Here is an interesting part of interview with Catie Couric on 20081001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
It is not done by special effects, and it is not Saturday Night Live. Actually, I believe that soon either SNL will be unemployed or they just have to hire Palin - she does not need a script, just let her talk ....
I find the clip very funny but a little scary. After all she is just a heartbeat from the presidency. But overall I am impressed, I thought there are as some limits to stupidity and ignorance, but Palin breaks new grounds. I mean, we really should start asking if she is even qualified to be the Mayor of Wasila!
On another note, now I can certainly imagine her killing a moose and the next day there is a news story: "Mayor kills neighbor's horse". Well, she would be blissfully unaware what she did because she does not read any press - ignorance is a bliss :-). What a wonderfully hilarious idiot, ....
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
A simple way to win Economic Debate
This is for any party. Can anyone, in any party, explain to us what is the financial meltdown about? I mean, we talk about crisis, and we have as many opions about it as there are economists. Paulson and Bernanke seem to be very vague or too technical. So please, in plain English what is the problem?
Here is my take. Everybody needs loans to buy stuff. You get a loan from a bank. For a bank to loan you money it has to have the money in the first place, and where does it get it from? Financial markets. Now, this is a problem - banks do not lend to each other and thus they cannot lend us, and thus the economy stalls, and thus we have a crisis.
Another useful comment. We do not need to help the banks because they are buncrupt but because they do not trust each other, and thus they will push each other into buncrupcy. And the urgency is that it is easier to rescue a critically wounded patient than to bring someone from the dead. Even though the difference is small in terms of state of things (critically woulded patient is seconds away from being dead), the difference in terms of posibility of recovery is huge.
Here is my take. Everybody needs loans to buy stuff. You get a loan from a bank. For a bank to loan you money it has to have the money in the first place, and where does it get it from? Financial markets. Now, this is a problem - banks do not lend to each other and thus they cannot lend us, and thus the economy stalls, and thus we have a crisis.
Another useful comment. We do not need to help the banks because they are buncrupt but because they do not trust each other, and thus they will push each other into buncrupcy. And the urgency is that it is easier to rescue a critically wounded patient than to bring someone from the dead. Even though the difference is small in terms of state of things (critically woulded patient is seconds away from being dead), the difference in terms of posibility of recovery is huge.
Suggestion for Economic Debate about Gas prices
I have a suggestion for Democratic pundits about economic argument related to gas prices and why investing in renewables is good to bring down prices.
Look at last few months. When the prices went up, it was because of supply fears, when the prices went down, it was because of retracting demand. Simple economics, supply and demand. So if you want to make the prices go down you need to focus on demand, and thus use other substitutes to gas like wind, solar, or basically invest in electric cars.
Now, when supply expands it can decrease prices, sure. But why this argument will not work? Because when you drop the prices down temporarily because of expansion in supply, you stimulate the demand in the long run because the alternatives (to gas) become too expensive. Thus, you create the problem in the long run. Evidence? Look at 70s and the response.
Look at last few months. When the prices went up, it was because of supply fears, when the prices went down, it was because of retracting demand. Simple economics, supply and demand. So if you want to make the prices go down you need to focus on demand, and thus use other substitutes to gas like wind, solar, or basically invest in electric cars.
Now, when supply expands it can decrease prices, sure. But why this argument will not work? Because when you drop the prices down temporarily because of expansion in supply, you stimulate the demand in the long run because the alternatives (to gas) become too expensive. Thus, you create the problem in the long run. Evidence? Look at 70s and the response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)