|
|
| Author |
Message |
Rycrias
Luke Warm
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 269
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
 Posted: 11/11/03 - 00:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Ed, your envy / hatred of the U.S. is almost psychotic. Please seek psychological help.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
atarom
Dalai Lama of RealPoor
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 16398
Location: 375th st. Y
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 00:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
heather graham is hawt.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 00:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually the Germans occupied something like 70% of the city of Stalingrad, at one time their machine guns were mounted on the bank of the Volga, however, the turnaround came on November 19, 1942 (This could also be called the turning point of the war on the eastern front) with Operation Uranus: the encirclement of the Sixth Army. By attacking the weak Romanian and Italian flanks, the Russians caught the Germans, who had not prepared for such an attack, in a position where they could not properly the deploy their forces to break out to the west; they were committed too heavily in the city itself.
So they were surrounded and eventually destroyed/captured by mid-January 1943. Estimates say that around 290,000 German/Romanian/Italian/Other Axis troops were surrounded there, and the Soviet prisoner log shows approximately 120,000 prisoners.
Another interesting tidbit is the casualty rate of 95% for ordinary German soldiers and NCO's in captivity, compared with 55% for junior officers, and just 5% for senior officers.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 01:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | Actually the Germans occupied something like 70% of the city of Stalingrad, at one time their machine guns were mounted on the bank of the Volga, however, the turnaround came on November 19, 1942 (This could also be called the turning point of the war on the eastern front) with Operation Uranus: the encirclement of the Sixth Army. By attacking the weak Romanian and Italian flanks, the Russians caught the Germans, who had not prepared for such an attack, in a position where they could not properly the deploy their forces to break out to the west; they were committed too heavily in the city itself.
So they were surrounded and eventually destroyed/captured by mid-January 1943. Estimates say that around 290,000 German/Romanian/Italian/Other Axis troops were surrounded there, and the Soviet prisoner log shows approximately 120,000 prisoners.
Another interesting tidbit is the casualty rate of 95% for ordinary German soldiers and NCO's in captivity, compared with 55% for junior officers, and just 5% for senior officers. |
uh....huh huh huh....you said "uranus"....huh huh huh.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frostkiss
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 2018
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 02:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Reading Stalingrad are we? =p
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 02:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | 1)If the U.S. dollar crashes, so does the rest of the world.
|
Capital flees. It will likely land in the Euro-zone (and if it is still around) Sterling. Maybe some Yen, Aussie and Canuck Dollars but primarily Euro-zone.
The demand deficit (from lost US Export earnings) is fairly small comapred to the effect in the US domestic economy. Britain and Japan would be worst hit, some countries like France, Germany and Italy wouldn't really notice that much.
The UK economy grew while government spending remained steady. As said elsewhere, mcuh of the so called US growth was due to the fiscal stimulus and not due to real economic growth.
Umm, you need to learn to count. MS Sales were $8bn, liar.
| kireol wrote: | | or in other words, in 6 months, a U.S. companys sales is about twice what your whole country's governments budget is. |
You must be feeling really f*****g stupid now, retard.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 02:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Wrong. Government spending spiked only slightly (0.3%) due to Iraq the last quarter. |
Stop picking and choosing your terms of referrence fuckwit, you aren't confusing me.
You quoted an *ANNUALISED* rate for GDP groiwth. 7.8%, or roughly 1.6% per quarter.
The spending increase is 0.3% per quarter or roughly 1.3% per annum. Including multiplier effects, this is almost the *entire* change.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 02:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xthos
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 550
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 07:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
Eduin, you said you werent trying to gloat and other b******t, but in the same topic you also say you cant wait for it to happen, so how about you just fess up and say your a loser and your only pleasure in life is trying to get a rise out of people on a public message board.
Everyone that typed replies to Ed has wasted their time, atleast towards him.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 09:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | As said elsewhere, mcuh of the so called US growth was due to the fiscal stimulus and not due to real economic growth. |
All you need to know. A chimp can kickstart the US economy, but can one keep it going?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 09:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| atarom wrote: | | heather graham is hawt. |
agreed
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 10:50 Post subject: Re: The truth behind Bush's destruction of the U.S. Economy
|
|
|
| NinjaBurger wrote: |
 |
ok.. this picture wasn't that funny. Twice would have been more than enough.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Luturb
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4043
Location: Livermore, California
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 10:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frax wrote: | | atarom wrote: | | heather graham is hawt. |
agreed |
The idea that anyone would be offended by that picture just shows that our society has not fully evolved yet. NWS? I want to hang that on the wall of my office!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 12:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | Wrong. Government spending spiked only slightly (0.3%) due to Iraq the last quarter. |
Stop picking and choosing your terms of referrence fuckwit, you aren't confusing me.
You quoted an *ANNUALISED* rate for GDP groiwth. 7.8%, or roughly 1.6% per quarter.
The spending increase is 0.3% per quarter or roughly 1.3% per annum. Including multiplier effects, this is almost the *entire* change.
Regards,
Eduin |
Oh man...you're sad. Now you're trying to say that an annual government change (1.3%) should be compared to a quarterly economic change??? OK. Here it is for you in numbers since, despite your best efforts...you're obviously confused.
Government spending change annualized 3rd quarter: 1.3%
Government spending change actual 3rd quarter: 0.3%
Economic growth annualized 3rd quarter: 7.2%
Economic growth actual 3rd quarter: 1.6%
So take your pick. Either compare 7.2% to 1.3% or 1.6% to 0.3%. Either way you slice it, government spending accounts for less than 20% of the growth last quarter. The real growth came from construction (a sure sign of a solid economy), low inventory and high consumer spending (a sign of economic confidence).
Got it, yet...fuckwit?
I'd like to add that all you naysayers are hopeless. You bitched about "the economy" for months (while I said a solid recovery would begin in the fall). Now that the recovery is well under way and unemployment is dropping, there are comments like "anyone can kickstart an economy..." yada yada yada. Sorry to point this out, but all of the economic indicators now show a strong economy. From inventory to construction to unemployment to the stock market to the wealth of the federal treasury.
I'd also like to point out that my backassward hillbilly state currently has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country at 4.4%.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | [So take your pick. Either compare 7.2% to 1.3% or 1.6% to 0.3%. Either way you slice it, government spending accounts for less than 20% of the growth last quarter. The real growth came from construction (a sure sign of a solid economy), low inventory and high consumer spending (a sign of economic confidence).
Got it, yet...fuckwit?
|
No, you do not appear to have.
What you are seeing is called the Multiplier. Basically, when a government spends $1 the short term impact on GDP >$1, now it depends what value you wanna take for hte multiplier but a good short term value is about 5 in the short term. So if your short term multiplier is 5, Annualised 1.6% increase in government spending can be expected to raise short term Annualised GDP by about 8%. So short term Annualised *Genuine* GDP (or Real Long Term GDP growth) *fell* by roughly 0.8%, the economy continues to contract in the Long Term.
What happens is you spend $1 and it increases GDP by$5. But in the MEDIUM term, this increase in government spending Crowds Out private investment and capital, reducing the impact of this multiplier, this happens (mainly) due to increased Interest Rates *AND* Inflation. In the LONG term this is ALWAYS A ZERO SUM. Always. Hence why Monetarists advise that government spending is very bad and only monetary policy can have positive economic impact.
What happens is that the investment by government must get larger and larger and larger in order to keep inflating the economy *AND* cover the Crowding Out created by previous government spending. As soon as the cycle stops, Interest Rates and Inflation rocket, the currency Crumbles into worhtlessness and the economy Stagflates.
It is more complicated than the dumbed down version I've needed to try to explain the concept to you and I doubt you will understand even now. But try hard, go read, *learn*.
Regards,
Eduin
Last edited by Eduin on 11/11/03 - 13:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious Eduin knows more about economics then you do, NWS, and that article in the Economist was quite good, it's unfortunate that people like you who just argue on message boards think they know more on things than the people who make their living off the same subject.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | kireol wrote: | 1)If the U.S. dollar crashes, so does the rest of the world.
|
Capital flees. It will likely land in the Euro-zone (and if it is still around) Sterling. Maybe some Yen, Aussie and Canuck Dollars but primarily Euro-zone.
The demand deficit (from lost US Export earnings) is fairly small comapred to the effect in the US domestic economy. Britain and Japan would be worst hit, some countries like France, Germany and Italy wouldn't really notice that much.
The UK economy grew while government spending remained steady. As said elsewhere, mcuh of the so called US growth was due to the fiscal stimulus and not due to real economic growth.
Umm, you need to learn to count. MS Sales were $8bn, liar.
| kireol wrote: | | or in other words, in 6 months, a U.S. companys sales is about twice what your whole country's governments budget is. |
You must be feeling really f*****g stupid now, retard.
Regards,
Eduin |
Last I checked you were in the UK. which you in essence said it will affect you too. but yes, it will affect the entire world if it happens.
Next, you are wrong. it's not bn. you need to learn to count too i guess.
next, no, i dont feel stupid. it all still applies.
in short, wrong, wrong, wrong.
thx.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
From that link, I see that Microsoft had last quarter sales of 8215.0 million dollars.
8215.0 million = 8.215 billion.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
ok, my bad. all numbers still apply. and my public education is shining through!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | Next, you are wrong. it's not bn. you need to learn to count too i guess.
|
Quote from *your* link :-
"Last Quarter Sales: 8215.0 ($Mil.) "
The last time *I* checked, 8 thousand, two hundred and fifteen million dollars was $8.215 billion not trillion (1 followed by 12 zeroes or 18 zeroes dependant on countries) nor quadrillion (15 or 24 zeroes) nor even a google.
Confucius say "fucktard in hole stop digging."
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | | ok, my bad. all numbers still apply |
Umm, the UK GDP is 16 quadrillion (I'll use modern zero interpretations), while MS had a turnover of 8 billion, yet "your numbers stand". So now you claim that 8 billion is half of 16 quadrillion?
You really aren't very smart.
| kireol wrote: |
and my public education is shining through! |
You *AMERICAN* education is shining through.
Only someone victim to the indoctrination of the American sytem could possibly compare the worlds 4th largest economy with that of one US corporation, think that the economy is only twice the size of the US firm's turnover and not stop to think "wait a sec, can that possibly be right?"
Dumb as a post and indoctrinated to never ask a question - even a simply "reality check". Poor fuckwit.
Regards,
Eduin
Last edited by Eduin on 11/11/03 - 13:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | kireol wrote: | Next, you are wrong. it's not bn. you need to learn to count too i guess.
|
Quote from *your* link :-
"Last Quarter Sales: 8215.0 ($Mil.) "
The last time *I* checked, 8 thousand, two hundred and fifteen million dollars was $8.215 billion not trillion (1 followed by 12 zeroes or 18 zeroes dependant on countries) nor quadrillion (15 or 24 zeroes) nor even a google.
Confucius say "fucktard in hole stop digging."
Regards,
Eduin |
moron. I said I was wrong that it's in billions, not quadrillions. and that my argument still stands.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 13:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | I'd also like to point out that my backassward hillbilly state currently has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country at 4.4%. |
That's what I would expect considering the type of jobs we're gaining (services) and the type of jobs we're still losing (industrial and tech).
The bottom states (in no order) are Michigan, Texas, Washington, Oregon, California, Illinois, NY, etc... Primarily the more 'developed' states.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | [So take your pick. Either compare 7.2% to 1.3% or 1.6% to 0.3%. Either way you slice it, government spending accounts for less than 20% of the growth last quarter. The real growth came from construction (a sure sign of a solid economy), low inventory and high consumer spending (a sign of economic confidence).
Got it, yet...fuckwit?
|
No, you do not appear to have.
What you are seeing is called the Multiplier. Basically, when a government spends $1 the short term impact on GDP >$1, now it depends what value you wanna take for hte multiplier but a good short term value is about 5 in the short term. So if your short term multiplier is 5, Annualised 1.6% increase in government spending can be expected to raise short term Annualised GDP by about 8%. So short term Annualised *Genuine* GDP (or Real Long Term GDP growth) *fell* by roughly 0.8%, the economy continues to contract in the Long Term.
What happens is you spend $1 and it increases GDP by$5. But in the MEDIUM term, this increase in government spending Crowds Out private investment and capital, reducing the impact of this multiplier, this happens (mainly) due to increased Interest Rates *AND* Inflation. In the LONG term this is ALWAYS A ZERO SUM. Always. Hence why Monetarists advise that government spending is very bad and only monetary policy can have positive economic impact.
What happens is that the investment by government must get larger and larger and larger in order to keep inflating the economy *AND* cover the Crowding Out created by previous government spending. As soon as the cycle stops, Interest Rates and Inflation rocket, the currency Crumbles into worhtlessness and the economy Stagflates.
It is more complicated than the dumbed down version I've needed to try to explain the concept to you and I doubt you will understand even now. But try hard, go read, *learn*.
Regards,
Eduin |
Dumb...f**k. So now that the numbers you quoted are wrong by a factor of 5, you're adding multiplier of 5? lol. Get a clue, d*****s. Government spending does not account for the growth last quarter, as every economist (except your fat ignorant ass) seems to agree. Fact is growth originated almost entirely from the private sector for the private sector. Construction alone was up over 20%, and those were not government contracts. Consumer spending was up near 7%. I like your claim that the US economy is unsustainable, considering it has been the powerhouse driving the world economy for about 80 years, now.
Now I know your "actuarial studies" teach you a great deal of b*******t that is inapplicable to the real world, but at least they should tell you not to pull numbers out of your fat ass, as they only destroy your credibility. How about this. Why don't you provide a reference stating that a 1.3% increase in government spending (which is at both state and federal level, btw) should create a corresponding gdp increase of 8.0% that same quarter. This is where Eduin stops posting, because he can't backup his made up claims.
Of course I'm sure 10 years from now, you'll claim that Scotland's average growth rate of 1.4% over the past 6 years is actually greater than America's. Right? Must I mention Stalingrad 2, again?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | | moron. I said I was wrong that it's in billions, not quadrillions. and that my argument still stands. |
Let's recap.
Kireol : USA rox, you sux0rZ, here's data.
Eduin : Your data is wrong.
Kireol : d*****s, I'm right.
Eduin : Your data is wrong, look at your link.
Kireol : f**k You, I'm right, I'm AMERICAN, I'm right.
Eduin : Nope, still wrong.
Rennol : Kireol, you're wrong.
Kireol : OK my reading of the data is completely wrong but the argument I made based on all that incorrectly interpretted data is still right.
You're f*****g *insane*.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | I'd also like to point out that my backassward hillbilly state currently has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country at 4.4%. |
That's what I would expect considering the type of jobs we're gaining (services) and the type of jobs we're still losing (industrial and tech).
The bottom states (in no order) are Michigan, Texas, Washington, Oregon, California, Illinois, NY, etc... Primarily the more 'developed' states. |
You missed the sarcasm. Contrary to most ignorant peoples' beliefs, the majority of Georgia's population is in the Atlanta Metro area, which is tech and industrial heavy.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | It's pretty obvious Eduin knows more about economics then you do, NWS, and that article in the Economist was quite good, it's unfortunate that people like you who just argue on message boards think they know more on things than the people who make their living off the same subject. |
You need to give up. You've been reduced to a parasite who says, "lol! you are dumber than so and so!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | You missed the sarcasm. Contrary to most ignorant peoples' beliefs, the majority of Georgia's population is in the Atlanta Metro area, which is tech and industrial heavy. |
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famuluscom/bizjournal11-08-010028.asp?bizj=ATL#body
| Quote: | Most of the new jobs have been in the services sector, which includes restaurants, hotels, banks, retail and government, said John Lawrence, assistant director of work force information and analysis for the Georgia Department of Labor.
Those jobs often pay less than the manufacturing and construction jobs they are replacing. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Why don't you provide a reference stating that a 1.3% increase in government spending (which is at both state and federal level, btw) should create a corresponding gdp increase of 8.0% that same quarter. This is where Eduin stops posting, because he can't backup his made up claims. |
I really couldn't be bothered searching in detail, so I just put "The multiplier in the Short Term" into Yahoo and the second link http://econ.bu.edu/gilchrist/teaching/ec102/basic_keynesian_model.ppt uses the example of 5 as a short term multiplier.
Go read, like I said. Educate your self. Maybe in reading you'll find a compelling argument for a lower multiplier in the short term. I doubt it.
Regards,
Eduin
Last edited by Eduin on 11/11/03 - 14:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
lol...Here's a nice Scottish figure. Manufacturing is down 7.8% this year in Scotland. They're having a tough time keeping up with their masters' 1.4% contraction! 
http://www.scottishtories.org.uk/pressrelease.asp?ID=2559
Actually, to Scotland's credit, their 2002 GDP is actually about $116 billion...which is almost half of Wal-Mart's revenue!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
