Dagens dybsindige citat

[Defreni]

›"I like to explain the essence of Keynesian economics with a
›true story that also serves as a parable, a small-scale version
›of the messes that can afflict entire economies. Consider the
›travails of the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op.
›
›This co-op, whose problems were recounted in a 1977 article in
›The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, was an association of
›about 150 young couples who agreed to help one another by
›baby-sitting for one another’s children when parents wanted a
›night out. To ensure that every couple did its fair share of
›baby-sitting, the co-op introduced a form of scrip: coupons made
›out of heavy pieces of paper, each entitling the bearer to one
›half-hour of sitting time. Initially, members received 20 coupons
›on joining and were required to return the same amount on
›departing the group.
›
›Unfortunately, it turned out that the co-op’s members, on
›average, wanted to hold a reserve of more than 20 coupons,
›perhaps, in case they should want to go out several times in a
›row. As a result, relatively few people wanted to spend their
›scrip and go out, while many wanted to baby-sit so they could add
›to their hoard. But since baby-sitting opportunities arise only
›when someone goes out for the night, this meant that baby-sitting
›jobs were hard to find, which made members of the co-op even more
›reluctant to go out, making baby-sitting jobs even scarcer. . . .
›
›In short, the co-op fell into a recession."
›
›http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ma... ›fra 2359;hp

Et eksempel Krugman allerede brugte i hans bog fra 1999 "Return of Depression Economics" En bog han har skrevet en del til og nyudgivet så hans forudsigelser fra 99 kan ses er al for tæt på hvad der er sket til det overhovedet er sjovt.
Generelt en forrygende interessant fætter at læse.

Mvh.

Defreni

[cphacker]

"...de radikale har under Vestagers ledelse udviklet sig til dansk politiks ’storrygere’: De er ikke alene selvmorderiske, men også livsfarlige for andre at være i stue med."


Kristian Madsen - Tidligere formand for DSU.

http://politiken.dk/debat/article782306.ece

[André 3000/Icecold]

›"I like to explain the essence of Keynesian economics with a
›true story that also serves as a parable, a small-scale version
›of the messes that can afflict entire economies. Consider the
›travails of the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op.

›In short, the co-op fell into a recession."
›
›http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ma...50;fra 2359;hp

Jeg har brugt 3 minutter på at overveje det her og Krugman har en nobelpris, så der er sikkert noget jeg misser, men vil værdien af kuponerne ikke bare stige? Dvs. man ville kunne få to timers babysitting for en kupon i stedet for en osv.. Jeg kan ikke se hvorfor deflation er en dårlig ting i dette tilfælde.

[Pommie]

›Jeg kan ikke se
›hvorfor deflation er en dårlig ting i dette tilfælde.

Hverken inflation eller deflation er godt eller dårligt som sådan. Inflation er dårligt for dem der HAR og godt for dem der SKYLDER. Deflation er omvendt.

Er det så dem der HAR eller dem der SKYLDER, der generelt har den største adgang til medier, lærebøger mv.?...

Deraf, tror jeg, den generelle misforståelse at den ene eller den anden er "godt" eller "dårligt" :)

[Defreni]

››"I like to explain the essence of Keynesian economics with a
››true story that also serves as a parable, a small-scale version
››of the messes that can afflict entire economies. Consider the
››travails of the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op.
›
››In short, the co-op fell into a recession."
››
››http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ma... ››fra 2359;hp
›
›Jeg har brugt 3 minutter på at overveje det her og Krugman har en
›nobelpris, så der er sikkert noget jeg misser, men vil værdien af
›kuponerne ikke bare stige? Dvs. man ville kunne få to timers
›babysitting for en kupon i stedet for en osv.. Jeg kan ikke se
›hvorfor deflation er en dårlig ting i dette tilfælde.

Men et meget nemmere fix er såmænd at øge folks beholdning af kuponer, hvilket det reelt også er at sige at en kupon er 2 timers babysitning værd. Krugmans pointe med historien er at ingen går ud og ingen babysitter fordi der er mangel på kuponer (kapital) og derfor får du en recession.

Mvh.

Defreni

[André 3000/Icecold]

›Men et meget nemmere fix er såmænd at øge folks beholdning af
›kuponer, hvilket det reelt også er at sige at en kupon er 2
›timers babysitning værd. Krugmans pointe med historien er at
›ingen går ud og ingen babysitter fordi der er mangel på kuponer
›(kapital) og derfor får du en recession.
›
›Mvh.
›
›Defreni

Problemet er at til den nuværende pris (1:1) vil deltagerne, af den ene eller anden grund, hellere passe andres børn end have deres egne passet. Udbudet er større end efterspørgslen og den faste pris gør det umuligt at finde en ligevægt. Det problem vil sandsynligvis ikke løses af at øge mængden af kuponer (det ville være stort set umuligt at ramme den rigtige mængde f.eks.). Hvis prisen ikke var fast ville den derimod reagere på uligeheden indtil der blev fundet en ligevægt.

Jeg synes ikke rigtig man kan lære noget specielt af eksemplet, men hvis man kan, så må det være at dårlig politik fører til dårlige ting.

[A]

»I ejendommen har vi en temperamentsfuld kvinde, der kom op at slås med en narkoman, som ikke ville flytte sig fra trappen foran vores hoveddør. Bagefter ringede hun til politiet, der blot sagde, at det ikke nyttede at sende en patruljevogn, for pusherne ville alligevel sidde der igen få minutter senere. Hvortil vores beboer svarede, at hun så passende kunne lade være med at skifte lille Peter nede i børnehaven. For han sked jo snart i bukserne igen. Det kaldes at passe sit arbejde, sagde hun«.

Cheers.

[Pipetown]

Hvad nu, hvis det, vi kalder udvikling, i virkeligheden er en form for afvikling? –Hvad nu, hvis vor såkaldte frigørelse i dette fremskredne stadium forveksler to så forskellige begreber som ”blufærdighed” og ”bornerthed” og i stedet for at berige os, berøver os? – Er der nemlig ikke en fare for, at vi har ”sejret ad helvede til”; at den såkaldte frigjorthed – i fladpandet magtfuldkommenhed og ledtog med kommercielle interesser – franarrer os dét, der kunne have været en legemlig bevægelse af sindet, og reducerer det til en konvulsivisk massebevægelse af seriefremstillede underliv? At det massive opbud af pornografi – der, med eller uden indbydelse, trænger sig ind alle vegne, slænger sig i vore sinds hængesofaer, æder vor hjemmelavede konfekt, nedbrænder alle fire lys i livets adventskrans på én gang, flår papiret af vore julegaver langt inden juleaften, ler ad deres beskedne indhold og efterlader os i ruinerne af vor forventnings glæde – berøver os vor fantasi?
Lader vor såkaldt moderne tid nemlig ikke hånt om menneskets grundlæggende fascination af det ukendte?

(Jette A. Kaarsbøl, ”Den lukkede bog”, 2003)

[MonradJa]

›(Jette A. Kaarsbøl, ”Den lukkede bog”, 2003)
Undskyld mit franske, men det er eddernageme det værste sammenblandede vrøvl længe set.

[Pipetown]

››(Jette A. Kaarsbøl, ”Den lukkede bog”, 2003)
›Undskyld mit franske, men det er eddernageme det værste
›sammenblandede vrøvl længe set.

Naturligvis er det det.

[Hr. Stena]

Dagens hehe-citat

Supposedly, a woman posted the following personal ad on Craigslist:

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25-year-old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least [a] half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a businessman who makes average around 200 – 250K. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000K won’t get me to Central Park West. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms.

- What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings.

- Is there an age range I should be targeting (I’m 25)?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the Upper East Side so plain? I’ve seen really “plain Jane” boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the East Village. What’s the story there?

- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows — lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY.

Please hold your insults — I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them — in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

The response she got was as follows:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I’m not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said, here’s how I see it:

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party, and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub — your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity … in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms, you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain: you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35, stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold … hence the rub … marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to “buy you” (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following: if my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as “articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful” as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe, if you are as gorgeous as you say you are, that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for a tryout. By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic “pump and dump.” I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

[+Christoffer+]

Jeg faldt lige over dette fremragende citat:

Friedrich Nietzsche:

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

[A]

Jeg ved godt det er borderline dybsindigt, men jeg mener nu alligevel det skal med her:


http://uk.youtube.com/v/mIvfe0F2LZM&feature=player_emb edded

[Meller]

Er det Dolph citater!?

[DroitAuBut]

The working of this process eventuating in anomie can be easily glimpsed in a series of familiar and instructive, though perhaps trivial, episodes. Thus, in competitive athletics, when the aim of victory is shorn of its institutional trappings and succes becomes constructed as "winning the game" rather than "winning under the rules of the game," a premium is implicitly set upon the use of illegitimate but technically efficient means. The star of the opposing football team is surreptitiously slugged; the wrestler incapacitates his opponent through ingenious but illicit techniques; university alumni covertly subsidize "students" whose talents are confined to the athletic field. The emphasis on the goal has so attenuated the satisfactions deriving from the sheer participation in the competitive activity that only a succesful outcome provides gratification ... The faint twinge of uneasiness in the last instance and the surreptitious nature of public delicts indicate clearly that the institutional rules of the game are known to those who evade them. But cultural (or idiosyncratic) exaggeration of the succes-goal leads men to withdraw the emotional support from the rules.

Robert K. Merton, Social Structure and Anomie, 1949.