Comments on: One one-thousand … two one-thousand … 3.8 trillion one-thousand http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Phea http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-64534 Phea Sun, 02 Oct 2011 16:41:55 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-64534 All in all, I believe Mr. Shermer might have been better off to have just posted this link. It does a much better job of making his point. http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html All in all, I believe Mr. Shermer might have been better off to have just posted this link. It does a much better job of making his point.

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

]]> By: Phea http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-64532 Phea Sun, 02 Oct 2011 16:27:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-64532 Yeah, even guru Greenspan had to admit that his world view, (Ayn Rand's), was fundamentally wrong. Poor Brooksey Born, (head of the CFTC under Clinton), at least she tried to show how unregulated, OTC derivatives were not a real good idea, while Greenspan actually believed even fraud would somehow be quashed by an unregulated free market. The parties over, and just like it's too late to avoid going off the cliff of global warming, our Ponzi scheme economy will collapse... it's just a matter of time. These are things I'm not skeptical about. Yeah, even guru Greenspan had to admit that his world view, (Ayn Rand’s), was fundamentally wrong. Poor Brooksey Born, (head of the CFTC under Clinton), at least she tried to show how unregulated, OTC derivatives were not a real good idea, while Greenspan actually believed even fraud would somehow be quashed by an unregulated free market.

The parties over, and just like it’s too late to avoid going off the cliff of global warming, our Ponzi scheme economy will collapse… it’s just a matter of time. These are things I’m not skeptical about.

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-64529 tmac57 Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:59:48 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-64529 If you are new to economics,I would recommend the PLanet Money podcast and website. Good and entertaining coverage of the ongoing economy and some historic background,geared toward the layperson. If you are new to economics,I would recommend the PLanet Money podcast and website. Good and entertaining coverage of the ongoing economy and some historic background,geared toward the layperson.

]]> By: Phea http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-64525 Phea Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:32:55 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-64525 I know very little about economics, but what you've said makes sense. I've always wondered why stock value isn't tied directly to the dividends the stock pays. Isn't buying stock in a company about getting a return on your investment if the company does well? A share of stock that pays fifty dollars a year in dividends should be worth five times more than a share of stock that only pays ten. The reason I even read this blog, is because it was listed under "economics", which is a subject I'd like to understand more. I know very little about economics, but what you’ve said makes sense. I’ve always wondered why stock value isn’t tied directly to the dividends the stock pays. Isn’t buying stock in a company about getting a return on your investment if the company does well? A share of stock that pays fifty dollars a year in dividends should be worth five times more than a share of stock that only pays ten.

The reason I even read this blog, is because it was listed under “economics”, which is a subject I’d like to understand more.

]]> By: G Dyer http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-51306 G Dyer Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:32:33 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-51306 maybe I'm wrong but aren't there 31,536,000 sec in a year? not 31,546,000 as the author states. If I'm right, the author is way off maybe I’m wrong but aren’t there 31,536,000 sec in a year? not 31,546,000 as the author states.

If I’m right, the author is way off

]]> By: Patrick http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-19815 Patrick Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:26:41 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-19815 Anyone who believes the government will reduce the deficit or even the debt with a $3.8 trillion budget isn't a real skeptic. They're a cheerleader for a particular party and they conveniently forgot the time when they made fun of Republicans for their $2 something trillion budget and a $500 billion deficit. Anyone who believes the government will reduce the deficit or even the debt with a $3.8 trillion budget isn’t a real skeptic. They’re a cheerleader for a particular party and they conveniently forgot the time when they made fun of Republicans for their $2 something trillion budget and a $500 billion deficit.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-19670 Jeff Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:29:11 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-19670 This is not a debate. It is a blog. Dr Shermer is under NO obligation to respond to anyone here. Nor are any of the others. As for this being a political posting. What stupidity. If you are ANY kind of skeptic you MUST wonder the impact of the deficit no matter what or whom is doing all the spending. Also, simply pointing out the magnitude of the numbers is not a political statement. It's a legitimate exercise in thought and numbers. To me many of the comments above sound very much like pseudo science true believers. The only people I would think who don't want others to try and understand the size or consequences of the numbers are those who would *prefer* people not think about them. Lest such a thought experiment causes one to change a vote in the future. And that IMO IS despicable of any real skeptic. This is not a debate. It is a blog. Dr Shermer is under NO obligation to respond to anyone here. Nor are any of the others.

As for this being a political posting. What stupidity. If you are ANY kind of skeptic you MUST wonder the impact of the deficit no matter what or whom is doing all the spending.

Also, simply pointing out the magnitude of the numbers is not a political statement. It’s a legitimate exercise in thought and numbers. To me many of the comments above sound very much like pseudo science true believers. The only people I would think who don’t want others to try and understand the size or consequences of the numbers are those who would *prefer* people not think about them. Lest such a thought experiment causes one to change a vote in the future. And that IMO IS despicable of any real skeptic.

]]> By: TheSaint http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-18278 TheSaint Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:53:26 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-18278 I didn't realize this post was supposed to be humorous. My mistake. I didn’t realize this post was supposed to be humorous. My mistake.

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-18276 tmac57 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:57:30 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-18276 Setting aside the politics of this provocative blog post, at my count, there are 140 comments before mine, and not one of them from Dr Shermer, unless I missed one (this is par for the course lately). Now I know that he is a busy man, with lots of irons in the fire, but is it really too much to ask for a little back and forth or clarification of his intent considering the relative firestorm of reaction here. I, like others, have been a long time fan of Dr Shermer, going back way before the internet blog days, but I am profoundly disappointed in the way he distances himself from him audience these days. I really don't know what that is about. Maybe he will deign to inform us? Setting aside the politics of this provocative blog post, at my count, there are 140 comments before mine, and not one of them from Dr Shermer, unless I missed one (this is par for the course lately). Now I know that he is a busy man, with lots of irons in the fire, but is it really too much to ask for a little back and forth or clarification of his intent considering the relative firestorm of reaction here. I, like others, have been a long time fan of Dr Shermer, going back way before the internet blog days, but I am profoundly disappointed in the way he distances himself from him audience these days. I really don’t know what that is about. Maybe he will deign to inform us?

]]> By: eddie http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/09/one-one-thousand-two-one-thousand/#comment-18262 eddie Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:28:25 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=6477#comment-18262 Wow, I am cracking up at how so many posters lack any sense of humor. They infer a plethora of arguments that aren't remotely implied in the original article. I find it extra entertaining to see them tossing names of logical fallacies around in response to a post that has no logical arguments. Ironically, these so-called skeptics are seeing things that don't exist--just like the people who claim to see ghosts in their attics. Hahahaha!! (I like irony.) Obviously Shermer's critics who self-identify as skeptics don't know when to apply the tools of skepticism. Hmm, maybe Shermer has accidentally succeeded in exposing these folks for what they really are--politically motivated trolls masquerading as skeptics. That or he needs to go back to the drawing board and re-educate the skeptics-in-training on developing judgement in determining the proper context for utilizing their skills! Wow, I am cracking up at how so many posters lack any sense of humor. They infer a plethora of arguments that aren’t remotely implied in the original article. I find it extra entertaining to see them tossing names of logical fallacies around in response to a post that has no logical arguments. Ironically, these so-called skeptics are seeing things that don’t exist–just like the people who claim to see ghosts in their attics. Hahahaha!! (I like irony.) Obviously Shermer’s critics who self-identify as skeptics don’t know when to apply the tools of skepticism. Hmm, maybe Shermer has accidentally succeeded in exposing these folks for what they really are–politically motivated trolls masquerading as skeptics. That or he needs to go back to the drawing board and re-educate the skeptics-in-training on developing judgement in determining the proper context for utilizing their skills!

]]>