Fellas... you guys think we're in a recession?

[repman]

Repman,

Every time someone critically questions your overly-generalized political statements or even professes a different viewpoint than you, your response is to denigrate them with personal insults. You seem completely incapable of arguing your point of view without resulting to insulting the other person.

You chide others to "learn the facts" while you provide precious little factual information or rational analysis to back up your simplistic view of the world.

I am pretty sure that Robert left the conversation exactly because you were unable to debate the issue rationally without acting like a four year old child. And you are leaving the conversation apparently because the thought processes required to debate a complex issue are beyond your means. You appear incapable of providing any factual support for your opinions, so you instead just resort to useless quotations, bullying, calling names, and then running away. Gee, you should consider a run for office. Sounds like the makings of a good politician.

I am in no way running away, I can debate an issue rationally with rational people. I just refuse to waste my time anymore on Zealots who have thier mind made up and have inate viewpoints of the world that are unshakeable .
I have a view and so do you. I will not or should not be able to convince you out of yours and in turn you will not have much luck with me either . its just the way it is. As I said I learned a long time ago and chose to ignore my fundemental belief that some people myself included have core values that cannot be reasoned or argued or fought away. We could spend all of our free time going back and forth debating political and social issues.

As they say "Common Sense Is Not So Common Anymore" I am putting whatever amount I have to end a futile discussion

If you are ever in the Atlanta area I would welcome you to my home for a meal , some libations and some fun listening to music on my system.

I choose to not engage in fruitless adventures anymore , I would rather just share and enjoy the things we have common ground on ( audio , Music, ) and call it a day. I am sure this simple explanation will raise the ire of those who want to continue on. I again hope you have a great rest of the weekend.

 

[twich54]

If you are ever in the Atlanta area I would welcome you to my home for a meal , some libations and some fun listening to music on my system.

Larry, does that apply to me too ??

 

[repman]

Especially you, Dave

 

[twich54]

You know what Larry............I think I'll blame this recession on all the 'Bills' woes over the past decade ! Regardless I'll be making my trek up to Rochester for Bills camp next month, any chance you'll be back home in August ??

 

[repman]

Dave I agree its the Bills fault , I unfortunatly will not have Western NY on the the itinerary for August. I have trips to China, Japan, France and Isreal planned for work which will not leave much free time in August. Give me a report on CJ after you see him.

 

[Len44]

I am in no way running away, I can debate an issue rationally with rational people. I just refuse to waste my time anymore on Zealots who have thier mind made up and have inate viewpoints of the world that are unshakeable .

I have a view and so do you. I will not or should not be able to convince you out of yours and in turn you will not have much luck with me either . its just the way it is. As I said I learned a long time ago and chose to ignore my fundemental belief that some people myself included have core values that cannot be reasoned or argued or fought away. We could spend all of our free time going back and forth debating political and social issues.

FWIW, According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: zeal·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈze-lət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
Date: 1537

1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan <a religious zealot>

Yep, sure enough, it is fruitless to argue with a zealot -- and we all know who that is...

BTW, Thanks to Rich and Tonepub, for nicely and accurately summing things up.

 

[repman]

FWIW, According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: zeal·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈze-lət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
Date: 1537

1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan <a religious zealot>

Yep, sure enough, it is fruitless to argue with a zealot -- and we all know who that is...

BTW, Thanks to Rich and Tonepub, for nicely and accurately summing things up.

Main Entry: zeal·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈze-lət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
Date: 1537
1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Number two was what I was refering to a Zealous person or fanatical partisan

As always just part of the story, dude you need to get Laid!!!

 

[Len44]

Main Entry: zeal·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈze-lət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
Date: 1537
1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Number two was what I was refering to a Zealous person or fanatical partisan

As always just part of the story, dude you need to get Laid!!!

And you need to chill out. All you are is full of petty insults, which I presume is the result of a low vocabulary and the bankruptcy (I should add that this means the complete lack of merit, or you probably wouldn't understand it) of your arguments.

BTW, I presume your numerous misspellings are also due to what must be your apparent lack of an adequate education.

Gee -- ain't trading insults fun?:devil:

You are, once again, simply disgusting. Get a life, man.

 

[mcmd]

I feel there's still enough resources left so that everyone can have some, but not if we have a small handful of people hoarding hundreds and thousands more than they need. And that's what's driving the shortsighted decisions. Seriously, once you have a bit more wealth than you need, (I know that's tough to define...) do you really need 100 times more than that?

Jeff, what you're describing is the concept of the (diminishing) marginal utility of money.

This concept is readily understood in this forum as the following question:

The ML Spire retails for $8495. The ML Summit X retails for $13,995. Assuming neither could be purchased for less than retail, does the Summit provide over 1.6x the listening pleasure as the Spire provides, given the relative difference in cost? Similarly, does the CLX (at $21,832 current MSRP) provide close to 1.56x the listening pleasure over the Summit in terms of relative cost? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then we've reached the point of diminishing marginal utility of the ML speaker in question.

Which is very likely why the Motion Series was "green-lit" and a Reserve ESL series center-channel is not likely to see the light of day any time soon. As a corollary, I suspect that for most (I do not mean the members of this forum, but the greater buying public) the relative marginal utility of a Motion Series purchase exceeds anything in the ML line-up until one gets to Vantage-level.

 

[raygunn]

Florida most certainly is in the throws of recession and financial crisis...

that is not likely to reverse any time soon.
Retail sales are in the toilet overall, with malls, big box stores, car dealerships, food markets, and strip shopping centers being shuttered at an alarming rate. There is such a huge glut of unsold, abandoned, and foreclosed homes that values are not likely to reach where they should be for years to come, and salaries remain flat or depressed while cost of living overall continues to rise.

Not a pretty picture at all from the Sunshine State. That said, all I have to do is look outside into my back yard and I am quickly reminded why I still live here....

 

[Kevin]

No matter that Nasa is one of the most wasteful and inefficient agencies in the government and that the trip to the moon is a completely needless waste of money and resources (yet another Bush mistake).

Is there a government agency that isn't wasteful? At least NASA is an agency that has given something back to our economy and welfare through the technology gained through its various programs. From UV sunglasses, jaws of life, and even the computer mouse that most reading this post currently hold in their hands, these as well as too many to list were all developed either by or with the help from NASA. I don't think you have to worry about NASA actually concentrating on space and aeronautics anytime soon. Obama has them working on raising the self-esteem of Muslims. This is a mission that surely we will be reaping the benefits from for decades to come.

 

[Rich]

Is there a government agency that isn't wasteful?

The US Post Office isn't wasteful, at least not of tax dollars. They are fully self-supporting. And believe me, there are plenty of private businesses that are extremely wasteful of your tax dollars. Particularly many of those that support the military-industrial complex.

At least NASA is an agency that has given something back to our economy and welfare through the technology gained through its various programs. From UV sunglasses, jaws of life, and even the computer mouse that most reading this post currently hold in their hands, these as well as too many to list were all developed either by or with the help from NASA.

One out of three ain't bad, I guess. UV coatings I'll give you, but not the Mouse and Jaws of Life. But I guess getting your facts right isn't important when there is senseless partisan bashing to be done.

Obama has them working on raising the self-esteem of Muslims.

Oh, and for the record, you are wrong on that one too.

But kudos to you for intentionally missing my point that Republicans only preach small government as long as the government cuts don't come on their own "turf."

 

[mcmd]

But kudos to you for intentionally missing my point that Republicans only preach small government as long as the government cuts don't come on their own "turf."

Rich, I am curious, would you support an "across the board cut" in federal spending (say, 10%)? For the sake of a conversation, let's define an "across the board cut" as one with no exceptions, no sacred cows- and including all military and entitlement spending. I am genuinely interested in your perspective on this.

 

[tonepub]

Jeff, what you're describing is the concept of the (diminishing) marginal utility of money.

This concept is readily understood in this forum as the following question:

The ML Spire retails for $8495. The ML Summit X retails for $13,995. Assuming neither could be purchased for less than retail, does the Summit provide over 1.6x the listening pleasure as the Spire provides, given the relative difference in cost? Similarly, does the CLX (at $21,832 current MSRP) provide close to 1.56x the listening pleasure over the Summit in terms of relative cost? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then we've reached the point of diminishing marginal utility of the ML speaker in question.

Which is very likely why the Motion Series was "green-lit" and a Reserve ESL series center-channel is not likely to see the light of day any time soon. As a corollary, I suspect that for most (I do not mean the members of this forum, but the greater buying public) the relative marginal utility of a Motion Series purchase exceeds anything in the ML line-up until one gets to Vantage-level.

It depends on the room, system and software, weighted by disposable income and biased by your own level of zealotry. (is that a word?)

Much like when we reviewed the $55,000 Continuum. When compared to the $5,000 Rega P5, with identical Dynavector XV-1 moving coil cartridges, playing average records the diff was not that big. However, when we switched to early stamper pressings of familiar rock and jazz records as well as some spectacular remasters (like the Classic Records, Neil Young "Live at Massey Hall") the difference between the two tables was pretty staggering.

I don't know if the CLX provides 1.56 times more listening pleasure (over the Summit X) to everyone, but in my system it was a pretty big difference.

If we take this in reverse, there's also a pretty dramatic difference between my current dCS Paganini stack which retails for about $60k and my former reference, the Naim CD555 (about $30k) in my current system. However, when I swap my main reference components for a Rega Elicit integrated and a pair of Vantages, there is almost no discernible diff between the two players.

I think this question has too many variables to answer in a way that is meaningful to everyone.

As for the wacky situation our govt. and economy is in, I wish we had access to ALL of the information. Though I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, I do think there is a lot we don't know, which makes it really hard to get a handle on a logical opinion.

 

[Rich]

Rich, I am curious, would you support an "across the board cut" in federal spending (say, 10%)? For the sake of a conversation, let's define an "across the board cut" as one with no exceptions, no sacred cows- and including all military and entitlement spending. I am genuinely interested in your perspective on this.

I suppose I might . . . assuming it was tied to a larger, well thought out plan to reduce the budget deficit and work toward getting back to a balanced budget, which is what I think we all want to see. And assuming that we as a country could accept the pain associated with such a cut.

Unfortunately, I think the issues are much more complicated than a simple fix like you suggest. For instance, a large part of our economy is driven by government spending (everything from road building to research grants to building the latest military jets, to grants to the states for infrastructure work, etc.). Most of that money filters down to private companies and forms part of our economic base. If you just automatically cut spending by a certain percentage, then you have to be willing to accept a contraction in your economic output by a certain percent, which will result in the lost jobs, lost income, and, in turn less tax dollars coming back to the government. So you could cut your budget by 10%, resulting in economic contraction, and for the next several years you could actually see the government's tax income drop by 10% or even more than that. So you may end up doing nothing to fix the deficit while actually creating a lot of economic strife and hardship. There are no easy solutions.

I'm not saying I am against doing it. I am saying that it will have negative repercussions in the short term and we would have to be willing to accept that pain as part of the cost (losing the finger to save the arm type of thing). And we would also have to understand that it may make the problem we are trying to address worse in the short term (and by short term I mean five to ten years, possibly longer).

This is the problem with our current partisan system. Both parties are for big government in the sense that both have their pet projects that they want to fund and aren't willing to cut. So we go back and forth and everything grows but nothing ever gets cut. When someone tries to cut back on something, everyone affected is up in arms. And so we switch between parties every few years. So, ultimately, the across the board cuts could be the best way to get where we need to go if we could stomach the pain for the length of time that it would be necessary to fix the problem.

I'm also not necessarily against the idea of a flat tax, but that is another conversation altogether.

I will say that I was interested to see a headline that the yearly budget deficit topped the trillion dollar mark recently. Likewise, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars also recently topped the trillion dollar mark. So if we had held our egos and nationalism in check and refused to engage in those wars, and if we had been willing to take that money that would have otherwise been spent on those wars and put it toward paying down the deficit over the past ten years or so, we could be a debt free nation today with a balanced budget. But obviously neither party would have had the balls to do such a thing. And even if they did, it wouldn't stop them from running up more deficits later.

 

[mcmd]

It depends on the room, system and software, weighted by disposable income and biased by your own level of zealotry. (is that a word?)

Agreed in my example, it's income/asset weighted. If you had $100 million in the bank earning $3M tax-free interest annually and someone offered you a job for $4M which required you to actually work, the marginal utility of the job is quite low for most.

If, however, you had no current job, no savings (and thus no interest income) and someone offered you that VERY SAME JOB for $100,000, most would likely jump through whatever hoops they needed to to secure it. Thus, the marginal utility of that very same job is quite high.

The point is, your point: once you reach a certain threshold (income, audio gear, whatever), any increase over that threshold becomes marginally less valuable.

 

[mcmd]

I suppose I might . . . assuming it was tied to a larger, well thought out plan to reduce the budget deficit and work toward getting back to a balanced budget, which is what I think we all want to see. And assuming that we as a country could accept the pain associated with such a cut.

First of all, thanks for your well reasoned response- much appreciated! I agree the "pain" aspect of this will be quite a difficult endeavor, but regrettably a necessity. Unfortunately, even with taking what appears to be an even-handed approach (10% cut for everyone), there will be disparate impact. As I outlined in some posts above, the marginal utility of the cut will be "felt" differently. For example, a defense contractor getting a cut of 10% from say $1B to $900M is going to ripple differently than a social security recipient getting a cut in their monthly from $1000 to $900. So, the 10% cross the board cut at first seems morally right, but somehow doesn't feel right.

Unfortunately, I think the issues are much more complicated than a simple fix like you suggest. For instance, a large part of our economy is driven by government spending (everything from road building to research grants to building the latest military jets, to grants to the states for infrastructure work, etc.). Most of that money filters down to private companies and forms part of our economic base. If you just automatically cut spending by a certain percentage, then you have to be willing to accept a contraction in your economic output by a certain percent, which will result in the lost jobs, lost income, and, in turn less tax dollars coming back to the government. So you could cut your budget by 10%, resulting in economic contraction, and for the next several years you could actually see the government's tax income drop by 10% or even more than that. So you may end up doing nothing to fix the deficit while actually creating a lot of economic strife and hardship. There are no easy solutions.

Once again, we are in general agreement. Money flowing through an economy is zero-sum game however, as it is controlled by our central bank, the Federal Reserve. What this means is that while the money supply is relatively constant, the more that is controlled by government means by default less that is in the hands of the private economy. The question is, what "entity" is more efficient in the use of the money supply?

This is the problem with our current partisan system. Both parties are for big government in the sense that both have their pet projects that they want to fund and aren't willing to cut.

This does appear to be the rub, doesn't it? I have begun to think of the two major political parties as two-sides of the same coin: heads they win, tails we lose. It is convenient for those in power to use these parties to continue to divide the populace. But, this "divide and conquer" scheme, as you already know, is a very old tale. This notion readily spills into media, with the American people playing the part of the rube. I have often wondered what would happen if political parties were disbanded by law, and every politician was forced to be an "independent", without the logistical and financial support of "their" party.

So, ultimately, the across the board cuts could be the best way to get where we need to go if we could stomach the pain for the length of time that it would be necessary to fix the problem.

I'm also not necessarily against the idea of a flat tax, but that is another conversation altogether.

Agreed, once more. The idea of a flat tax in my view would have to be enacted with a constitutional amendment that would preclude the government from enacting other taxes IN ADDITION to the flat tax. Only then could it be ultimately successful.

I will say that I was interested to see a headline that the yearly budget deficit topped the trillion dollar mark recently. Likewise, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars also recently topped the trillion dollar mark. So if we had held our egos and nationalism in check and refused to engage in those wars, and if we had been willing to take that money that would have otherwise been spent on those wars and put it toward paying down the deficit over the past ten years or so, we could be a debt free nation today with a balanced budget. But obviously neither party would have had the balls to do such a thing. And even if they did, it wouldn't stop them from running up more deficits later.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds positively libertarian of you! Agreed, perhaps we should rethink our role in the world. Not suggesting we become isolationist- I am merely suggesting that we consider adopting a new doctrine: do not hit on foreign soil unless hit first. And then, with overwhelming force and without mercy. No more nation building.

 

[Rich]

First of all, thanks for your well reasoned response- much appreciated!

Likewise to you for yours.

Unfortunately, even with taking what appears to be an even-handed approach (10% cut for everyone), there will be disparate impact.
. . .
So, the 10% cross the board cut at first seems morally right, but somehow doesn't feel right.

Good point. As I said earlier, there are no easy solutions. And what is a correct and moral solution for one may not seem that way to another.

What this means is that while the money supply is relatively constant, the more that is controlled by government means by default less that is in the hands of the private economy. The question is, what "entity" is more efficient in the use of the money supply?

Which in turn just raises more questions, like: What do we mean exactly by "efficient" use of the money supply and should efficiency, however it is defined, be the ultimate goal? Do we have a central government solely to provide a climate for private business to thrive in an efficient economy . . . or are there other important needs that we have for our government in complex civilization?

I have begun to think of the two major political parties as two-sides of the same coin: heads they win, tails we lose.

This is true to a large extent, but I think that while the two-party system has its faults, countries with multi-party systems don't necessarily fare much better in terms of their government. Ultimately, the problem is more about human nature and the corruption of individuals and groups. After all, "special interests" that we decry so much in this country are really just groups of people wielding political clout to try to garner a disproportionate amount of resources or decision-making power to favor their own causes.

I have often wondered what would happen if political parties were disbanded by law, and every politician was forced to be an "independent", without the logistical and financial support of "their" party.

It wouldn't change a thing. People will always form into groups of like-minded individuals in order to wield power for shared causes. Whether it is along religious lines, racial and ethnic lines, political lines, or whatever. Even if you outlaw it outright, it will still go on behind the scenes.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds positively libertarian of you!

I take no offense from that. I am not easily put into a box. I have some beliefs that are very liberal, some that would be considered very conservative, and some that are downright libertarian.

Agreed, perhaps we should rethink our role in the world. Not suggesting we become isolationist- I am merely suggesting that we consider adopting a new doctrine: do not hit on foreign soil unless hit first. And then, with overwhelming force and without mercy. No more nation building.

I would agree with you that this would be a very smart policy for us to consider. Policing the world is way too expensive and ultimately impossible to do anyway. But I think that our national attitude on that changed dramatically after WW2. We ignored what was going on in Germany and Japan for far too long and it ended up almost costing us our nation.

Actually, we should be very mindful of the history of Germany. It was, in part, the effects of the great depression that fueled some of the racial tensions in Germany that gave rise to the power of the Nazi party. Not unlike the current economic crisis is giving rise to the power of the Tea Party.

Mind you, I am not saying all tea partiers are racists. Far from it. But there is no question that a formidable base of their support lies in angry whites who feel marginalized in the current economic, political, and racial climate. It is all too easy to blame all your problems on minority races and we have a long history of doing that in this country. They make an easy scapegoat. And the tea party leaders are wielding that emotional power with little regard to the moral implications of giving legitimacy to some of the more extreme views that have been espoused by their followers. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

 

[Kevin]

The US Post Office isn't wasteful, at least not of tax dollars. They are fully self-supporting. And believe me, there are plenty of private businesses that are extremely wasteful of your tax dollars. Particularly many of those that support the military-industrial complex.



One out of three ain't bad, I guess. UV coatings I'll give you, but not the Mouse and Jaws of Life. But I guess getting your facts right isn't important when there is senseless partisan bashing to be done.



Oh, and for the record, you are wrong on that one too.

But kudos to you for intentionally missing my point that Republicans only preach small government as long as the government cuts don't come on their own "turf."

You sure picked a shining example, in the USPS, of a successfully run government agency. Afterall, what is the projected budget deficit that they are looking at for this year? Somewhere around 5 billion I think. Probably no waste in that agency at all.

Douglas Englebart, who invented the computer mouse, first started working for Ames Aeranautical, a precursor to NASA, where he became interested in computer gadgetry. While working for another institute, he took his design for the computer mouse to NASA for additional funding and research. The jaws of life was developed using technology first employed by NASA. I did say, "either developed by or with the 'help' from NASA".

Of course, Obama would never throw anyone under the bus when it becomes politically expedient......would he? The rev. Wright still has tire tracks crossing his back. Gen. Bolden said that he was told that out reaching to Muslims was to be amongst his foremost goals. When Gibbs was asked if the general mispoke, he said he "believed so". How does one mispeak about something like that? Not only did the bus run over Mr. Bolden, but he was dragged along under it for a couple of miles.

We can do away with or cut down NASA, it has nothing to do with "my turf", in fact, it wouldn't hurt to start doing away with quite a few of the government run agencies and programs.

 

[Kevin]

Not suggesting we become isolationist- I am merely suggesting that we consider adopting a new doctrine: do not hit on foreign soil unless hit first. And then, with overwhelming force and without mercy. No more nation building.

You're correct about that. I'm afraid this country doesn't have the stomach to go to war the correct way anymore. How do you send young men out to defeat the enemy while essentially tying one hand behind their back with the list of rules of engagement that must be followed? They even have to be careful about what they might say, least they offend someone shooting back at them. It's very self-defeating.