Unemployment rose this month. Now at 9.6%. Summer of Recovery!

[First]

Its funny how you lie. What I said is exactly what happened. Here, have a look for yourself:


I offered $50, you said make it $250

I agreed to $250

You said $250 was too low, it had to be $1000

I said $1000 was fine

You said lets make it $500 instead

To which I agreed

Then you said it had to be $5000

Then when I wouldn't bet $5000 you ran around like a 3 year old claiming victory and that I was a pussy.

Amazing you image all those posts and yet still fail to interpret them correctly. Nowhere do I say "I'm going to bet you $250, no $500, no $1000" as you have laughably claimed (I challenge you to show otherwise, but of course you won't). About the closest you can come is where I said I wouldn't take you seriously unless you bet $1000 followed immediately by me saying I still wouldn't take you seriously if you did. I'm sorry if you honestly interpreted that as a bet and, more importantly, it should be noted you're still wimping out of that $1000 bet because you're right here and now offering no more than $50 on the Nevada election. Something change in the meantime junior? Fact is, the only dollar amount where I said I would absolutely bet you on is $5000, and fact is you backed down. It's right here, on the record, direct PayPal challenge: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29996180&postcount=90

 

[nick1985]

I'll let the other members here be the judge

 

[First]

^ And he bitches out for the nth time. Still locked into just $50 now, eh? lol.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Ouch!

$50 is $50, if it is such an easy win First, you should take it instead of rehashing the original bet.

 

[WackyDan]

I can't help but think that if, instead of bailing out the banks and brokerage houses that were "too big to fail," if the administrations would have simply paid off the mortgages of those who were upside-down, it would have done far more for the economy.

That should have prevented the huge jobs loss that was the result of the bubble collapse by keeping so many houses from being dumped on the market nearly all at once. When people keep their jobs, the economy is better...they can pay their bills, they can buy things they don't NEED...and the banks would have gotten (most of) their money without a direct bailout...

While I don't support the idea of buying a house you can't afford, I don't support bailing out the banks for their fiscal incompetence and greed either.

WTF... And I don't support bailing out a homeowner who lived beyond their means, who over extended themselves... I know that not everyone losing their home is like that, but to advocate paying their mortgages off is fucking ridiculous.

I bought a house well within our means, have no credit card debt, no car payments. I was laid off in February of this year. I had savings, and I'm in no fear of losing my house. I can ride out this crappy economy for quite a while thank-you. So my reward for being financially responsible is watching others get their homes paid for with my tax dollars? Fuck that. Homes are investments, and there is risk involved.

I don't agree with the way the bail outs were leveraged, but your idea is plain stupid.

 

[heyheybooboo]

To try and get back on point (as if a troll thread has any point, anyway):

It is impossible to lower unemployment and increase GDP when as a country we see a sharp acceleration in imports and a sharp deceleration in national private inventory investment.

Even though personal consumption is rising, Corporate America is sitting on a $2 trillion pile of cash (and has no problem profiting from foreign labor).




--

 

[Fingolfin269]

WTF... And I don't support bailing out a homeowner who lived beyond their means, who over extended themselves... I know that not everyone losing their home is like that, but to advocate paying their mortgages off is fucking ridiculous.

I bought a house well within our means, have no credit card debt, no car payments. I was laid off in February of this year. I had savings, and I'm in no fear of losing my house. I can ride out this crappy economy for quite a while thank-you. So my reward for being financially responsible is watching others get their homes paid for with my tax dollars? Fuck that. Homes are investments, and there is risk involved.

I don't agree with the way the bail outs were leveraged, but your idea is plain stupid.

I'm financially responsible too and don't think we should have bailed anyone out. But like Boomer I would rather they bail out the individuals rather than the big banks. Not that it matters now since what is done is done.

 

[IGBT]

9/5/2010

(CBS) With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Obama administration is in a horrible position.

"Does the White House understand this?" asked guest host Harry Smith. "Do you feel any sense of panic or concern" on the part of the administration?

"They get it. There's panic. There's concern," VandeHei said. "The reality for this administration stinks, politically and practically, when it comes to the economy. You're not going to be able to change that 9.6-percent unemployment figure. You can't get anything from Congress in the next couple of months."

CBS Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes said the Democrats are distancing themselves from President Obama.

"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"

"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.

 

[Hacp]

9/5/2010

(CBS) With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Obama administration is in a horrible position.

"Does the White House understand this?" asked guest host Harry Smith. "Do you feel any sense of panic or concern" on the part of the administration?

"They get it. There's panic. There's concern," VandeHei said. "The reality for this administration stinks, politically and practically, when it comes to the economy. You're not going to be able to change that 9.6-percent unemployment figure. You can't get anything from Congress in the next couple of months."

CBS Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes said the Democrats are distancing themselves from President Obama.

"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"

"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.

That is the reality. The reality is that Obama spent the last two years trying to ruin health care and impose financial regulation while playing golf. He should have been cranking the job machine as hard as he could. He turned his attention elsewhere and now he needs to pay.

 

[OrByte]

That is the reality. The reality is that Obama spent the last two years trying to ruin health care and impose financial regulation while playing golf. He should have been cranking the job machine as hard as he could. He turned his attention elsewhere and now he needs to pay.

I disagree

ARRA begin back in Feb/march of 2009. What else would you want the government to do other than implement the massive ARRA program? Half of which was new government spending, the other half of which involved relief on businesses?

Anything else the Obama admin could have attempted to do would have met fierce oppositioin (as usual) because of what the ARRA "failed" to do.

 

[IGBT]

your obama is doubling down on failure. Big stimulus has failed and he will continue down the road of failure. Punitive legislation coupled with earned income confiscation on the horizon.

 

[LegendKiller]

That is the reality. The reality is that Obama spent the last two years trying to ruin health care and impose financial regulation while playing golf. He should have been cranking the job machine as hard as he could. He turned his attention elsewhere and now he needs to pay.

The financial regulation was badly needed.

 

[Infohawk]

I'll let the other members here be the judge

Please accept the $5,000 challenge from First.

 

[nick1985]

Please accept the $5,000 challenge from First.

Dont you think its quite apparent that he has no intention of betting 5,000? I'm not going to eat 2 different payapl fees for 5k, which would be a LOT of money, by sending 5k to a neutral 3rd party only to have him send it back when First doesn't pay up. Just look at our exchange, he has no intention of betting. He just tried to find a number out of my reach and then run around like a little wise and beautiful woman screaming that I'm a pussy.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is the reality. The reality is that Obama spent the last two years trying to ruin health care and impose financial regulation while playing golf. He should have been cranking the job machine as hard as he could. He turned his attention elsewhere and now he needs to pay.

Nasty bit of attribution there, really nasty.

As has been offered, enormous efforts have been made to create jobs, both in terms of stimulus funds and direct aid to businesses. It's called multi-tasking, being able to do more than one thing at once. As Righties claim when convenient, it's the private sector that creates jobs, and they're not doing it. Govt plays a limited role in that, by your own admission, well, only when it's convenient to say so. Unless, of course, you're advocating more direct hiring by the govt...

Clearly, stable middle class employment simply can't occur w/o effective financial regulation. Even the most thoroughly indoctrinated free market believers should be able to see that, given the happenings of the last several years. Boom and bust may serve the elite, but it serves the rest of us rather poorly.

 

[woolfe9999]

Dont you think its quite apparent that he has no intention of betting 5,000? I'm not going to eat 2 different payapl fees for 5k, which would be a LOT of money, by sending 5k to a neutral 3rd party only to have him send it back when First doesn't pay up. Just look at our exchange, he has no intention of betting. He just tried to find a number out of my reach and then run around like a little wise and beautiful woman screaming that I'm a pussy.

The paypal fees aren't that much. Why don't you just admit that $5,000 is a lot of money to you (half your savings per a post in an L&R thread), and that you acknowledge there is some risk of you losing the bet.

Confidence is never 100%. It is always probabalistic, based on percentages. Acting like you're 100% sure is just an e-peen thing, and the downside is that it sets you up for challenges like First's, puts you in a position of having to make phoney excuses for not taking the bet.

It's OK if you have high enough confidence to bet x amount, but not y amount, because you can't afford to lose y. Really it is.

- wolf

 

[Acanthus]

The financial regulation was badly needed.

This. I don't always agree with LK... but anyone, even the people raping the industry, knew that the game would be over soon and that regulation would have to reign in the mountain of risk.

Loopholes were allowing entities to leverage themselves 20:1, sometimes significantly more.

 

[nick1985]

The paypal fees aren't that much. Why don't you just admit that $5,000 is a lot of money to you (half your savings per a post in an L&R thread), and that you acknowledge there is some risk of you losing the bet.

Confidence is never 100%. It is always probabalistic, based on percentages. Acting like you're 100% sure is just an e-peen thing, and the downside is that it sets you up for challenges like First's, puts you in a position of having to make phoney excuses for not taking the bet.

It's OK if you have high enough confidence to bet x amount, but not y amount, because you can't afford to lose y. Really it is.

- wolf

You really think he would put up the cash if I did? Whats the paypal fee for transferring 5k? Then I'd pay another fee to get it back. Did you see his posts? What do you think would have happened if I had the 5k to put up? Give me a break

 

[woolfe9999]

You really think he would put up the cash if I did? Whats the paypal fee for transferring 5k? Then I'd pay another fee to get it back. Did you see his posts? What do you think would have happened if I had the 5k to put up? Give me a break

Like I said via PM, I don't know if he'd go through with it or not. But what is the downside for you other than the paypal fee? If the fee is more than a few bucks, I guess you have a point, but I don't think it is.

Look, if you truly are 100% certain of an outcome then you have no fear of betting any amount of money that you can actually come up with. It's a sure thing right?

- wolf

 

[Hacp]

Like I said via PM, I don't know if he'd go through with it or not. But what is the downside for you other than the paypal fee? If the fee is more than a few bucks, I guess you have a point, but I don't think it is.

Look, if you truly are 100% certain of an outcome then you have no fear of betting any amount of money that you can actually come up with. It's a sure thing right?

- wolf

Except for the fact that he might be ripped off of 5k.

Edit: If it does happen, I volunteer to be the arbiter of this bet. I'll make sure the 5k is in safe hands.

 

[jman19]

It's hilarious to watch GOP cheerleaders complain about lower job & GDP growth due to LESS government spending!

 

[woolfe9999]

Except for the fact that he might be ripped off of 5k.

Edit: If it does happen, I volunteer to be the arbiter of this bet. I'll make sure the 5k is in safe hands.

Nope. IIRC, the idea was that both parties to the bet would paypal the money to a trusted third party. In fact, that was Nick's idea. His current reticence now appears to be that he thinks First won't deposit the cash and he'll be out the paypal fees.

- wolf

 

[Hacp]

Nope. IIRC, the idea was that both parties to the bet would paypal the money to a trusted third party. In fact, that was Nick's idea. His current reticence now appears to be that he thinks First won't deposit the cash and he'll be out the paypal fees.

- wolf

Well, I will personally be the arbiter and hold the 5k from each party. I don't know anyone more trustworthy than myself.

 

[nick1985]

Nope. IIRC, the idea was that both parties to the bet would paypal the money to a trusted third party. In fact, that was Nick's idea. His current reticence now appears to be that he thinks First won't deposit the cash and he'll be out the paypal fees.

- wolf

Paypal fees on 5k would be almost 300 after I sent it and got it back. I'm not going to lose 300 to prove a point. I was game for every single bet until he jumped to 5k. He clearly has no intention of betting, just re-read our conversation I posted. He didnt think I would call him at 250 and I did. He didnt think I would call him at 1k and I did. So he made it 5k. he doesnt want a bet, if you cant figure that out then I cant help you

 

[woolfe9999]

Paypal fees on 5k would be almost 300 after I sent it and got it back. I'm not going to lose 300 to prove a point. I was game for every single bet until he jumped to 5k. He clearly has no intention of betting, just re-read our conversation I posted. He didnt think I would call him at 250 and I did. He didnt think I would call him at 1k and I did. So he made it 5k. he doesnt want a bet, if you cant figure that out then I cant help you

That much eh? Well if that is the case, then I see your point. I think there are ways of avoiding the fees, but I'm not that familiar with Paypal.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4893449_avoid-paypal-fees.html

- wolf