Y r the Y's Unhappy?

[fishwhistle]

Hope and change baby hope and change,lol.

 

[deepthought]

Another major obstacle to effective change I can see right here on this thread. Namely, division.

Even if the majority of the people rose up and began to act for change......it is unlikely any real change would come. Because no one would be able to agree as to what changes should be made, or how those changes should be implemented.

In my opinion.........Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal........Are the Right wing and the Left wing of the same bird of prey that is eating us alive.

These old tribes come with so much dogma and bias that they obscure the truth, as does the disinformation campaigns perpetrated by multiple sources (corporations and political organizations both). Disinformation campaigns that are often aimed at these dogmatic and biased organizations, as these organizations are known quantities and most people hold allegiance to either one or the other.

I believe that each idea or policy should be judged on it's own merit. Unfortunately the first thing most people do when confronted with a new idea/policy is to try to label it, usually either "liberal" or "conservative". In so doing, they muddy their analysis of this new idea with preconceived notions that come along with the label they choose to apply. Or even worse, once they have placed this label they fail to consider the idea any further at all, feeling they have no need as the idea/policy is now attached to a label they reject.

So the powers that be really have us. Most are to apathetic to do anything (bread and games) and the ones who are willing are divided. (divided more by manipulation by outside sources than many realize). Were the apathetic to join the willing the division would still stall or stop change.

NOTE TO READER: I am pointing out my opinion of the state of the general populous. Please do not take any of this personally, because I don't mean you specifically.

 

[kolah]

Maybe the Y's are happy.

 

[NaturalTherapy]

How did the Romans manipulate the common people, who they referred to as the mob? Bread and games.

As long as their stomachs are full and they are entertained, they can be controlled.

The people in the U.S. have food (most of them, still) and entertainment is more dazzling/mesmerizing then ever.

The vast majority of people in this nation will not take effective action to change things until they start starving, or become bored. Or both.

Completely agree

 

[putembk]

Maybe the Y's are happy.

Ahhh....the power of illusion. If you don't see it, therefore its not there. Kinda like livin for today....we have done that for so long it's no wonder we are all so happy.

 

[SoCal 420]

:woot: I'm LMFAO... The "Y" me Generation... Whine, Groan, Moan... Gimme, Gimme, Gimme... What is "Deficit" for 17,000,000,000,000 Alex??? (The Name of the Game... Jeopardy, How Appropriate) I Crack "My Self" Up but Hey, If You Have Kids, They'll be Blaming the "Previous Generation" Just Like "You are Now... Welcome to Reality and The Damage Being Done :woot: It Will Have Little to No Effect On Me What So Ever, but "Your" Children Will Pay for the Decisions Being Made by the Majority Administration Today (PERIOD) Like Obama Said About "Keeping Your Insurance / Doctor" Fucking Priceless :woot: History Will Tell the Tale, It is Documented, It Is True, It is Obvious and Undeniable. :blackeye:

 

[putembk]

Ditto!

 

[jfizzle2cmu]

I'm not a fan of everything the POTUS does, nor am I with any politician. There are always things I think should be done differently. But in the scope of things, I try to get a grasp on which bills, efforts, discussions, etc. current topics are being discussed and weighed and decide whether or not it would be beneficial to the country. I look at politicians voting records and motives and what they stand for. I'm much more of a libertarian than I am democrat. I agree with most of what Ron Paul says. I'm not totally against vouchers. I'm not against a much more restricted federal role in government. I think the federal government should mostly regulate local and state governments. I think the tax code should be simplified down to the dumbest level possible and that government entities should have no aerial access to private property, the ability to tap phones or the internet, etc. But what I don't believe in is blaming the president for every thing that happens under his administration. It wasn't all Bush's fault we're where we are now, and it isn't Obama's fault he's compounding the debt even further. In all honesty, I truly don't believe in a market economy or that it's sustainable. I also don't believe any number of dollars is horrible for the federal government to be in debt. It's just a number. The fed can create as much money as it wants. It's a system in which an independent entity controls the creation, distribution and reduction/increase of all of our country's money and basically livelihood. I guess it's a good fail-safe as the government doesn't have direct control of it and can't be entirely blamed for the economy. Anyways, I'm aimlessly rambling now and so is everyone else in this thread... we'd be better served spending less time making senseless accusations about policy and more time reading about said policy and ways in which we may improve it.

 

[putembk]

Agree with a lot of what you say except debt. The statement on thinking that 20,000,000,000,000 is just a # is wrong. The current administration wants to raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, we are coming to a point that we can't afford to pay the interest on the debt. The interest on 20 trillion at lets say 4 1/2% is....nine hundred billion annually or over two hundred forty six million a day. Hmmm...I guess thats not anything to worry about. I don't understand why the majority of Americans don't think this is a problem. Remember Greece. The average tax rate was out of control. We are headed right down that road.

 

[SoCal 420]

This is the Problem...
"I also don't believe any number of dollars is horrible for the federal government to be in debt. It's just a number. The fed can create as much money as it wants. It's a system in which an independent entity controls the creation, distribution and reduction/increase of all of our country's money and basically livelihood."
A Little more time in Economics 101 would tell you that "Printing Money" to Pay Debt. decreases the value of the $$$$$ So What You Say???...
To pay expenses, governments collect revenues in two traditional ways, by raising taxes or by borrowing. When governments exercise either of these options, there is no currency inflation because both methods use only the existing currency already in circulation.
Unfortunately, the modern printing press provides a third method to pay for expenses—printing the currency.
Currencies today are nationalized and the governments control the amount of currency in circulation. Normally this would be no problem, but human nature creeps into the picture. Human nature often wants something for nothing.
Many nations throughout history have succumbed to the temptation to pay expenses through currency inflation and have suffered enormous instability in their economies, including total collapse. Modern nations have shown themselves unable to avoid these same temptations and therefore suffer the same fate.
The true root problem is not any grand conspiracy but merely human nature. People tend to want something for nothing. People love those government benefits, but hate paying the full price. Government officials hate levying new taxes because people hate paying taxes and representatives want to be reelected. Borrowing currency already in circulation has limits because as government borrows more, less currency remains in circulation in the private sector. Furthermore, there is a limit to how much debt private investors want to buy and hold.
Therefore, governments use a clever scheme of borrowing through the printing press. The central bank buys that debt, thereby introducing new currency into circulation. The short story is that the central bank buys that debt with funds created out of thin air.
When currency is created privately by monetizing debt at the local level, there is no currency inflation because goods and services back that currency. However, when governments monetize debt, there is almost always inflation because additional goods and services seldom back that new currency. The reason is straightforward: governments are consumers, not producers. When governments inflate the currency, this inflation acts as a tax because this inflation pays for government expenses. Whenever inflated currency is introduced into the market, the first users of that currency do not experience the inflationary effects. Only those people far down the line eventually feel the inflationary ripples. This tax is not directly visible, but everybody is aware of the pain caused by continually rising prices. Worse, this continual fluctuating of the exchange value of the currency causes turmoil because nobody can depend upon the future exchange value of the currency.
When governments control currencies, there is only one cure for currency inflation and that is to forcibly prevent governments from creating currency. Governments must be limited to collecting revenues by raising taxes or borrowing existing currency already in circulation. Currency creation must occur only at the local level, by the people, where such monetization of debt is backed by additional goods and services.

Any of this "Sound Familiar" ??? It should, The Underlined Items "Repeat" on A daily Basis on Every News Channel regardless of their political preference... ;)

The Writing is "On the Wall" Right in Front of Your Face... You Just Have to Know How to Read It...

 

[squiggly]

Squiggs, how is the current job market in the chemistry fields these days? I'd guess the Big Pharma folks are always looking for new workers or is it saturated? Any other openings? How about getting grants for research? Research grants sounds like it could be pretty cool.

I would think getting a teaching gig in a college (esp with a Masters) would be kickass. Killer pay, good pensions and easy work. Hot young chickies too. Some of the teachers at my college were making 6 figure incomes and teaching only 1 or 2 classes.

This is a really good question.

In *chemistry* the job outlook is pretty great if you can either get in at the bottom rung somewhere right as a need comes up for them to train someone new--or you end up doing well about 5 years in if you can weather the washer/dryer cycle that is temp-to-hire employment.

So the chances of waiting tables, for instance, after a bachelors is pretty low if you are willing to take the dive into temp to hire, which ultimately looks lie $18-$25/hr and lucky if you get benefits--but this is still overall much better than a lot of folks do right out of school these days in other disciplines.

In PHARMA specifically (excluding sales positions, where the big bucks are--ie drug reps and the like), the outlook is fucking god awful. About as bad as it gets. That's in America specifically, though. If you want to go abroad its an open world out there as a person with pharma aspirations.

So the dynamic here really boils down like this:
Pharma companies in America are ALL ABOUT bottom line. So they essentially keep empty product development lines--which is to say that they typically discover a drug/class of drugs and then they STOP research. They roll the product out and milk it for all it's worth. As the patent is about to fall off (say 2 years or so), they start development on something else.
Essentially everyone non-essential is fired after a product development cycle to make quarterlies look good and impress shareholders.

If you are an industry badass, ie 20+ year veteran in the field, you have a decent chance of keeping your job. The problem is it's really really tough to become an industry badass when you're unable to put roots down anywhere for more than 4-5 years.

As far as pharma production--it's mostly outsourced, but if you can get in somewhere in the states you're pretty secure.


The are all types of other jobs that do come up, forensic chemists, management of hematology labs if that's your fancy, etc. There are a great deal of run-of-the-mill chemistry jobs that are always going to need filling (in oils, paints, waxes, coatings, lubricants, polymers, you-name-it people need to know how to make stuff).

A lot of chemistry graduates DO end up waiting tables because they think after a few years in a research lab at the university that some of these more menial (read:factory) jobs are below them. I don't share that sentiment, in fact two of my previous jobs were factory jobs and they were among the jobs I've most enjoyed. Being a head-honcho chemist in one of those places isn't "below" anyone in this day and age.

The problem is everyone wants to be the next Einstein, and they don't realize that there's a bunch of chemistry stuff out there that already needs makin'.

Would I like to do research? You fuckin' betcha man. Participating in research and publication has been probably the thing I've done that I'm most proud of and which has fulfilled me most--but I've got no delusions here. I went into this industry and got this education to feed myself and a, hopeful, future family--and to hopefully get to apply myself to something I really love in the process. That's it's own reward. Not everyone gets to provide for themselves doing something they really enjoyed.

 

[SoCal 420]

 

[squiggly]

I just don't understand the SPENDING that the current administration is doing. Sorry I don't think you can spend your way out of a recession....personally they might think about saving more and using the taxpayers dollars more efficiently.

I think this is sort of an asked/answered situation here.

You state right at the beginning that you don't understand the spending--then go on to say that you don't think you can spend out of a recession. Well, that's obviously where the difference is right?

There is a difference of opinion on whether or not this can be done. Some folks look at history and see it's been done a bunch of times and say hey let's do that again. Other folks, such as yourself, point to inefficiencies in that process and advocate for penny pinching through a crisis.

So the problem isn't that it's some totally irrational idea to spend out of a recession. The problem is that there are two DIFFERENT, PERFECTLY RATIONAL, ideas that are in conflict with one another out there. Some folks pick one, others choose the second. Spending out of a recession has been done many times over. That certainly DOESN'T mean it's the right thing to do NOW. It could go wrong, you might be 100% correct in your assertions there. However, it doesn't make good sense to say you don't "believe" something which has already happened a few times in even the most recent of memory. It makes more sense to say you don't believe we can do it now.
For what it's worth, in the economical sense--we are out of the recession. What the word means is no longer a word that applies (because it has a mathematical meaning based on discrete figures).

What you're thinking of is the general ball-suckiness of the economy right now, which is still pretty high up there.

Also let's get something out there: failing to raise the debt ceiling is insanity. The idea that a given party knows what is going to happen if we breach the debt ceiling is totally ludicrous. What we see on both sides is this constant ideological battle over who has the best predictions.

In essence, fiscally, that's what were talking about here right?

So how can either side really fall back on that in this situation? The answer is they can't. No one knows what will happen if we breach that debt ceiling. It's been described as an economic Pandora's box, and that might turn out to be an extremely apropos description of what it is.

It's a shit idea and they should put an end to it.

Balancing the budget and that sort of thing, which is more along the lines of what you actually MEAN here (we shouldn't keep spending when we're this far in debt)--is a lot more reasonable.

Taking a leap over a cliff and hoping there's something soft at the bottom is a terrible economic plan. Possibly the worst ever, in fact.

 

[squiggly]

Squiggs, how is the current job market in the chemistry fields these days? I'd guess the Big Pharma folks are always looking for new workers or is it saturated? Any other openings? How about getting grants for research? Research grants sounds like it could be pretty cool.

I would think getting a teaching gig in a college (esp with a Masters) would be kickass. Killer pay, good pensions and easy work. Hot young chickies too. Some of the teachers at my college were making 6 figure incomes and teaching only 1 or 2 classes.

Sorry just wanted to add that yes, teaching jobs are out there (with a masters--you need to specialize in chem ed. to go out there with a bachelors) anywhere from HS to junior college. There are even opportunities to work at universities (our current instrument tech holds a masters, or our stock room clerk).

Teaching isn't where I personally want to be (my mother is a teacher and worked for the state, as did my father, so that's not really the route I want to go), but one of the initial draws of doing this type of program is that you have that as a pretty reliable fallback. I was smart as I decided on my major. I wanted to be in the sciences, and I wanted to have the broadest possible job market. I came to find that chemists are accepted in virtually every field (physics, biology, genetics, etc) and that they play important roles in virtually every industry--and when I took my first class it just so happened that I loved it.

 

[kolah]

For those who wish to be enlightened, I'll repost it.(and BTW, "government" and "the federal reserve" at not the same.:

This is the Problem...
"I also don't believe any number of dollars is horrible for the federal government to be in debt. It's just a number. The fed can create as much money as it wants.s money and basically livelihood." It's a system in which an independent entity controls the creation, distribution and reduction/increase of all of our country'
A Little more time in Economics 101 would tell you that "Printing Money" to Pay Debt. decreases the value of the $$$$$ So What You Say???...
To pay expenses, governments collect revenues in two traditional ways, by raising taxes or by borrowing. When governments exercise either of these options, there is no currency inflation because both methods use only the existing currency already in circulation.
Unfortunately, the modern printing press provides a third method to pay for expenses—printing the currency.
Currencies today are nationalized and the governments control the amount of currency in circulation. Normally this would be no problem, but human nature creeps into the picture. Human nature often wants something for nothing.
Many nations throughout history have succumbed to the temptation to pay expenses through currency inflation and have suffered enormous instability in their economies, including total collapse. Modern nations have shown themselves unable to avoid these same temptations and therefore suffer the same fate.
The true root problem is not any grand conspiracy but merely human nature. People tend to want something for nothing. People love those government benefits, but hate paying the full price. Government officials hate levying new taxes because people hate paying taxes and representatives want to be reelected. Borrowing currency already in circulation has limits because as government borrows more, less currency remains in circulation in the private sector. Furthermore, there is a limit to how much debt private investors want to buy and hold.
Therefore, governments use a clever scheme of borrowing through the printing press. The central bank buys that debt, thereby introducing new currency into circulation. The short story is that the central bank buys that debt with funds created out of thin air.
When currency is created privately by monetizing debt at the local level, there is no currency inflation because goods and services back that currency. However, when governments monetize debt, there is almost always inflation because additional goods and services seldom back that new currency. The reason is straightforward: governments are consumers, not producers. When governments inflate the currency, this inflation acts as a tax because this inflation pays for government expenses. Whenever inflated currency is introduced into the market, the first users of that currency do not experience the inflationary effects. Only those people far down the line eventually feel the inflationary ripples. This tax is not directly visible, but everybody is aware of the pain caused by continually rising prices. Worse, this continual fluctuating of the exchange value of the currency causes turmoil because nobody can depend upon the future exchange value of the currency.
When governments control currencies, there is only one cure for currency inflation and that is to forcibly prevent governments from creating currency. Governments must be limited to collecting revenues by raising taxes or borrowing existing currency already in circulation. Currency creation must occur only at the local level, by the people, where such monetization of debt is backed by additional goods and services.

Any of this "Sound Familiar" ??? It should, The Underlined Items "Repeat" on A daily Basis on Every News Channel regardless of their political preference... ;)

The Writing is "On the Wall" Right in Front of Your Face... You Just Have to Know How to Read It...

 

[sky high]

So when is the apocalypse coming, guys? (everyone is so full of....information I figured someone here might know)

Does this mean you don't save for your future/retirement...'cus there isn't gonna be one?

Or if you do, are you stuffing a matress/etc. 'cus you don't trust the "banks"/"federal reserve"/GOVERNMENT???

Jus' wonderin what you think/how you are proceeding if you truly think we are all fucked. What's yer plan? (other than broadcasting that the end is near)

 

[Texas Kid]

Im a Gen X'er and a go getter...always reachin for the brass ring and willin to take the risk and sacrafice to get it...

 

[SoCal 420]

So when is the apocalypse coming, guys? (everyone is so full of....information I figured someone here might know)

Does this mean you don't save for your future/retirement...'cus there isn't gonna be one?

Or if you do, are you stuffing a matress/etc. 'cus you don't trust the "banks"/"federal reserve"/GOVERNMENT???

Jus' wonderin what you think/how you are proceeding if you truly think we are all fucked. What's yer plan? (other than broadcasting that the end is near)

According to "Government"... In case you didn't hear, They are looking @ A shut down right? (broken / broke$$$ backing FDIC Insured ;) banks you place $$$ and trust in?) ... and "Everybody" that has anything to do with Wall Street and Stock Market Predict A "Bigger" Market Correction (Trader "Speak" for "Crash, Ding, Ouch") Coming soon...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/doomsday-poll-87-risk-of-stock-crash-by-year-end-2013-06-05

I am A "Mind Reader" and predict you will say "BFD"... That is Just Wall Street Journal Market Watch blowing smoke up "Everyone's Ass" because they want people "In" the market or "Out" of the market or something like that and Government closure couldn't cause "Any" banking problems? (Bank Runs of 2008? you know "Everybodys" $$$ isn't sitting in their Bank right?) What was "Your" Plan in 2008... 1 mo. before the Market Crashed? What were you doing?

 

[SoCal 420]

Come to think of it... Do you "Believe" for 1 min. that there will be some kind of U.S. wide service announcement that says ahead of time... "Things might get "Hairy"... You may want $$$ on Hand or In A Safety Deposit Box as Opposed to In An Account that pays little Interest and Can Have "Limits" on the "Amount You May Withdraw"... Just Sayin' Better Safe Than Sorry and "Little Things" can make A "Big Difference" Don't Really Care what someone else does, when or "If" Shit happens, it is to late to make small changes that could be "All" the Difference... Precious Metal Coins (Silver) will always purchase goods for current market value when paper money might not Get You Shit... Ever See what Happens @ Stores and Markets When A forecast Hurricane Hits? There "Is" A storm on the Horizon, It's Arrival is Just A Matter of Time or A major Global Event...

 

[putembk]

So when is the apocalypse coming, guys? (everyone is so full of....information I figured someone here might know)

Does this mean you don't save for your future/retirement...'cus there isn't gonna be one?

Or if you do, are you stuffing a matress/etc. 'cus you don't trust the "banks"/"federal reserve"/GOVERNMENT???

Jus' wonderin what you think/how you are proceeding if you truly think we are all fucked. What's yer plan? (other than broadcasting that the end is near)

Without going on a rant: Balance the budget by only spending what the gov't takes in. Quit living above our means. Quit being the world policeman. Quit pumping 85 billion a month into the economy. Hold our gov't accountable by reducing the huge amounts of waste. Make the politicians work for the people not the corporations. The people should be able to inspect what the expect and hold law makers, rather elected or appointed, accountable.