taken from:
This Economy Does Not Compute
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/op...01buchanan.htm

It seems clear that no one really knows what is coming next. Why?

Well, part of the reason is that economists still try to understand
markets by using ideas from traditional economics,
especially so-called equilibrium theory.
.... and some missing stuff ...
Too bad for the theory, things don’t seem to work that way.
perhaps they hadn't heard of Fig Newton's, or Guss' laws and the Weak
Force. I'll hold my breath through the next news cycle to see if Art
has rushed to the hill to prop up McCain.

Fill $1Trillion into two shoe boxes, and leave on the corner of Main
and Wall.....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:37:01 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

taken from:
This Economy Does Not Compute
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/op...01buchanan.htm

I should have read to the end before posting. Such a gold mine of
topicality that can be applied to the navel gazers here who demand
absolute "proof."

Something of the attitude of economic traditionalists
spilled out a number of years ago at a conference
where economists and physicists met to discuss
new approaches to economics.
As one physicist who was there tells me,
a prominent economist objected that the use of
computational models amounted to "cheating"
or "peeping behind the curtain," and
-tada!-
that respectable economics, by contrast,
had to be pursued through the proof
of infallible mathematical theorems.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

What gets me:

1) We are about to reward the crooks, charlatans and greedy by making
good their gambling debts and outright thefts!

2) No legislation/laws/regulations have been enacted to secure there is
not an immediate repeat of the same. (I'd be surprised if anything
meaningful is ever done ... I can't make that big a leap of faith)

3) Those "poor" who are caught up in this scam are about to become
homeless, whereas the rich crooks are about to purchase nicer homes at
near fire-sale prices.

4) All of this devalues the dollar and MY MONEY, and, oh yeah, YOURS TOO!

5) Etc. ... a-look-of-doom-and-gloom

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Regards,
JS

To summarize:

If it was a bum antenna, you toss in onto the scrap heap for later
salvage of parts/materials ...

Here, you toss your wallet in the garbage while paying a trillion+ fee
to dump it!

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:22:50 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

What gets me:

That may be, but this thread is about Equal Librium and antenna
theory.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Once you take your librium (Chlordiazepoxide), anything becomes possible
.... even if sweetened with the non-sugar substitute "equal."

Indeed, some chemical cocktails are hazardous to ones health -- I'd take
care with this one ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

I have roughly a million gallons of Librium on hand. Just what is that equal to?

Walt, W2DU

John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Once you take your librium (Chlordiazepoxide), anything becomes possible
... even if sweetened with the non-sugar substitute "equal."

Indeed, some chemical cocktails are hazardous to ones health -- I'd take
care with this one ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

And, I just caught my error!

By "you", I mean the "universal you" (i.e. everyone.)

Drop that defensive stance I see you taking ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:00:10 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

I have roughly a million gallons of Librium on hand. Just what is that equal to?

Hi Walt,

It might be used as a gas additive - not necessarily in the tank, but
certainly useful at the pump.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC