Messages posted by: Canadaman005

Wouldn't it be great if intrade would establish contracts based on predictions made by kyoon! Easy money, I figure...

shmoo597 wrote:

Disastrous economic polices of the last 100 years?

Between 1890 and 2000, aggregate U.S. output increased by a factor of 43. Is this how you define disaster? Despite the ups and downs and various policy proposals of both parties, I would say we have had a pretty good run over the past century.

Ok, thanks for throwing that number out there. Now, how does this compare to previous periods in American history? Well, from 1801 to 1900, the real GDP expanded from $6.87 Billion to $374.5 Billion dollars, or a factor of about 53. On a per year basis, that is an average growth of about 4.03% per year.

From 1901 to 2000 the real GDP expanded from $394.4 Billion to $9.817 Trillion, a factor of about 24. On a per year basis, this is an average growth of about 3.27%.

This "pretty good run" means that, as compared to the previous century and despite the invention of cars, computers, nuclear power, the production line, just-in-time manufacturing, interstates, and airplanes, massive government intervention and "wealth shuffling" have reduced our GDP by at least 0.8% per year. If the same rate of growth of the 1800s was maintained throughout the 1900s, America would have access, every year, to an extra $10.685 Trillion in goods, services, and investment bringing our yearly GDP from the paltry $9.817 Trillion to the "what should have been" $20.502 Trillion yearly GDP. That's why I call it a disaster. You can call it "pretty good" if you want to. Don't you think that with an extra $10 Trillion in goods and services floating around everyone in America would own a house, car, cell phone, plasma TV... food?

source: http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/usgdp/result.php

On the topic of this election, one candidate proposes a giant tax cut to the richest 1% and an unworkable healthcare tax credit scheme, and the other proposes a tax cut for the poorest 95% and subsidized health care for everyone. You decide who has the interests of the majority at heart.

The optimist in me thinks that both candidates truly want to help Americans. When Obama says he wants to help the "hurting 95% of Americans who want to keep their jobs, their homes, their retirement, their healthcare... etc.", I believe him. Same for McCain. When he says he wants to help Americans by buying their homes from the banks and selling it back to them at a lower rate, I believe that he really cares. But, the problem is that neither man can provide a solution! Government cannot provide a solution to every problem, and they usually prevent a proper and fair solution from ever happening.

This is ridiculous... has anyone even considered that both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for the disastrous economic policies of the last 100 years? By arguing whether it is just one or the other, we are forgetting the real truth - that neither party has anything to offer America as a whole?

Sure, if you want to kill babi... I mean, have the right to choose, Democrats will help you. If you want to kill Musli..., I mean, defend against terrorists, then the Republicans are certainly your party. If you are a senior citizen wanting to steal from the working class to subsidize your drugs and healthcare so that you can have a house in New York and Florida, than either party is tailored to help you wonderfully...

But what if you're none of the above? What if you are just a working-class American of modest means? What if you neither want to kill Muslims, nor kill your babies (or prevent others from doing so)? What if you aren't over 65 and would like to hang on to your 15% FICA payments? Does either party offer anything for you? The answer is a definitive NO. This is the false choice in American politics - the reality is there is no choice, either party is geared to help a small minority of Americans but neither party has the interests of the majority of Americans at their heart. That's part of the reason why voter turnout is appallingly low - and the fact that the president secures their seat with as little as 20% of America actually voting for them!

So let's stop this useless bickering! If you really want to make changes that benefit America, perhaps it is time to stop obsessing over either "major" candidate presented to us and start looking for alternatives.

Panner wrote:

Canadaman, such things can be gamed. To be honest, that's probably what you were seeing. That ticker would be low fruit for astroturfers. Further, I can see social herding behavior here. The bar tells you that everyone liked Obama a bit better so you do too.

If only that were true... I really hate both of them equally! The truth is that the real loser of the debate, as pointed out by some of the news I'm reading on it, is the American public.

McCain, when asked about a $700 Billion bailout says he's going to solve it by going after $18 Billion in earmarks. Apparently math is not a strong suit of his. Obama responds by listing a bunch of areas where he will, in fact, not be making any major cuts, while failing to list any real substantive things he would cut. Even when pressed further by Jim Lehrer (who I feel is the real winner of the debate), neither candidate seemed to show any grasp of the size of $700 Billion Dollars and that it is a monumentally enormous problem that they will be in charge of from the first day of their presidency.

Oh, what I would give for a third-party candidate in line with Ron Paul, but 10-20 years younger!

Continuing to back up my opinion that Obama decidedly won, or that McCain lost:

http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/timeAndSalesForm.jsp?contractId=376101&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com

Nothing says it better than the markets, and since around 10pm McCain's contract has dove from near 48 to 41.

Funny, but true, Tamalak... I gave you a five-star rating for that response! lol

I declare peace, I've moved on to the new thread!

I'm curious how the posters here claim that McCain won the foreign policy part... According to the little ticker CNN had the supposed Republican opinion meter registered higher nearly every time for Obama than for McCain, including on foreign policy parts. Perhaps more crucially, the Independent meter also registered higher for Obama.

By continuously putting the focus on Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, Obama received more positive ratings than McCain. It had the effect of putting McCain on the defensive about Iraq and the audience could feel it and responded accordingly.

So, those saying McCain won the foreign policy part, please define what "winning" is to you... heck, maybe if we define "winning" the debate we might be able to define winning in Iraq!

Ethan wrote:

The best Obama can do is to set a new view for Americans to digest, pour in ideas and plans how to deal with US adversary - show that he got some teeth and the ability to lead the free world.

Well, they started with a foreign policy debate and I think Ethan's prediction about what Obama should do came true. I also think Obama nailed it. I was watching CNN and they had a little "opinion meter" thingy on the bottom of their screen separated into Dem, Repub, and Ind opinions and in a lot of responses Obama outscored McCain's opinion meter with Democrats and Independents... AND Republicans! It was quite a site to see.

The audience absolutely hated it when McCain brought up the "I wasn't voted miss congeniality" line or the line about him being a "maverick". The opinion meter dove when he mentioned either tag line. Perhaps they were an informed audience and knew it was a pile of bullsh!t?

McCain also showed his inability to control his anger... could you imagine this guy meeting with foreign heads of state? Or even chairing a high-level meeting here at home such as the current meetings about the economy in the west wing of the WH?

Amazingly, Obama seems to be more war-hungry against Pakistan than McCain! At least he's going after the perpetrators of 9/11, whereas McCain took a harder stance against Iran, whose mortal enemies ARE in fact the same people responsible for 9/11. Go figure, so much for "26 years of experience"!

I declare the possibility of McCain winning in November to be 5% right now, because even if something unthinkable happened to Obama I think that the Dems. could supply more than 10 candidates to beat him!

"Thread Necromancer"

Didn't know I was one... but I apologize. When the new thread pops up I will re-post my post there.

Again, my sincere apologies to Tamalak and everyone else.

PS... Quit yer bitchin'!

The previous post was only 12 days old, hardly "Necromancing" as the official definition of "Thread Necromancy" reads something like - "restoring a 'multi-year old' thread and trying to relate said thread to a new and current topic not related to the first set of posts." This thread was neither 'years old' or unrelated to the first set of posts. So eat a doughnut, Tamalak.

Ethan wrote:

The best Obama can do is to set a new view for Americans to digest, pour in ideas and plans how to deal with US adversary - show that he got some teeth and the ability to lead the free world.

Well, they started with a foreign policy debate and I think Ethan's prediction about what Obama should do came true. I also think Obama nailed it. I was watching CNN and they had a little "opinion meter" thingy on the bottom of their screen separated into Dem, Repub, and Ind opinions and in a lot of responses Obama outscored McCain's opinion meter with Democrats and Independents... AND Republicans! It was quite a site to see.

The audience absolutely hated it when McCain brought up the "I wasn't voted miss congeniality" line or the line about him being a "maverick". The opinion meter dove when he mentioned either tag line. Perhaps they were an informed audience and knew it was a pile of bullsh!t?

McCain also showed his inability to control his anger... could you imagine this guy meeting with foreign heads of state? Or even chairing a high-level meeting here at home?

I declare the possibility of McCain winning in November to be 5% right now, because even if something unthinkable happened to Obama I think that the Dems. could supply more than 10 candidates to beat him!

Kyoon,

Yer f'ing ridiculous. I really don't know where people come up with the crap you write. In fact, I laugh every time I am reading a blog and somebody mentions "illuminati". It's frickin' hilarious.

Seriously though...

How old are you? Do you live in your parent's basement? Have you ever seen sunlight? Do you eat your vegetables? Did you graduate from highschool? Have you built a nuclear bunker in your parent's basement complete with geothermal-powered computer and internet and enough food to last 50 years? Are you blonde?

I would ask if you're American, but I'm just going to assume it.

Oh, I almost forgot...

If there is an "illuminati" and they've got some "master, secret, evil plan" to do "whatever"...

HOW THE F WOULD YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

give me a frickin' break

KYOON, you lied to us!

I just lost a million dollars thanks to your advice. Bastard.

lol

How will the debates affect the contracts?

1st Debate: 9/26/08
Topic: Domestic Issues

My opinion: It is a wash except for the possibility of one of them saying something particularly stupid. To me they're both incredibly awful on domestic issues. That being said, I'm conservative and they're both socialists so it makes sense that I despise them.

2nd Debate: 10/2/08
Topic: VP Debate

My Opinion: This should be interesting. I think that the Democrats will have a slight edge here as Palin will finally be sitting in a very, very bright spotlight with nothing to hide behind and I'm pretty sure she will say some really strange things. How's this for a possible question: "Sarah Palin, your running mate has talked about not leaving Iraq until we have achieved 'victory'. What does 'victory' in Iraq mean to you?"

3rd Debate: 10/7/08
Topic: Questions to come from audience.

My Opinion: Hard to tell. I doubt seriously that either candidate will be asked any truly important questions. I can see a question such as "Obama, your opponent is on record as being against gay marriage, and you are for it. Why?" Rather than something important like, "McCain, you have criticized your opponent for not having any foreign policy experience and yet his stance on the conflict mirrored that of nearly all of the other NATO allies, including even the current administration, whereas you took a harder stance against Russia than any of our other allies. It has also been noted that your foreign policy adviser has received over $1 million dollars from the Georgian government to lobby on their behalf in Washington. Why did you take a harder stance against Russia than the current administration, our NATO allies, and your opponent, and was your stance influenced in any way by your foreign policy adviser?"

4th Debate: 10/15/08
Topic: Foreign Policy

My Opinion: This debate will seal the deal. I have a feeling that McCain will show himself to be either as aggressive or more aggressive than Bush in his foreign policy stances. However, Obama may surprise with his willingness to bomb places overseas as well. If Obama can take the reasoned, anti-war approach he may well win. If he paints himself as being as aggressive as McCain or more aggressive he will lose because people will say that either they might as well just have McCain or they will say that Obama is a huge flip-flopper considering his previously more neutral foreign policy stances.

Long post, I'm done.

Barr just screwed himself...

That Ron Paul sponsored press conference that Barr promised to come to, yeah, he didn't show up. Then he held his own conference a few hours later and said that RP should have endorsed him and that he was graciously offering RP the VP slot. Then his campaign manager inexplicably posted a blog saying that the Ron Paul movement was all about money and that Ron Paul was full of himself.

Needless to say, all those RP supporters that were backing Barr are no longer doing so. The prominent libertarian blog LewRockwell.com is now posting a negative Bob Barr article about every third entry.

I have to say that the Barr campaign must be run by a bunch of idiots.

Anyways, if there was a contract for Barr getting >.001% of the vote I would consider shorting it even if it was selling at $10.00 right now! Since the actual contract for Barr getting >1% of the vote is trading at over $30.00 it's a no-brainer and has to be one of the better shorts on intrade right now. Short the heck out of it while you still can!

Phase 1: Collect Underpants,

...,

Phase 3: Profit