And anyone who grew in the 70s knows that a Chevy Nova or A Dodge Dart could be hot rodded to get to the quarter mile in less than 12 seconds.

Certainly, faster than a dog.


Oh, by the way , The Corvette and the Viper are world class cars that can compete with Porsche, Ferrari in performance and definitely beat them on price. The same can be said of Cadillac vs Lexus, BMW , Mercedes.

Ex - and what government made vehicle do you drive?








G&P

Nova also means a star that suddenly becomes thousands of times brighter and then returns to its original brightness... or put more simply, an exploding star.

It is also the name of type of lox.

It is the feminine of "love" in Latin.

It is also a Latin word for "new".

Nova was the name of a computer processor developed in 1969 for Data General.

Just because the car had a name that meant "no go" in Spanish doesn't mean it was a bad vehicle.

"A rose by any other name" and all that...

And by the way, that story about it not selling in Latin American countries because of what its name means in Spanish is an urban legeng. It has been debunked by Snopes.

snopes.com: Nova Don't Go

Elliot

They plan to introduce the Obamauto Memorial Day.

Would it be bad if Obama, and his administrative government did take contorl over the private sector?

I've bin told that People have intelligence, but I seriously doubt our wisedom to use it. First, we cut down trees, and for some odd reason are too foolish to see that we need those to breath. Ok, so we can still breath if we cut those trees down and plant more, let the cycle progress as long as we never upset the balance. Ok fair enough.
Then there is toxins in the air. How much air pollution do you like to breath? You drive a car, buy products from oil industry, forest industry, transportation industry (busses, Jets, plains, taxies, B-trains, trains, Low beds, oil tankers, water tankers, Boats, Cruise liners, even animal wast and yes we are aprat of the animal world. Especailly you ET Wolverine, just kiddin.) and CFCs, and other such chemicals. If we keep cutting down the trees as we are, they won't be able to filter the CO2 in the air fast enough to make up for the air that we are rendering useless to us. Yes, it may be used again, but not in the state in which we leave it.
Then there is the forest fires from natual causes, never mind global warming. Then the pine beatle is killing more and more trees each year. YouTube - Mountain Pine Beetle Presentation
There is a lot more but I'd be here for ever. I'm sure you get the idea that, we are cutting off our own air. So, if the government steps in, maybe we won't need to do that any more. Maybe they can regulate our lives better, not compleately contorl everything, but stop us from taking too much. We have houses way too big, far too many cars, eat much too much over packaged items, wast ridiculous amounts of resources in general. If you ever get the chance take a look at "Kleer-cut" in the Google search bar. My point is, people are getting Too free, and thus forcing this undue stress on those who haveless than the socially accepted/expected norm.

I see capitalism as being too much of a bigger, badder, and better juggernaut of propaganda. It seems to blind us into believing that we deserve everything we ever wanted, and we should get it at any cost. People are being to greedy. Seems senseless. Mhy not have a similar life style as we do, but cut it back on a lot of the stuff we don't need, like more than one TV in a house, more than a vehicle for a house hould, smaller houses, etc? As for those who have more than a million dallors, take the rest and give it to scientific research, hospitals, police, fire rescue, animal shelters, social supports, army, etc. So, no more super rich people, simply keep every one to the one million dallor mark and keep people working, educated (Free tuitions for all), money flowing, and those who are incapable of mental, or phisical work, find a program for them, higher some one to care for them and the elderly.

As it stands, I see western society as being a social imprisonment. The rich get richer, and the poor get poor. I s'pose you can't have one with out the other, but do we need the two extreams to be so far apart? Moderation is a strong support for keeping balance. The scale doesn't have to tip so far if you don't fill one side too much. A big problem is, that most people don't want to give up their social status to make the system more equal, and less dependent upon how much money you can acquire. Still we will probably always be in an "Iron Cage".

"Once capitalism came about, it was like a machine that you were being pulled into without an alternative option; currently, whether we agree or disagree, if you want to survive you need to have a job and you need to make money." - Wikipedia (yes I know it's not a very solid source but it seems consistent with what I've read about Max Waber and Rationalization.)

Nestor

Are you aware that the US is a net carbon sink ? Do you know what that means ? It means that we absorb more C02 then we generate.

How is that possible ? Well with capitalism and industrial innovation farmers learned how to make less land become more productive . Idle farm land has returned to forest and field ;a great reversal in land use in the country.

America's second-growth forests absorb 1.7 billion tons of atmospheric carbon annually.

Why is it desirable to use wood products over ;let's say plastics or metals ? Because wood is a renewable source. Did you not know that ?

In many parts of the country proper land management requires the clear cutting of the forest . New growth cannot start without sufficient sunlight. If we did not do it then nature would take matters into it's own hands . You did mention your concern about forest fires right ?

We have more trees today than we had 70 years ago. And some 4 million more are planted each day.

Do you know who is planting these trees ? Yes ;the greedy forestry industry. 91 percent of all trees planted in America during 1999 were planted by foresting companies and private timberland owners.The Sustainable Forestry Initiative is an industry effort that combines the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the long-term protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. There are currently 107.8 million acres of forestland in North America enrolled in the SFI program, making it the largest sustainable forestry program on the continent .It is not a government initiative .It is an initiative by those d@mn greedy capitalist foresters .

One cannot fully understand the European fascist movement in the early 20th century without studying Max Weber's contributions to the philosophical thought behind it.

Well let us see what we have to base this statement on?

Capital Research Center:

So Obama spent 150 million of someone else's money and had no significant results :eek:

He picks tax cheats like Geithner, Daschle, Sebelius, and a percentage of people believe he could run GM better than Mr Wagoner :confused:

Is this a reasoned belief?













G&P

With Claire McCaskill's plan for journalistic stimulus, they just might get people to believe anything.

Or they can concentrate on helping the NY Slimes recover... which now has the urgency of stopping the genocide in Darfur.
Michael Calderone's Blog: Keller: Times will be 'left standing after the deluge' - POLITICO.com

Well what can you expect from a paper that embraces Nazinomics.

Hey, Nestorian.

Check out how the poor people live in those countries that Don't have capitalism!

You've been listening to too many professors who don't have a clue as to how the real world works. You've been programmed! Indoctrinated!

Steve ;amazing stuff. But as one of the comments points out ,it was easy for Hitler to turn the German economy around when he started confiscating the private wealth of the German Jews . Hitler stoked envy against that segment of the population.

Last week Obama told the bankers in a meeting at the White House that he was the only thing that stood between them and the pitch forks... this after his government's rhetoric inflamed the masses against the bankers... hmmmmmm.

Does David Leonhardt see that simularity also ? He does note that like Germany ,Roosevelt's recovery did not happen until we mobilized for war. Putting 15million into the armed services puts a dent in the unemployment rate.

YES!!

This entire statement shows your lack of understanding of the environment you seem to champion.

Approximately 90% of our air comes from UNDERWATER PLANTLIFE, not land-based trees. It comes mostly from bacteria, algae, and underwater plants. The cutting of trees doesn't even amount to a blip on our radar in terms of oxygen production. That is why the protests by the tree huggers against loggers is such a ridiculous turn of events.

[quote]Then there is toxins in the air. How much air pollution do you like to breath? You drive a car, buy products from oil industry, forest industry, transportation industry (busses, Jets, plains, taxies, B-trains, trains, Low beds, oil tankers, water tankers, Boats, Cruise liners, even animal wast and yes we are aprat of the animal world. Especailly you ET Wolverine, just kiddin.) and CFCs, and other such chemicals. If we keep cutting down the trees as we are, they won't be able to filter the CO2 in the air fast enough to make up for the air that we are rendering useless to us. Yes, it may be used again, but not in the state in which we leave it.
Then there is the forest fires from natual causes, never mind global warming. Then the pine beatle is killing more and more trees each year. YouTube - Mountain Pine Beetle Presentation
[\quote]

Aren't beetles part of the environment? Are you suggesting that we eliminate these natural creatures from their natural habitats? For our own purposes? Come on, Nest. That's incredibly selfish of you, don't you think?

Exactly what in human history gives you the impression that government... ANY GOVERNMENT... could possibly run ANYTHING in an efficient manner? Take a look at our broken VA system, our bankrupt social security system, our inefficient welfare system, our broken down government-housing projects, and the length of time it even takes for the government to pave a friggin highway. Tell me that the government can efficiently manage the environment in a way that doesn't make things WORSE than they are now.

The government doesn't know how to limit itself. It is constitutionally incapable of self-limitation... even more so than private citizens.

Says who? Who's the judge to determine what size house I get to live in?

Again, says who? A house with two parents and two teenagers in a rural neighborhood, where nothing is within walking distance, and where public transportation is limited (which is most of the Midwest) is likely to have four cars... and need all four of them. Everyone has a different schedule, and needs to be in different places at the same time. Who are you (or anyone else) to determine that they have "too many cars"?

We have over 300 million people in this country. Only a part of those 300 million people live on farms. If not for the packaging of food for shipment to other areas of the country, how do expect people would eat? If not for the use of anti-weed and anti-bug sprays on the veggies, how would we produce enough food to feed everyone. "Organic" methods of food production are very inefficient. They produce approximately 20% of what modern methods of production are able to produce with the same land and seed. That is why organic foods are so expensive... they are scarce. (That whole "supply and demand" thing again... annoying, I know.) Organic foods also spoil more quickly because they lack PRESERVATIVES. If we were to move over to more organic forms of food production, we would starve to death as a nation within months.

We also PRODUCE most of those resources that we "waste". Keep that in mind.

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Nobody is forcing people who are under any financial stress to buy anything they don't want or can't afford.

Also, keep in mind that our (capitalist) system is the only one that allows free movement from lower to middle class and from middle to upper class. In other systems of human history, if you were born poor, you died poor. In the United States, a poor child of immigrants from Ireland could become one of the richest, most beloved, most respected members of society because of something he created that allowed people to increase their ability to communicate with each other. His name was Alexander Graham Bell.

In our society, a middle-class kid from Seattle, Washington, tinkering with electronics in his garage, could become the richest man in the world. His name is Bill Gates.

In our system, a lower-class kid, born in Nebraska in 1930, who grew up working in his grandfather's grocery store, and who made his first earnings by owning pinball machines could become the second richest man in the world. His name is Warren Buffet.

If I earn more, why shouldn't I be able to spend it? If I am more successful than you, why shouldn't I earn more. If you want more, all you have to do is get up off your butt and work for it. But I should not be penalized because you aren't able to earn as much as I am.

No. I want to give it to my kids and grandkids. I earned it, and I should get to say where it goes. It is MINE not yours.

Interesting how liberals always want to be charitable with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

There's an old joke. A liberal and a conservative are walking together. They come upon a poor person collecting money to feed his family. The Conservative reaches into his pocket, pulls out $20 and hands it to the poor man. Impressed the liberal decides that he wants to help a poor man as well.

As they continue walking they come upon another poor man. So the liberal smugly reaches into the pocket of the conservative, pulled out $40 and hands it to the poor man.

Do you see my point? I worked for my money. I should decide where to give charity, not you and not the government.

See what I said above about people being able to changed classes.

Also, please keep in mind that the gap between the rich & the poor in the USA has been shrinking over the past couple of decades. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer too. There are very few people in this country, no matter how poor, that don't have at least one TV, one car, one cell phone, etc. The poorest of the poor in the USA get free education through high school, free medical care at any emergency room or clinic in the country, etc. The poor of the USA are infinitely better off than their counterparts in Third World countries. And that is only possible because the RICH are able to support them.

Eliminate the rich, and you eliminate the ability to support the poor in the USA.

Who cares how far apart the extremes are if the poor have the ability to become rich too.

We have seen systems where everyone was "equal" before. In every case in history, they were equally poor and hungry.

You are assuming that "equality" means that everyone has to have the same financial outcome. To me, equality means that everyone has the same OPPORTUNITIES. The difference is in what you do with your opportunities.

If you work your tail off and have a modicum of talent, you can become very successful in this country. (Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example: a college dropout who had talent and worked his tail off, and became a success.)

If you have a lot of talent but work very little, you can still become successful in this country. (Take a look at most of Hollywood. A bunch of rich folks who do almost no work, but are successful based on talent and looks.)

And if you have absolutely no talent, but work your tail off, you can become successful in this country. (How else do you explain Katie Couric? No talent whatsoever, but she worked her butt off and became a success.)

The only people who cannot become successful in this country are the ones unwilling to work for it. Why should I support them? Why should I have what I have worked for taken away because YOU think its unfair that they don't have what I have?

Have you ever wondered why socialist and communist societies that push the idea of equality of wealth for all always seem to develop underground, illegal black-market systems of capitalist commerce?

Simply put, people do not want to be stuck with earning the same as the other guy for doing more work. Those who work hard want to be rewarded for their work. So they create a system that allows them to get more if they work harder. It is a system that gives back to those who give the most. And so, that system pops up NATURALLY wherever other systems are in effect.

Capitalism is the TRUE equalizer. What you put in is what you get out. Every time.

What could be fairer than that?

This guy says Geithner's "Stress test" for banks is "a complete sham."

That ain't all I'd consider a sham in this administration...

I'm going to put on my Chief Credit Officer hat for a moment. I do this sort of thing for a living.

Black is 100% right. Banks have been using "stress testing" for years. The purpose of stress testing issupposed to be to see just how far a transaction has to go south before you start losing money. How much money does a company have to lose, how much do revenues have to decrease, how much value do their assets have to lose before the loan cannot be paid back.

The problem is that "stress test" is just another word for "projection". Projections are, by their nature, only as good as the assumptions made. Poor assumptions lead to poor projections. Projections are nothing more than a way to guess, using numbers to be wrong.

If you assume that a company will only lose x this year and in fact the company loses 2x, you're screwed. Your assumption, while it might have looked good on paper, bares no reseblence to reality. Thus your projections are highly inaccurate, resulting in a major loss.

I have not seen what Geitner's stressors (assumptions) look like. But I can tell you that they are nothing more than assumptions. Any guess at what the future holds for a company or an industry is nothing more than a guess.

Back in the day, I learned that projections by the borrowers are ALWAYS rosy. They want money, so they will make themselves look as good as possible. It was my job to do worst-case-scenario projections to offset the rosy picture.

Geithner wants something here. He wants hedge-funds to buy up the "toxic assets". It is in his best interest to make the projections as rosy as possible so that the hedge funds bite. Therefore, his projections will be as rosy as he can make them without being caught. It's not hard to do... he just needs to make MODERATE assumptions of losses instead of worst-case assumptions. Who's to say that it isn't really a worst-case projection? Who's going to call Geithner on it unless it is very blatant that he's making the picture too rosy?

Stress tests don't tell you anything except that the guy making the projections knows how to do basic math.

A better way to test these loans would be through BREAK-EVEN analysis rather than stress tests. A break-even analysis simply calculates at what point the loan breaks even vs. when it starts losing money. It makes no assumptions about what the future holds. It simply says "This is where the loan is now, that is where it must be to stay profitable." After that, you have to look at the other factors (soundness of the assets, soundness of the neighborhood, cash flow generated by the owners, other market factors, etc.) and determine what the chances are that the loan will dip below the break-even point. There are no assumptions regarding future performance being made.

Black is 100% correct. Stress-testing is a useless excersize that fools most people into being wrong with authority. Geithner's system is headed for a fall.

Elliot

More like taking us over the cliff. Excellent analysis as usual, Elliot.

Which was a system that was turned upside down when the mark to market accounting rules were implemented as I understand it . The banks were actually forced to declare losses on mortgages that were being paid off monthly. Is that correct ?