Stephen Joseph

Bring your mystery opponent on...and tell me what you need

More thoughts, from economists... Unless a candidate supports free trade, his party can only drive supporters to the polls with American-made cars. http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001089.html http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_t...ves/000270.html You all SERIOUSLY need to go back and review David Ricardo and Comparative Advantage.

As an economist He's right. Overall outsourcing benefits the economy. Yes, structural unemployment rises over the short-run, but IT jobs are NOT what America is best at. America is best at INNOVATION. We create stuff, and then its production is moved to other countries. Cars, Computers, Internet...three very glaring examples. Did outsourcing these harm us? No! They freed up American resources to go after newer innovations. What's on the horizon? Biotech, Nanotech, Internet2. Fields that will have higher wages, better work environs..etc...etc... For more on actually understanding outsourcing and not being a blind idiot when it comes to economics, READ THIS ARTICLE http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kev...-03-maney_x.htm It is amazing to me that politicians can be so apt to prey on people who should know better.

While this might have been heated, we were actually having a real conversation about the issue...your post is completely unnecessary

What is wrong with having a Jewish president? As a supporter of Joseph Lieberman, your attitude offends me. If you have "nothing against em" then why does it matter what religion he is? At least it wouldn't have been a "black dood" right? I think he was talking about 9/11 stuff. Thanks for seeing that man...Obviously the other guy didn't Yes, I was referring to having 9/11 which was already going to happen happen with a pretext of now not just anti-americanism but identifiable anti-judiasm too. Thank you for picking that up

I'm trying to tell you that unless you want to fly in the face of pretty much every economist that exists (and incidentally most economists are very liberal) then you're denying the truth... and i answered your suggestion on legal guns...i agree it would not be made of military arms...but it would be made of produced guns... not military, not previously legal...produced. Production = M + PL + Other I'm gone for the day, but I wish you'd actually read up on some economics because it might help you make better arguments if you knew the basics... Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations or David Ricardo's Treatise on Comparative Advantage are old, but easy and by far still accurate reads...I hope you try, because if you continue to argue the way you have, you'll find that you'l win fewer arguments as what you state flys in the face of very well-reputed facts.

You admit you know nothing on statistics... Then do not tell me that you can say what they will do. I can tell you what they will do because I've studied them for 7 years straight. Economic laws do not change...and economics denies the claims you are making. If you wish to make a claim on your viewpoint, you need to use something other than the arguments you're currently using, because they can be logically faulted and destroyed. May I suggest a faith-based argument? Your other suggestion, that illegal gun markets will be made up of legal guns...that's also wrong. Most illegal guns were bought on the black market. Period. That's a characteristic of an illegal gun. Now by illegalizing legal guns, yes, there will be alot of illegal guns, but I can name 10 effects right now that economically speaking would prevent the trade of those guns. Pick...another...argument...Yours current is more holey than Jesus.

THOSE JOURNALS MEAN NOTHING~! Well, they do, but that's not the point. They still haven't changed my point of view. They mean nothing? Nothing? You mean well-respected scientific thought published in journals means nothing. Fuck man, that's ignorant

I realise what you're saying there, but (guess what I'm gonna say) it's not that simple. The benefits of killing someone would not increase by that much simply because people can't defend themselves with a gun. If someone is gonna murder someone, then they'll murder them. If someone wants to kil someone, they wont stop because they think that person has a gun. Therefore why bother with making guns illegal..Go ahead and make the A prime C prime argument. It's logical suicide to do so. And if you don't know what that is...Dierdre McCloskey...go read her The possesion of guns is not the main variable in this equation. There are other ways to kill someone. There are other ways to defend yourself. <--More A Prime C Prime. Dammit I had to keep it simple Yes, there may be an increase in the amount of gun crimes, certainly over the short term, but it wont be a major change like you seem to be predicting. It certainly wont be enough to throw American society out of balance. <--Short Term? You changed a variable my friend. That change sends shocks out for a long long time. There are multiple rounds to the game that will be played out,and YES IT WILL. Don't question my knowledge in Economics. Where's your two degrees in it? In addition, if the production of guns and ammunition is cut down, then after a short amount of time the disparity between criminals and innoccents with guns will decrease, leading to a net decrease in gun crimes and an overall benefit to American society. <--Wrong. Who consumes the most guns and ammo. The government. Production will likely remain relatively unaffected by a civilian ban. Therefore Q will not drastically decrease. You're FLAT WRONG. Don't...even...talk...economics...unless...you actually know the theory. It's obvious from your statements you don't. You failed to take into account who buys guns. You failed to account for substitution effects...which you pointed out in disagreeing with my results because I didn't have enough substitution variables in my SIMPLE EQUATION to begin with. want a complicated equation? I can provide it...easy... WITH THE SAME RESULT. I realise what you're saying there, but (guess what I'm gonna say) it's not that simple. The benefits of killing someone would not increase by that much simply because people can't defend themselves with a gun. If someone is gonna murder someone, then they'll murder them. If someone wants to kil someone, they wont stop because they think that person has a gun. Therefore why bother with making guns illegal..Go ahead and make the A prime C prime argument. It's logical suicide to do so. And if you don't know what that is...Dierdre McCloskey...go read her The possesion of guns is not the main variable in this equation. There are other ways to kill someone. There are other ways to defend yourself. <--More A Prime C Prime. Dammit I had to keep it simple Yes, there may be an increase in the amount of gun crimes, certainly over the short term, but it wont be a major change like you seem to be predicting. It certainly wont be enough to throw American society out of balance. <--Short Term? You changed a variable my friend. That change sends shocks out for a long long time. There are multiple rounds to the game that will be played out,and YES IT WILL. Don't question my knowledge in Economics. Where's your two degrees in it? In addition, if the production of guns and ammunition is cut down, then after a short amount of time the disparity between criminals and innoccents with guns will decrease, leading to a net decrease in gun crimes and an overall benefit to American society. <--Wrong. Who consumes the most guns and ammo. The government. Production will likely remain relatively unaffected by a civilian ban. Therefore Q will not drastically decrease. You're FLAT WRONG. Don't...even...talk...economics...unless...you actually know the theory. It's obvious from your statements you don't. You failed to take into account who buys guns. You failed to account for substitution effects...which you pointed out in disagreeing with my results because I didn't have enough substitution variables in my SIMPLE EQUATION to begin with. want a complicated equation? I can provide it...easy... WITH THE SAME RESULT.

And dammit Chave, the equations I posted were on the fly back of the envelope. You're right, it is not that simple, they're alot of variables. But the end result is the same as I predicted...regardless! ITS PROVEN ECONOMIC THEORY IN PUBLISHED JOURNALS...!

I'd rather live in a country with the freedom to do as I please. Chave, You act like we think we need a gun to protect myself. We'd don't need guns to protect ourselves in America. Regardless of news, we have very low crime rates...duh. We need the ability to get them should that situation ever arise. If you ever care about your well-being, you never begin to constraint yourself. Not legally, not anything...Never.

Did it ever occur to you that the problem isn't with the people who legally owned guns? Do people who legally own guns buy them illegally? I'd say that's an approximately overwhelming...No..and a Duh~! on top

Censorship in any form is bad. Bill of Rights. #1 Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc... Something that I thought people thought was a good idea. It's called the freedom to be yourself. Wearing a cross or anything like that...yourself Wearing a flashing neon billboard...compensating Sorry folks...France has completely lost it here

Chave, okay its economics time dammit. And while economics cannot completely predict behavior, it does do approximately good...meaning it is very useful. People act approximately like economics models predicts. Given the following 2 equations: Demand for Murders =a-b(Co) Supply of Murders.-c+d(Be) Those are standard notations for Supply and demand equations. Yes, you can derive a demand and supply curve for ANYTHING. That is logically valid. a=Maximum amount of murders demanded possible, ie...population limit minus 1. or 100%..whichever b=Elasticity of Murder...this relates to Co Co=Price(cost) of Murder. b acts as a multiplier on this variable. As the price/cost of Murder gets higher, b multiplies that effect and the total is subtracted from a c=Negative because supply carries costs and murders will not supply until there is some reason too. This is a fairly simple economics notion. d=multiplier on the quantity. as Be(in this case you can think of Be as benefits to murder to the murderer as the murderer kills more people. We assume diminishing marginal returns. You can set these equations up, solve for equilibrium values. I now introduce a shock, where the cost of obtaining P (remember, thats the multiplier b) is lessened because of something...call it, innocents do not carry guns What happens? Murders rise. Say anything else you want, but TRY and argue on those grounds. Analyze the costs and benefits. There is ONLY one outcome to the system, and only one effect to the shock. Algebra and Economics...Ain't it beautiful... If only more people knew this stuff... My Gawd, I just realized I'm tag-teaming this thread with Marney. That is one very weird partnership.

Better question: Given the rest of the Democrats running ::Cough Dean Cough:: Do you need to have a vast conspiracy set about to make them look bad. No, you don't. They already do.

Hey Chave, Your point about it would be too late to hand over weapons...It was too late thousands of years ago. My honest opinion on what would happen if guns would be outlawed? 1) A hell of alot of people would NOT give up their guns they got legally 2) Crime would definitely increase on all levels 3) A new government bureaucracy would be created, probably more invasive than the worst descriptions of HomeLand Security. 4) America, and its spirit, dies completely over time as the nation degenerates. I would gladly write up how, economically speaking using simple s/d game and bosian updating how this would logically and consistently come about. However, your mind is probably completely closed to the possibility that this scenario could indeed be right. EDIT: Do I really need to mention I work for the Justice Department so I see how people react to law changes?

Tanks are cooler. I'm sick of the tank-control laws...

Dammit people, here's another and very cold way of looking at it. What's our returns to society for MAKING VERY VERY 100% SURE no one on Death Row was innocent vs. being VERY VERY 99% sure no one is *and I think that's accurate today* Should we spend a million? That could barely cover the checking? 10 million? Maybe a city or two with a jail that has a chair. 100 million? Now maybe we can research a decently sized state completely 1 billion? That might cover everyone in every state. Until the next time we need to check. 1 billion...would YOU want to pay something like that to make sure. I wouldn't. Waste of my tax dollars. 100 million (for the whole system) same deal 10 million and below...no way this can be feasibly done. Fuck people, we don't want to send innocents to die. But seriously, its great to say we've got to make sure the system works perfectly...but you're going to take away spending on other federal programs if you want to do that. Remember the dollar costs people.

She's right. So far we do not know of any innocents dying on death row. There are cases where innocents are convicted, but you have to remember that the burden of proof in say a rape is much different than that of a death penality case. Not to mention there are more crimes cases compared to just 1st degree murder. In a rape case, a jury hears the case, and decides the verdict. The punishment is meted out at that point. In a 1st degree murder case *the only crime punishable by death* the jury must return a guilty verdict and then must deliberate again to decide whether life or death is appropriate. We can also add in that not every state has the death penalty, which further reduces the odds. I hope that answers the question. It better, or my employer will be very unhappy

Get a clue unger...No one even accused Bush of a rigged election, they didn't like Florida's election machines. That's it. Gore even asked for the wrong type of votes to be checked for (under instead of over) and even with that, you've got a very well-respected Judge (Richard Posner, 9th circuit, U of Chicago) telling pretty much everyone it was a complete statistical tie, and with the decision making process given if the US Supreme Court hadn't over-ruled the florida supreme court, we probably would've had a Jewish acting president for a week while Congress tried to sort things out. Don't believe it? US SC allows the F SC decision to stand. F SC appoints the Gore delegates. The Florida Legis, pointing to Article 2 (state legislatures set election procedure) claim unconstitutionality and send the Bush delegation. Electoral College is then faced with 2 slates of electors from 1 state. Both houses must vote separately to decide which slate to accept. The house votes for the bush and the senate on a tiebreaker from the presiding officer (Gore) votes for the Gore slate. Congrats, we now have no further way to resolve this issue and we have a constitutional crisis. Jan 20th comes and guess what? Gore and Clinton have to leave office, so we need a new acting president until this mess is resolved. First in line is Dennis Hastert, but he'd hardly take it since he just won reelection and would have to resign as rep and speaker to do it. Next is Strom, and yeah, he won't do it. Madeline isn't US born. So the 4th guy in line is the Sec of Treas, a Jewish dood. I have nothing against em at all, but in the context of what was coming down the pipeline, this entire process might not have been for the best. If you would like to talk about rigged elections, go read about 1960. Until then, learn some damn history

Am I writing the NA title match? If so itll be in Tuesday morning by 9am someone let me know

Hi everyone. I'll weigh on this, seeing as I work in the (Justice) Department. The Constitution as a document of a federal or state body is subject to either a strict or loose interpretation, with most judges falling in the middle. This judicial activism everyone seems caught up about is nothing new. In the 1800s several instances were taken against the Mormon church including several federal rulings that 'clarified' or 'interpreted' law to ban polygamy. It was not until a federal (read: Supreme Court) ruling was in place that the conflict was somewhat abated, though persecution of mormons remained for many years thereafter, as well did polygamy practice. Everyone has biases. We want things to go the way we do. What I call judicial activism someone else might call interpretation, and vice-versa. Our Constitution specifically states "All men are created equal" and that all are to be equal under the law. Specifically targeting a group appears in my own interpretations to run counter to the claims made by our founding fathers. Put more simply. Cases like this shouldn't even be in the government. The last institution we need deciding morals is the government. Think about the ones that have...they tend to go apeshit over time. I often wonder why we tend to think only in terms of finiteness when supposedly ruled by the infinite. If it isn't a Godly marriage, then God knows, and they'll get it accordingly. Why worry so much about it here then? Or more specifically, what makes government think it can know more than anyone else. Laissez-Faire people. Laissez-Faire.

<-- special guest referee for NA title match

you know... that's pretty tasteless...

I'll save answering that for when my alma mater takes on Duke this Saturday. First time in awhile I can say GaTech's got a chance...like 30%. It'll be a good game that's for sure...