i.e., the GDP increasing more than the spending). The fact that Republicans have no idea how has more to do with the fact that they fill the pockets of their rich supporters rather than of the American people, who will return the favor not with increased campaign contributions, but with increased productivity…
[quote]hspder wrote:
I do point out positive aspects of some Dutch policies, which is no wonder, considering that all of their interesting indicators (from GDP per hour worked, to abortion rates, to quality of life) are higher than ours. They have pretty good ideas, that’s all. [/quote]
Heresy I say. Everyone knows that nobody but Americans actually have any ideas…
Well, at least in H2’s little fantasy world I’m sure.
Oh, yeah, speaking about professors and Internet flame wars, back when I was a student, they’d CC just about half the universe when they could make an opponent look stupid, so from time to time these things circulated around most of the campus.
A place like this is excellent training for proactively avoiding silly pitfalls when arguing with those willing to use inappropriate argumentative tactics…
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This is simply absurd bullshit. Put a picture up of your 3 phd’s (though I imagine that can be faked) on here, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. Very few people on this planet have the ability, time, and discipline to do anything near that.
You don’t know my age, and you have absolutely no idea how many Ph.D.s the average Stanford professor has. You’d be surprised. It takes a lot to not only get here, but to stay. You also have no idea what’s involved in writing a Ph.D. thesis, so obviously you cannot understand that it becomes easier after you wrote your first one. My first thesis took 5 years to write, but the other two only took 3.
Your statements just show how ignorant you are.
Anyway, I really couldn’t care less about what you believe or don’t. It’s irrelevant over here, as I said. Even if everybody took my word for it, it would change nothing. The only reason I mentioned it was because you asked.
I could waste my time scanning and posting any documentation I have proving my credentials, but not only I’d have to take my real name out, you’d have no idea how the real thing looks like, so that would be completely pointless.
If you really want to verify, ask me something really esoteric about any of the subjects I mentioned – something you cannot find an answer to on the Internet.
As you do that, you might want to test my knowledge of any of the 5 languages I’ve claimed to speak fluently (English, Portuguese, Spanish, French and Dutch), since you probably don’t believe that either.
I asked you a basic Physics question that you didn’t answer, so I’m guessing here that you’re really not a Physics teacher… Which brings me great relief, really, since the idea of you butchering Physics is just too hard for me to handle.
Headhunter wrote:
The ones that do would probably not be interested in a site like this, and
Why? The information in this site is actually of extremely good quality, even at an academic level. It is no wonder, since most of the regular contributors also have doctoral degrees.
You might argue some of my colleagues wouldn’t bother arguing with you, and you’re right. The thing is, I care too much, and I like arguing politics with Republicans – and I can’t find any over here (as BB likes to point out, there aren’t many in the Academic World). Maybe I should change that and start talking only to people who agree with me. But that would be no fun, would it?
Academics have been having “flame wars” over the Internet for decades now. I have been having heated arguments on newsgroups and bulletin boards since I was 13 years old. If you actually spend any time around us, you’d see we’re very passionate about our work and our beliefs, and tend to argue a lot. Arguing is one of the fundamental parts of research, and we have to do a lot of that.
As Zap puts it, we’re catty.
Headhunter wrote:
they wouldn’t say arrogant bullshit about how the Netherlands is better than another country (namely, the USA),
I’ve never said that, and you’re an idiot if you actually thought I did. I left The Netherlands, and I said multiple times I love the US.
I do point out positive aspects of some Dutch policies, which is no wonder, considering that all of their interesting indicators (from GDP per hour worked, to abortion rates, to quality of life) are higher than ours. They have pretty good ideas, that’s all.
Headhunter wrote:
American students suck
I never put it that way, nor I wanted to. Remember, I am also an American, and to some extent I am still a student (all teachers/professors must be also students). I just said American students are not the best in the World, and they should be. Not only most of my colleagues agree with that – especially considering how many foreign professors Stanford has – they were saying it much before I was.
Headhunter wrote:
, or spout your psychosis-babble
If you don’t realize there’s something definitely wrong with you (mentally), that’s just one more symptom of psychosis…
[/quote]
Still waiting for the proof. And waiting. And waiting. And…
Hspder,
Let me add – I’ve decided to call off my vendetta against you. You are obviously well-read and its not my job to help liberals get in touch with reality. If you want to pretend that you have doctorates in Physics, Game Theory, and wtf the other one was, go ahead. You will be exposed by your own words soon enough.
I would like to add that its been many years since grad school for me. Teaching hs, one does lose touch with the higher ends of his field. So what? And, btw, you didn’t ask a question.
So, enjoy your little charade. Life goes on…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This is simply absurd bullshit. Put a picture up of your 3 phd’s (though I imagine that can be faked) on here, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. Very few people on this planet have the ability, time, and discipline to do anything near that.
[/quote]
I’m curious… why does this bother you so much? Assuming arguendo that he does have 3 PhDs, it doesn’t make him automatically correct on these kinds of topics, any more than a PhD in political science makes one right in politics all of the time. It might mean that you shouldn’t dismiss his arguments out of hand, however.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And, btw, you didn’t ask a question.[/quote]
No? Let me be clearer this time:
What is the mass of a neutrino?
(I expect a one-paragraph answer to that one – if you really know anything about Physics, you know why)
Bonus question:
How would you explain Time Dilation to a high-school student, in just one short paragraph (four to five sentences), in a way they could “get it”?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Bonus question:
How would you explain Time Dilation to a high-school student, in just one short paragraph (four to five sentences), in a way they could “get it”?[/quote]
Ooo! Ooo! Trick question! You couldn’t, 'cause they’re Americans!
(j/k)
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Ooo! Ooo! Trick question! You couldn’t, 'cause they’re Americans!
(j/k)
LOL. Nice.[/quote]
Ah, but I did not say American high-school student, did I?
By the way…
Please understand that my harshness towards American students is mostly born out of frustration. Part of me really wishes we would stand out much more, and the fact that we don’t and that I have so much more success with foreign students just somehow pisses me off a bit. I don’t really think they’re stupid, I just think they have the opportunities to be smarter than they are.
It’s easier to strive when you hear other people beating their chest about being the best…
When you think you are the best, it is too easy to coast.
[quote]hspder wrote:
I have so much more success with foreign students
[/quote]
They aren’t as turned off by your mid-lecture 35 minute anti-American rants.
Kidding.