A billionaire explains the middle class

In September, it was 100%. Then I got the call from the placement people.

-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

You don't look good in blue either???

If all the socialistic give away's were stopped, I wonder what the unemployment rate would be?

The best examples I've seen of convoluted logic to support flawed theories are the Earth, Water, Air, Fire ( =solid, liquid, gas, plasma) explanations of Renaissance scientific discoveries. The heavenly-sphere model of the motions of the planets was a close second. The scientists of the time undoubtably knew these were wrong but they had no better alternative.

Chemistry was particularly difficult because natural isotope mixtures distort the combining ratios by weight, which atomic theory suggested should be an exact ratio of small integers. Newton brought order to physics, optics and calculus but the basis of chemistry eluded him.

The missing key was Lavoisier's experimental determination that hydrogen and oxygen combined in the ratio of 2.00 to 1.00 by volume.

"It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry largely stem from the fact that he changed the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one."

When I was in school Biology was still at the stage of collecting and trying to make sense of observations. We knew about DNA but hadn't yet learned to read how it codes for proteins. This was the key:

-jsw

Until just then, seeing his picture, I never realized how much they resemble aging rock musicians of today. Who could take them seriously with that hair? ;) Zack was brilliant, tho.

Neat trick.

Wow, studied in chemistry, botany, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, geology, finance, and even law? He was truly a force to be reckoned with.

Looking at the picture of Lavoisier there, I'm amazed at the unique scientific glassware produced back in the 1700s.

Although still quite a bit beyond me, 5 hours of firework-disturbed sleep notwithstanding, that gave me a slightly better understanding of the electrophoresis stain samples I've seen in movies and documentaries. Amplifying = growing more DNA in agarose gel and reading the enzymatic waste (digest), if I get that right. I thought it interesting that viral load could be read by PCR. OK, crosseyed now.

Thanks for the scientific history lesson.

Happy New Year! I think I'll nap later.

Are you old enough to remember when "longhair" music meant Classical?

It was easier when there wasn't as much of each to learn. I can at least follow discussions of all of them.

The designs avoid tee joints which were difficult to make before Pyrex. The problem is stresses from cooling contraction.

I was in a bar talking shop with a girl who sold PCR equipment when the owner overheard us, came over and told us he was a cancer researcher. She asked a few loaded questions that confirmed he was legit, the bar was how he funded his non-mainstream research.

-jsw

They're hoping to accomplish

I saw in the paper that Hyundai is now planning on opening two new automotive plants in China. Previous plans were for just one more plant in addition to the three plants they already have in China.

Dan

Har! What a hoot.

My, my. I think I'll save those for retirement.

It's interesting stuff, George. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have the time to catch up with it. I think it would take me a couple of years...

Here's the thing that keeps me from becoming an activist about this stuff: Once the cat was let out of the bag and all forms of banking became integrated (except, perhaps, in Canada), multinational finance and investment banking's cost of entry went into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of "assets under management." The new institutions were "too big to fail," because, if they fail, the world economy fails.

They don't even have to go under, as we saw in 2008. They just have to lose the confidence of their investors. Bailouts restored confidence but at an enormous cost to the real economy.

If you limit their operations, you essentially preclude them from competing in the world's financial markets. The consequence of doing that, with your domestic banking institutions, is unknown. But our political leaders, starting with Reagan (even Carter, to a limited extent) have decided they don't want to find out. One of the most likely scenarious, their experts told them, is that your economy slowly winds down as intestment and credit become tighter, and you lose your position on the world economic stage. You become dependent on foreign banking institutions and you start racing to the bottom.

I have no idea if that is true. But the genie is out of the bottle, to mix metaphors, and I couldn't begin to judge what would happen if we unilaterally tried to stuff him back in.

There's no question that we have an enormous problem and a real vulnerability because of all of this. I just have no idea what the right course of action would be. My suspicion is that no one else really knows, either.

That's U6, you dimwit. You know this, and you've been corrected about it many times.

Comparison between countries is done in U3 or its local equivalent.

>

You may find the following of interest:

*intent* seems to be the ethics problem in international finance, not certa in types of re-alterable, even re-issuable structured financial products (o nly offered by stock and bond brokerages, investment banks, etc...), becaus e this *intent* can usually be found underlying the product offered and tho se offering it.

This age-old *intent* is to steal all money from all things possible *witho ut* facing legal consequences... guaranteed.

They're basing those plans on anticipated growth of consumer markets in China. Let's hope they're right. Wages are increasing pretty rapidly and that will slow their exports down while building a domestic consumer market. That's the best of all outcomes for the rest of us, from South Korea to Europe to the United States.

I think they are basing those plans on the fact that they produce a million cars a year in China now and could sell more.

GM currently makes and sells three million cars a year in China and is expanding so it will be able to make five million a year at the end of this year.

And VW says it is building two new factories in China.

Dan

A perfect example of "paralysis by analysis." Because we don't [and most likely never will] completely understand the problem(s) nothing can be done...

In the natural world, we cannot predict earthquakes, we can predict hurricanes only to a limited extent, and we can control neither. This does not stop us from taking common sense precautions to limit property damage and loss of life when these events do occur. For example prohibiting construction on the flood plains, using storm resistant shingles in hurricane prone areas, securing roofs to prevent these from easily being blown off, and requiring straps to secure water heaters to prevent gas line rupture if the tanks fall over during an earthquake. Brick facades and decorative cornices on multistory buildings or un reinforced masonry walls are no longer allowed, in most seismically active areas. In earthquake prone areas the utilities are required to install automatic cutoffs on utilities, automatically activated by tremors above a certain level.

Are the current regulations completely adequate? NO

Are they better than nothing? YES

Will these regulations evolve? Yes

Have these been effective in significently minimizing property damage and loss of life? YES

Do the reactionaries, building contractors and home buyers complain about the additional cost and paperwork? YES

The question is "why don't we have analogous financial regulations in place restricting known dangerous products and behaviors, even though this may "restrict market liquidity, and reduce the bonuses by a few dollars?"

We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening?

Because, unlike protecting against storm damage, your "protections" can wind up destroying our entire economy. Storm-resistant shingles have no risk attached; just a small, known cost.

I don't believe that anyone knows the consequences of unilaterally forfeiting control of international finance to, say, the Chinese.

That's the problem with statistics. Works great for sizing a power plant or a water reservoir. When it gets closer to home, it's either 0 or 100%. I take no comfort in the fact that most of YOU are employed. ;-)

Where I grew up, in some segments of the population, the primary industry was producing babies so you could get a bigger welfare check.

I believe there should be a big building somewhere with a one-way door. When you can no longer provide for your own support, you'd be invited thru the door...which might lead to a cascade of your progeny being invited. Would be a self-limiting process.

In the financial world, they've said that the more things change, the more they remain the same. That goes for these problem(s).

(ever changing)

Because the rule is " Let the buyer beware ". The individual or company is responsible for determining the risk in an investment. If you want an inv estment that is government guaranteed , buy U.S. Bonds. The cost of analys ing the risk of all investments is way beyond what the government can do. To do that would require a new government agency many times larger than the IRS.

Dan