Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/797836285587046400[/ame]

[Da Geezer]

Good post, Whit. This is why, until we have a better solution, political correctness is better than nothing. Using clunky and awkward language isn't all that much of a problem if the payoff is that racists have to keep their thoughts to themselves.

Yup, political correctness to censor thought or particularly speech is better than nothing. Significantly better than engaging in debate.

[drok]

Yup, political correctness to censor thought or particularly speech is better than nothing. Significantly better than engaging in debate.

Do you consider it debate when people like Hannibal refer to my child with Down Syndrome as retarded? I'm so sorry it's such a fucking inconvenience for people to simply use a different word that's less hateful in tone and meaning, especially when it's directed at people who have a more difficult time defending themselves against assholes.

You think word choices don't matter to people who they are referring to? Why does everyone in this forum get bent out of shape for being a called a, gasp, "pussy"? In fact, why would you ever bother to spew an insult if it wasn't going to injure your opponent? There's not a person in this forum who hasn't taken offense to something someone else has said about them and for far less than the types of words that are protected by PC, who's meanings have far deeper hateful origins than "sandbagger", "cocksucker", "pussy", etc. This stuff does matter.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[SeattleLionsFan]

What debate? Whether black people are worthy of the same dignity as whites?

[Da Geezer]

Hack:

I owe you a response to your reply regarding interest rates and risk.

We were discussing a rise in the rate of the 10-year US Treasury Bond from 154 basis points post-brexit to 210 post-election. I said US bonds were risk-free, and I was to say that the rise was mostly about demand for money for investment. You were saying "ok, but there is still risk. After thinking about it, I think you are mostly right. Even the best bonds in the world have some risk, and the 154-210 jump does have some risk component. If there is a guy in India who holds a US Bond and he sees the Trump election and says "aw, shit, this Trump guy is going to start a trade war with China..." he might very well want to sell his bond, increasing the supply of those bonds, driving the price of those bonds down, which drives the effective interest rate of those bonds up. And this started with a thought "This guy Trump is a risk."

With that said, do you have any reason of the why of negative interest rates on some of the safest government bonds (Japan or Germany) in the world. This is not an academic discussion. IMO, the paradigm held by 99.9% of the world's best economists in 1929 was wrong. Same holds true for 99.9% of regular folks. All said, "tighten up, call in your debts, and hunker down until this passes." We now know that was all wrong, by 180 degrees. Negative rates are a big deal because I've not been able to read any reasonable explanation why the guy in India would willingly give his money to the Japanese government and "settle" for not getting it all back. It must have to do with safety, and that means risk, But what? Worst case, does he think the collapse of the Indian government is so close that he is betting on the Japanese government? Why not give your money to the US government unless you are thinking nuclear war or something big?

[froot loops]

Japan is trying on negative interest rates because they have tried nearly everything else.

[Da Geezer]

Do you consider it debate when people ..... refer to my child with Down Syndrome as retarded? I'm so sorry it's such a fucking inconvenience for people to simply use a different word that's less hateful in tone and meaning, especially when it's directed at people who have a more difficult time defending themselves against assholes.

Certainly not debate. To me, the word retarded is pejorative in the extreme. And if I've ever said anything of the like, I want to apologize to you, drok. That is just plain evil, not wrong, but evil. About Down Syndrome, every parent here has thought "...but for the grace of God, there go I...".

I was born with a bad heart. When I ran as an elementary school child, I could go maybe 15 yards and then squat to recover. I remember one time (about age 6), while I was being beaten up by two older neighborhood boys, my Dad stepped in and had them hold their hands on my chest. My whole body quivered with every heartbeat. As a baby, you could put your hand on the mattress and feel it move. The boys not only backed off, but became my protectors on the playground. I only know what being called weakling or cripple is. Neither word has anything like the punch the word retard has.

I'm starting to think you actually meant it when you posted that it was charitable to basically vote for those who want to tax me in order to give my money to the poor. I honestly thought you were joking. I'm sorry.

If you were serious, all I can say is that using the power of government, and its unique power to tax me in order to benefit those you think are deserving is not charity. At worst it is theft. You can tell a lot about a person's heart by looking at his check register. I believe that if that check register does not show substantial giving (10% being the touchstone), the giver is (1) missing a great blessing and (2) violating a precept of Christianity. Or, more bluntly, progressives should put their money where their mouth is.

"Social justice" is a nice sounding word. We can debate its real meaning. "Retard" isn't a word to debate. It is just evil, both to the child and to those who love him.


JMO

[Da Geezer]

froot:

Japan is trying on negative interest rates because they have tried nearly everything else.

Yes. But the government of Japan doesn't "set" the rate. Bond buyers do.

Think of it this way. Froot, would you personally write a check for $ 100.00 to the government of Japan, then sign a contract that in ten years they will give you $ 98.00 back? If you would not, why would you not? To me, I wouldn't because (1) I'd rather have my money under my control in case an opportunity comes up and (2) I don't need them to provide safe keeping for my money, I can do that, or better yet, the US government can do that and still pay me back $ 103.00 after ten years.

I have thoughts, but why would someone do this? ( and I'm not even considering that it is more fun to spend money now).

[hack]

So you are no longer questioning my professional qualifications then? That was a shitty thing to do.

[Da Geezer]

So you are no longer questioning my professional qualifications then? That was a shitty thing to do.

Agreed. It was shitty if I said that. I don't know what exactly I did say, but I don't question your professional qualifications as a journalist. Your primary qualification is that you are honest and you are persuadable. When I was going off on Hoss, I suggested that you be a go-between, because I know you are honest. I think I may know more about economics than you do, but that has nothing to do with your professional qualifications. One time, when we were talking about "leftover" money from some project, I said "why not leave it in the hands of the taxpayers who paid it in?" and you said, "thanks, I needed that." My most recent post about interest rates shows that I have been thinking about the point you made. I'd like you to see that as a compliment. You are one of the few here whose mind can be changed, and you write really well too.

I apologize for whatever I said that hurt you.

[froot loops]

froot:

Yes. But the government of Japan doesn't "set" the rate. Bond buyers do.

Think of it this way. Froot, would you personally write a check for $ 100.00 to the government of Japan, then sign a contract that in ten years they will give you $ 98.00 back? If you would not, why would you not? To me, I wouldn't because (1) I'd rather have my money under my control in case an opportunity comes up and (2) I don't need them to provide safe keeping for my money, I can do that, or better yet, the US government can do that and still pay me back $ 103.00 after ten years.

I have thoughts, but why would someone do this? ( and I'm not even considering that it is more fun to spend money now).

I think what you need to do is read up on the concept of negative interest rates. It is being done from the bank of Japan to the other banks to quit parking their reserves at the Bank of Japan. Your example is not analogous.

[hack]

Agreed. It was shitty if I said that. I don't know what exactly I did say, but I don't question your professional qualifications as a journalist. Your primary qualification is that you are honest and you are persuadable. When I was going off on Hoss, I suggested that you be a go-between, because I know you are honest. I think I may know more about economics than you do, but that has nothing to do with your professional qualifications. One time, when we were talking about "leftover" money from some project, I said "why not leave it in the hands of the taxpayers who paid it in?" and you said, "thanks, I needed that." My most recent post about interest rates shows that I have been thinking about the point you made. I'd like you to see that as a compliment. You are one of the few here whose mind can be changed, and you write really well too.

I apologize for whatever I said that hurt you.

Great -- glad we're back to normal then, and thank you very much. You definitely do know more about economics than I, but I like that you read the links and are persuadable yourself. Not common in these situations. Cheers.

[AlabamAlum]

Oh god. You guys get a room.

[hack]

Only if I can be the smartest guy in it.

[AlabamAlum]

Well, that leaves me and you out.

Say Lovie.