sees_all1

The federal reserve is apart of the government... The law of unintended legislative consequences: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obamacare-surcharge-cut-employee-hours-deal-cost-legislation.html

The percentage of GDP would probably shrink but the absolute number would grow. Tossing out a hypothetical - Say the tax revenue/GDP goes from 25% to 20% and GPD grows from 15T to 20T. Tax revenue increases from 3.75T to 4T

In a free market, there is no such thing as a GSE like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. There doesn't need to be regulations telling businesses not to do stupid things, because when businesses do stupid things they go bankrupt. When a GSE does stupid things, the government bails them out. More rules and regulations isn't the solution, less government (in this case, GSEs) is.

Pretending that free markets are to blame in the current economic mess is foolish. The federal government was involved at every step leading up to the crisis, and one could easily argue that the government was the cause of the bubble. EDIT: See Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Government Sponsored Entity, Housing and Urban Development.

Whats the conventional wisdom on the 10 binds?

It'll take more than that! TNPW follow every 100th rule.

I'm asking you to post McDonald's advertisements where they claim their chicken nuggets are 100% chicken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cowell_%28jurist%29 John Cowell (jurist) Devon Counties of England Greater London Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties subdivisions of England country Political geography Human geography Science Knowledge fact proof argument Philosophy The Next Post's Rule will only be described in images.

Alright, if we can't use common sense, post the claim.

The Next Post Will demonstrate the rule from XKCD: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=71414

I'm guessing they're advertising the chicken part of the McNugget, not the batter/breading. The chicken portion contains 4 ingredients - chicken, water, salt, and sodium phosphates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_McNuggets I think this is similar to the Taco Bell controversy. http://www.wwltv.com/news/health/LSU-professor-sheds-light-on-Taco-Bell-meat-controversy-115961599.html

Industries regulate themselves because public perception is worth it. Tylenol is a good case study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

We need to remove the human element. We need the WOPR.

http://www.skylinechili.com/downloads/wallpaper/3way.800x600.jpg 'nough said. The next post will include the poster's most recent homework problem, and an explanation of the answer.

There are limits to lawsuits. In America, $20. I'll have to do more research on this, but I'm vaguely remembering a situation where someone's neighbor started building a factory that produced air pollution way back when. That someone successfully sued for the change in value of their property based on the air pollution. ______ The argument for a limited government comes down to a few basic principles, starting with individual responsibility, self reliance, and inalienable rights, and ending with a social contract in order to protect individuals from each other and external threats. The two basic competing views stem from ideas of individualism and collectivism. A good question separating the views can be summarized with "What outcome is fair?" The outcome is fair because the rules were fair. The outcome is fair because the beginnings/results were fair. Another question, "Is it moral to take from a has and give to a has not?" Anyhow, if you don't agree with a particular set of principles, it's near impossible to reconcile the policy differences. As much as I hate bringing it up, it's very similar to the abortion debate. The views are incompatible, and if there is such a thing as absolute truth, one side is right and the other is wrong. Without an absolute scale it's impossible to be certain which is which, other than the fact that I know I'm always right. 8-)

Less is more!

From a shear economic numbers perspective, his first term was a failure. For every person that found a job, 75 people went on food stamps. You can argue about the situation he inherited all day long, but people at this point weren't making excuses for Reagan.

1 days wage buys 1 year's care in 1920. The nature of care is different. When people got cancer in 1920, they died. When people get cancer today, they stay in the hospital for a month. When people broke their arm in 1920, they'd either set it or amputate it. When people break their arm today, they x-ray it, figure out if they need surgery (set it with pins), then go through physical therapy. Your model is flawed even if you make grand (wrong) assumptions. Like everyone in America gets to visit a doctor for 1 hour a year (which is completely wrong), and that there are no such things as nurses, administration fees, etc. Oh, and people don't need to buy medication. So with those assumptions, health care costs X amount per year means that doctors get paid X amount per hour. Guess what? Even if X was $64, that isn't enough for a doctor! If you equated a doctor with an engineer (which requires less schooling), the engineer is already making more than $64 / hour! Engineers aren't regulated by the government like you're claiming doctors are, so where's the incentive? That means that X needs to be much higher (especially considering differences between the two professions, what it takes to be a doctor).

That article doesn't explain how you came to $64 / year.

You're making unreasonable assumptions about a lot of things. Collectively, people will visit their doctor for more than 1 hour per year. If you're suggesting that all doctors would be paid closer to or less than $100,000 a year, I think you're wrong.

That's usually an assumption in economics, everyone has perfect information. Rush Limbaugh is saying that 3 million white evangelical republicans didn't vote. Like they were ticked off by Moderate Mitt, or Mormon Mitt, or something.

I'm pretty conservative in my views, but what world are you living in?

MAD isn't a deterrent to martyrs, which is why unstable regions can't have nukes or stable regions with nukes can't become unstable. Hence, the need for foreign policy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313429/keep-pay-raise-i-can-t-afford-it-michael-g-franc#

This is an argument based on an incredible amount of ignorance. You're acting as if people on welfare receive anything close to the working average wage. Cite numbers then. Because I can tell you in 2011 America spent more than $1 trillion on means tested welfare. E: http://www.foxbusine...r-cost-welfare/ That trillion figure means nothing without context. Is it for 800,000 people, or is it for eight million people? The economic consequences and the political points change quite drastically if you put that figure into any kind of perspective and analyse it properly. While the unemployment insurance schemes in America are fraught with various complexities, both on a state-by-state level and on a personal level, therefore making it very difficult to draw a representative, national figure, the average UI compensation packets only add up to about a third of the average working wage of the geographical region they are awarded in (Tobey/Washington Post, 2010). Clearly, missing out on the remaining two thirds of the average working wage isn't enough incentive for people who are unemployed to find work... Call it 100 million people, and instead they could've cut a check of more than $10,000 to each of them for the same amount. Or 47 million, the number of people on food stamps, and the number becomes more than $21,000.