Tuesday, September 20, 2011

@17:34, 09/19/11 8

.



  • TimesPeople recommended a blog post:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Cohabitation Is a Shaky Foundation - Room for Debate
    Cohabitation is harmful because it does not institutionalize commitment in a way that is easily understood and honored by romantic partners and their friends and family.
    "Anyone who disagrees should answer this question: When was the last time you saw a cohabiting couple enter their relationship by vowing, in front of their closest friends and family, to love and cherish one another, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do they part?"
    I do not get invited to cohabitation ceremonies.  The cohabiting couples I have known would have little trouble with such a promise.  Many married couples I have known have dissolved exactly such promises.
    There is no real security in promises. There is some in contracts.
    My objective is cohabitation.  The rest is negotiable.  How do you want to work it?  My preference is a rather standard marriage.  I would like to pursue my interests and share my nights with you.  You should do the same.  Eating arrangements to be decided.  I cook.  You cook.  Out is always available.  I have no dietary restrictions but a strong preference for delicious.  If you want we can make a contest of it.  Complainer gets the next meals.
  • TimesPeople recommended a user:
    Sep 18, 2011
    kathleen
    • kathleen commented on an article:
      May 31, 2010
      The Pain Caucus
      As with all "austerity" measures forced on countries by various economic powers (IMF, OECD, whatever), the pain inflicted on the unemployed is not a peripheral result, but is the entire motive of the austerity measures. This is the means used to assure a cheap labor force, which is always the point. The pain is deliberate, not accidental. We need to understand that "the economy" does not have the goal of helping the many to live simple but decent lives; it is in place to succor the already-wealthy and always to prevent wage levels from "overheating" (as Greenspan so nicely put it). The rich will only stay rich so long as labor is cheap, and they will do whatever it takes to keep labor cheap. This is how it always happens--why should we believe ourselves in this country to be immune? The income disparity grows and grows, and the country starts exporting raw materials while importing finished goods, and the number of unemployed workers grows, and then wages and social programs are made to crash so that labor can once again be shown its place: to do the bidding of their "betters" for a mere pittance, so that the wealthy can grow even wealthier, and be "properly" served, but they seem to forget that this only lasts until the (inevitable) rebellion ensues. The pain dispensed to the unemployed? It is by design. 

      There is no question of force.  There are sanctions for default.
      No one wants to inflict pain.   There are very few Sadists in public office.
      Economies are not in general "Put in place"  they are built by their users to store value and to facilitate trade.
      The price of labor has nothing to do with the stability of wealth.
      Misers are noted for their reluctance to pay for labor.
      A positive cash flow builds the wealth of an individual.  A negative one is destructive.
      There is nothing inevitable about revolution.  Just show people ways to escape poverty that do not depend on luck or crime.  That will make them own their lot and work till they drop.
      Vote your interest.
  • TimesPeople recommended an article:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Judge Considers Pledge for Jurors on Internet Use 

    "Jurors rendering a verdict may consider only evidence presented during a trial, and judges have tried to ensure that deliberations are not contaminated by outside information."
    That is the rule. The questions of the facts must be presented and explained in the court room only.
  • TimesPeople recommended a user:
    Sep 18, 2011
    John Niedermeyer
    • Sam Grobart posted to Twitter a blog post:
      Jul 21, 2011
      Which Entry-Level Mac Laptop Is the Good One?
      “How to parse the new #MacBook landscape: Which Entry-Level Mac Laptop Is the Good One? - http://nyti.ms/pdtYVN” 
      Take the 11"Air model if you can.  It will be at risk.  
      Make a list of what you want and see if it or any of them fulfills enough of your list.  I think free is a good price.  The nearer free it is the more deficiencies I am willing to tolerate.  No laptop should be your primary machine.  Smaller and lighter is better for hauling if you can deal with the interface. 
  • TimesPeople recommended a user:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Hugo Pirovano
  • TimesPeople recommended a user:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Michel Reverte
  • TimesPeople recommended a user:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Steve
    • kathleen commented on an article:
      May 31, 2010
      The Pain Caucus
      As with all "austerity" measures forced on countries by various economic powers (IMF, OECD, whatever), the pain inflicted on the unemployed is not a peripheral result, but is the entire motive of the austerity measures. This is the means used to assure a cheap labor force, which is always the point. The pain is deliberate, not accidental. We need to understand that "the economy" does not have the goal of helping the many to live simple but decent lives; it is in place to succor the already-wealthy and always to prevent wage levels from "overheating" (as Greenspan so nicely put it). The rich will only stay rich so long as labor is cheap, and they will do whatever it takes to keep labor cheap. This is how it always happens--why should we believe ourselves in this country to be immune? The income disparity grows and grows, and the country starts exporting raw materials while importing finished goods, and the number of unemployed workers grows, and then wages and social programs are made to crash so that labor can once again be shown its place: to do the bidding of their "betters" for a mere pittance, so that the wealthy can grow even wealthier, and be "properly" served, but they seem to forget that this only lasts until the (inevitable) rebellion ensues. The pain dispensed to the unemployed? It is by design. 

      No.  
      There is no force.  Governments have the choice They can pay their debts or they can default.  In general they have preferred to pay their debts.  The question then becomes one of how to get the revenue to pay the debts.  They can ask it of the powerful or they can extract it from the powerless.  It hurts the government less to extract it from the powerless with austerity. 

      The present American case is a bit different.  There is no threat of default.  Interest rates on government debt are at near record lows.
      There is no pressure for payment.  The Republican party sees a trade advantage in very cheap labor and in a high dollar.  They are willing to sacrifice the less wealthy part of the population to get it.
      The only thing necessary to change this policy is for the less wealthy to vote their economic interest.  A new deal.
  • TimesPeople recommended a user:
    Sep 18, 2011
    martha
  • TimesPeople recommended an article:
    Sep 18, 2011
    China and India Making Inroads in Biotech Drugs
    Intellectual property needs a careful reconsideration.
  • TimesPeople recommended an article:
    Sep 18, 2011
    A Little Inflation Can Be a Dangerous Thing

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/all-banked-up-with-nowhere-to-go/#more-24353
    "However, fear of inflation remains a powerful factor among people with a strong influence on policy — as witness Paul Volcker’s op-ed today, which is a clear demonstration of just how hard it is to break out of this trap."
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/when-inflation-was-good/

    "The big rise in prices during and after WWII arguably did a lot to eliminate the debt overhang, making it possible for the economy to enter a sustained, non-inflationary boom.

    And this is the relevant history we should be looking at: this isn’t your father’s slump, it’s your grandfather’s slump. Volcker, I’m sorry to say, is worrying about refighting the 1970s when we’re actually refighting the 1930s. And fighting the wrong war is a good way to lose the one we’re in."


888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888



No comments:

Post a Comment