Who is John W?
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com It is interesting that what some people find rude does not seem rude to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any obviously rude remarks. The interesting thing is that the data do not support the claim that my posts make people less likely to communicate here. Rather, just the opposite. If you look at the volume of non-JW posts as a function of JW-posts to this list, there is a remarkably large positive correlation. Anyone listen to Bill Maher? I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he is entertaining. He speaks his mind, and is not afraid to discuss uncomfortable issues. I have never found him rude, but I suspect others may have a different opinion. To each his own. Here's an example of an uncomfortable issue that he discusses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html I've been off the list for the second time since I joined. I am unemployed again so I have more time on my hands. A number of my former colleagues have died when they could not afford Cobra and were unable to receive medical treatments. At least two have committed suicide. Fortunately my health is holding up, so far. Most recently I gafiated from the list because I got sucked into defending myself from personal attacks when I spoke up against certain ad hominem and straw-man arguments. Things have not calmed down that much in the interim (at least since I resumed lurking) but , as Charlie says, taking time out has been a good thing to do, from time to time... I am encouraged that John Williams feels his recent posts are not all rude, and that he reads the Huff Post, and watches Bill Maher. I would hope that he emulates Maher's style of using rational arguments and being provocative in ways that agitate people to think, rather than just emote, That is the difference between polemicists on the left and rabble rousers like Limbaugh and O'Reilly who use innuendo, specious and disingenuous arguments to distort the facts. I have noticed that people are also asking JW uncomfortable questions and I wonder how he finds the time to answer some of them? He must have a higher word count than anyone else on the Brinlist. Before I left I never did get an answer to my questions asking JW if that was his real name, where he was from, etc. I wonder if he has ever revealed any personal information about who he is and what he does for a living that gives him so much time to agitate? He seems to be thriving more than ever on the negative attention he reaps. I agree with Chris F. that gathering information and watching debates unfold helps to make up your mind on some of the issues discussed. In the past I have not gotten much out of the John Williams threads, although hopefully, that may still change. Learning more of the history of Brinlist discourse and how trolling has been dealt with in the past has been fascinating. I've enjoyed reading the comments of many of you and hoped to meet some of you at WorldCon, but it seems I was the only Brinlister that attended. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: I think I understood your point. Mine was that economists are not really experts in any useful knowledge. They cannot predict the course of the economy any better than non-economists. Also, I dispute your claim that the vast majority of economist are in favor of throwing money at the situation. Here are hundreds of economists who disagree with that approach: Apparently you not only misunderstand my point, you've lost track of the argument. I said the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem I'm pretty sure there was nothing in there about throwing money at the problem. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
What are Bill Maher's beliefs?
I've got a question on Bill Maher and germ theory. In various non-Rush type forums (e.g. the atheist alliance) there were numerous references to his favoring of alternative medicines. The quotes I've gotten (including the Letterman quote that his illness is due to being poisoned) are consistent with his viewing that standard biology is wrong on germs, AIDs, vaccines, etc. But, I haven't found a smoking gun. Does anyone have anything conclusive one way or the other on this? Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Apparently you not only misunderstand my point, you've lost track of the argument. I said the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem I'm pretty sure there was nothing in there about throwing money at the problem. Okay, Doug, let's assume I've lost track of your argument. Please set me straight. So, your argument goes, a vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem. And? Is there more to what you are saying? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: And? Is there more to what you are saying? In your initial post in this thread, particularly in the last paragraph, you seemed to be belittling the idea that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis. That's what I was responding to. Perhaps I was mistaken. In any case, I would agree that while most economists probably felt that some type of bailout was advisable, saying that the vast majority of them did would be an overstatement. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: In your initial post in this thread, particularly in the last paragraph, you seemed to be belittling the idea that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis. That's what I was responding to. Perhaps I was mistaken. I'm not sure how to rate the severity of an economic crisis on any absolute scale, since the complexity of a large economy such as the US defies any such simple metrics. So I did not mean say that there was not (or was) a bad situation. My point was rather that Bernanke, and others like him, were invested in making the situation seem dire AND that unless there were swift and large government intervention, that the consequences would be inconceivable. After painting that picture, and intervening, Bernanke et al. then began proclaiming how their intervention had prevented such a calamity. All with no real proof -- in fact, the success of the whole scheme depends on there being no possible way to disprove their alleged genius and heroics -- but just scare tactics and bluster. So, it was a one-two punch. Make the situation sound unimaginably bad, and then persuade people that he saved them from disaster. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: So, it was a one-two punch. Make the situation sound unimaginably bad, and then persuade people that he saved them from disaster. Or you could make it sound like the situation was overblown and convince people that they were just trying to make heroes of themselves. I find it extremely difficult to believe that his primary motivation in all this is to make himself look good. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: What are Bill Maher's beliefs?
On 30/08/2009, at 7:03 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: I've got a question on Bill Maher and germ theory. In various non- Rush type forums (e.g. the atheist alliance) there were numerous references to his favoring of alternative medicines. The quotes I've gotten (including the Letterman quote that his illness is due to being poisoned) are consistent with his viewing that standard biology is wrong on germs, AIDs, vaccines, etc. But, I haven't found a smoking gun. Does anyone have anything conclusive one way or the other on this? Yes - it's the simple principle that not everyone is rational about everything in their lives. In Maher's case, he has a mammoth blind spot on biomedical science. I don't think it's irredemable in his case. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Or you could make it sound like the situation was overblown and convince people that they were just trying to make heroes of themselves. The point is, because of his actions, we do not know and cannot know. Considering the vast amounts of other people's money that he has spent and the great moral hazard that he has created, the responsible thing to have done would have been to have carefully studied the situation, looking at what would actually happen, while simultaneously preparing contingency plans it case intervention was deemed necessary after careful study. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: What are Bill Maher's beliefs?
Charlie wrote: Yes - it's the simple principle that not everyone is rational about everything in their lives. In Maher's case, he has a mammoth blind spot on biomedical science. I don't think it's irredemable in his case. Did anyone see the show last night? He interviewed Jay-Z and Bill Moyers. Moyers was very eloquent on health care. Here are some quotes: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/29/moyers/index.html Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: The point is, because of his actions, we do not know and cannot know. Considering the vast amounts of other people's money that he has spent and the great moral hazard that he has created, the responsible thing to have done would have been to have carefully studied the situation, looking at what would actually happen, while simultaneously preparing contingency plans it case intervention was deemed necessary after careful study. I have to go back to the burning building analogy. If you sit there and study the situation for a while, in all likelihood the window of opportunity to actually prevent the disaster will pass before you determine what it is you think might work. In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have study the situation? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I have to go back to the burning building analogy. Which, as I already explained, is a useless analogy and not worth further comment. In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have study the situation? Everyone who wishes to. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: I wrote: I have to go back to the burning building analogy. Which, as I already explained, is a useless analogy and not worth further comment. Because it renders your whole speculative argument moot? Your so called explanation was: It would also be silly to think the US economy is even in the same ballpark of being understood as a burning building. So we are to assume on your say so that economic emergencies do not exist? In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have study the situation? Everyone who wishes to. Now there is a useless answer. How is this everyone who wishes to supposed to do anything about the situation if and when they figure out what to do? Are they a committee? The Everyone Who Wishes To committee? Would we give them a commission and an annual budget? Yikes. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 8/29/2009 6:17:25 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: My point was rather that Bernanke, and others like him, were invested in making the situation seem dire AND that unless there were swift and large government intervention, that the consequences would be inconceivable. After painting that picture, and intervening, Bernanke et al. then began proclaiming how their intervention had prevented such a calamity. All with no real proof -- in fact, the success of the whole scheme depends on there being no possible way to disprove their alleged genius and heroics -- but just scare tactics and bluster. Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your political stripe are invested in pretending that they did nothing of any worth. xponent Backbiters Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Because it renders your whole speculative argument moot? No, because it is a useless analogy. Why not talk about the actual situation instead? Your so called explanation was: No, that was a summation, not my explanation. So we are to assume on your say so that economic emergencies do not exist? Why would you do that? Now there is a useless answer. How is this everyone who wishes to supposed to do anything about the situation if and when they figure out what to do? We were not talking about doing anything, as you pointed out to me before. We were talking about the extent of the problem. You seem to be worried about damage that might have happened if the government had not intervened without allowing enough time for the situation to play out and be well understood. I do not deny that it is possible that there could be some cost from not intervening swiftly. But my point is that we do not know what that cost is, because it was never observed, and predictions of economists in these sorts of situations are unreliable. In contrast, we know very well the vast costs of the government intervention. Many hundreds of billions of dollars spent, trillions of dollars pledged, and a huge moral hazard that will make such problems more likely to occur in the future. So we have a vast cost, and we have no idea what the benefits were that were bought with that cost. I, for one, demand more proof that my money is being used wisely. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your political stripe are invested in pretending that they did nothing of any worth. Immense government debt, rapidly increasing with no end in sight, high unemployment, and the many of the large financial companies that caused the problems still operating because the government bailed them out. That does not look like a good job to me. Obviously the politicians will argue that unemployment would have been higher if they had not intervened, but there is no way to prove that either way. It could have been lower if they had not intervened. No one can know. But two things can be known. Many of the companies at fault would now be bankrupt if the government had not intervened. And the government would have spent a lot less and be on the hook for hugely less if there had been no intervention. The future would look a lot brighter now if government debt were a lot lower and companies that are known to invest recklessly and take taxpayer dollars when they screw up were no longer operating. If Bernanke had achieved that future outlook, then it would be a good job. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 8/29/2009 8:23:09 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your political stripe are invested in pretending that they did nothing of any worth. Immense government debt, rapidly increasing with no end in sight, high unemployment, and the many of the large financial companies that caused the problems still operating because the government bailed them out. That does not look like a good job to me. Obviously the politicians will argue that unemployment would have been higher if they had not intervened, but there is no way to prove that either way. It could have been lower if they had not intervened. No one can know. Utter bullshit, and I'm calling you on it. If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term. If Goldman and several other of the troubled financials had gone under, there would have been such a hole in the overnight paper market that the entire economy would have locked up AGAIN, like it did last September only this time it would have been for a significant length of time rather than just 4 hours. But two things can be known. Many of the companies at fault would now be bankrupt if the government had not intervened. And the government would have spent a lot less and be on the hook for hugely less if there had been no intervention. Bankrupt like Lehman Bros.? The future would look a lot brighter now if government debt were a lot lower and companies that are known to invest recklessly and take taxpayer dollars when they screw up were no longer operating. If Bernanke had achieved that future outlook, then it would be a good job. John.you filter the facts too selectively. AFAIC, Bernanke did just good enough to skirt serious consequences in the short term. How this turns out over the next few years remains to be seen. We still have inflationary pressures to worry about and that is serious business. I don't have any particular skills in economics or finance, but I was warning about this crisis coming over 2 years ago. I just listen to financial news for about an hour before work, but it seemed clear that bad times were coming. I see another crisis coming. Here in Houston, in the Texas Medical Center, they are building bio-medical research facilities, and hospitals, and all over this region they are building hospitals and clinics like there is no tomorrow. The clinics are costing just a few millions each, but the hospitals and research buildings are each hundreds of million dollar facilities. There is billions being spent here in just one city/region and concentrated in a short time period. It seems like overkill and a significant portion is government funded (UTHS, UTMB, M D Anderson, Texas Childrens, The Heart Center, St Lukes and several others) From the building where I work I can see a dozen cranes and at home I can see (from my front door) at least 3 hospitals being built. I forsee a major contraction after these facilities open, attracting talent from all over the nation, then stranding these folks when the cash dries up. I really wonder what is going on. Is anyone else seeing medical related construction on this scale in their area? xponent Disaster Lurks Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term. Or not. The system is much too complex to make these kind of off-the-cuff predictions. Most people are not even aware of the numbers involved. When the monthly employment net change numbers come out, and there is a change of +200K or -120K or whatever, the actual number of people who were hired in a new job or lost a job are much higher, in the millions. Compare gross jobs gained or lost in a quarter (often around 10million) to the number of people employed by GM or Chrysler. Then look at gross jobs for a year. People change jobs in the millions all the time. A complex economy like the US has a large churn rate, and it is nearly impossible to predict exactly what jobs will be created and destroyed even 1 year ahead. If Goldman and several other of the troubled financials had gone under, there would have been such a hole in the overnight paper market that the entire economy would have locked up AGAIN, like it did last September only this time it would have been for a significant length of time rather than just 4 hours. Or not. There millions of knowledgeable and skilled people in this country. Likely most of them would have found ways to keep going with things important to them. Many solutions would have been tried, and the bad ones would tend to fail while the good ones pick up steam. Eventually, you end up with a better system through this sort of creative destruction. Unless the politicians bail out their cronies and keep patching the old system up until it fails again. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 8/29/2009 10:10:54 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term. Or not. The system is much too complex to make these kind of off-the-cuff predictions. Most people are not even aware of the numbers involved. When the monthly employment net change numbers come out, and there is a change of +200K or -120K or whatever, the actual number of people who were hired in a new job or lost a job are much higher, in the millions. Compare gross jobs gained or lost in a quarter (often around 10million) to the number of people employed by GM or Chrysler. Then look at gross jobs for a year. People change jobs in the millions all the time. A complex economy like the US has a large churn rate, and it is nearly impossible to predict exactly what jobs will be created and destroyed even 1 year ahead. You are so blinded by your political philosophy that you cannot even see what a ridiculous statement you just made. Either that, or you are completely ignorant or the realities of manufacturing. xponent Complete Lack Of Fluidity Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: You seem to be worried about damage that might have happened if the government had not intervened without allowing enough time for the situation to play out and be well understood. I do not deny that it is possible that there could be some cost from not intervening swiftly. But my point is that we do not know what that cost is, because it was never observed, and predictions of economists in these sorts of situations are unreliable. In contrast, we know very well the vast costs of the government intervention. Many hundreds of billions of dollars spent, trillions of dollars pledged, and a huge moral hazard that will make such problems more likely to occur in the future. So we have a vast cost, and we have no idea what the benefits were that were bought with that cost. I, for one, demand more proof that my money is being used wisely. I think it's disingenuous to say that we had no idea what would have happened. Many more banks would have failed, and the stock market would have crashed much harder than it did. And we do have a precedent for that kind of hard crash in the great depression. I don't really care if banks or even car companys fail if the damage was limited to those institutions, but the people that are really going to suffer are those that loose their 401K or other retirement savings, or their house, or their job or all of it. As it is there was a huge amount of damage done to these people's future. Had they allowed these institutions to fail, I'm absolutely certain that the economic situation would be far worse. The thing is, I think that at some point it becomes a crisis of confidence more than a purely economic crisis and once you reach that point I think you can count on a prolonged depression. I'm not absolutely sure that we aren't beyond the tipping point now. So while I'm not sure that the initial bailout and the follow up stimulus package were the perfect solutions, I'm pretty confident that had we waited for the Everyone Who Wishes To committee to come back with their well crafted solution, it would have been far too late to be effective. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Rob wrote: Is anyone else seeing medical related construction on this scale in their area? Not here. They've actually closed a few hospitals around here even though the population continues to increase. I guess Kaiser has built a few hospitals, but nothing on the scale you're talking about. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I think it's disingenuous to say that we had no idea what would have happened. Many more banks would have failed, Yes, but that is not necessarily a cost. In many cases, I consider it a benefit. and the stock market would have crashed much harder than it did. Or not. Certainly you are not claiming to be able to predict the stock market reliably? And we do have a precedent for that kind of hard crash in the great depression. Actually, the stock markets after 1929 dropped rapidly, had a recovery, then dropped less rapidly for quite a while. The initial drop in 1929 and 2008-2009 reached similar lows from the peak. It is yet to be seen if there is another drop now like there was in the 1930's. http://dshort.com/charts/bears/road-to-recovery-large.gif But there are so many differences between the economy in the 1930's and today that it is not reasonable to think that we can predict today based on the past. And as long as we are looking at long-ago recessions, consider the 1920-21 recession. There was minimal government intervention, and yet the economy recovered smartly on its own. I don't really care if banks or even car companys fail if the damage was limited to those institutions, but the people that are really going to suffer are those that loose their 401K or other retirement savings, or their house, or their job or all of it. As it is there was a huge amount of damage done to these people's future. Had they allowed these institutions to fail, I'm absolutely certain that the economic situation would be far worse. Without a demonstrated record of accurate predictions, such a statement much be discounted. But even if true, then why not give money to those people you are concerned about? Why prop up badly run businesses? The thing is, I think that at some point it becomes a crisis of confidence more than a purely economic crisis and once you reach that point I think you can count on a prolonged depression. I think people are a lot more resilient than you give them credit for. There are a lot of knowledgeable, innovative, industrious people that will find ways to accomplish those things that are important to them, if they are allowed to. It is a lot harder to do so when the government creates extreme uncertainty as to the rules under which everyone must operate now and in the future. So while I'm not sure that the initial bailout and the follow up stimulus package were the perfect solutions, I'm pretty confident that had we waited for the Everyone Who Wishes To committee to come back with their well crafted solution, it would have been far too late to be effective. So now you implicitly claim not only to be able to predict what would happen if the government did not intervene immediately after the various investment bank problems, but also what would have happened many months after that under the influence of unknown intervention efforts. Since distinguished economists have repeatedly failed to predict much simpler things on shorter time scales, I find your claim highly dubious. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
