The Limbaugh Problem

[Nobunaga]

...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html


... Two questions.

... 1. With the econmy in its current state, do we want Obama and his aides wasting time dealing with a talk show host? It's politicking, great during campaigns, sure, but the campaign is finished. Should not the man in the White House be focused on much graver concerns? The economy is going to hell and the President is working on the "Limbaugh Problem".

... 2. Why is Limbaugh being used to push Republicans toward cooperation with the Democrats? (answers my first question, perhaps) The Dems don't need their votes and can pass anything they wish.

...

[bedub1]

I nominate Hitler as the leader of the democrat party. WTF? I think the republicans can nominate their own leader...and don't need the democrats selecting a guy everybody hates.

[MeDeFe]

He's making a quite rude gesture in that photo.

[mpjh]

Where is the problem?

Linbaugh, Palin, Jindal --- perfect team for the Republicans -- guarantees Democratcs stay in office for at least another 15 years. Think President Obama (Michelle that is).

[Nobunaga]

... You miss the point. This is a complete waste of time.

... I understand using the fat man in atempt to tie all Republicans to him, but how does that help me as I watch my 401K turn to nothing?

.... OBAMA should have higher priorities, as should his ballerina buddy.

...

[mpjh]

You should have asked that question when W was in. Your 401K went to shit before Obama came to office. The Republicans have fought every effort to fix the problem since Obama won. The Republicans remain the problem. Besides, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, leaving your 401K in stock?

[Frigidus]

Answer to number one, it's the usual political bullshit. It's certainly depressing that Obama isn't above it, but it's really to be expected. As for number two, the Democratic party's best interests are served by portraying Republicans as stubborn and arrogant. You always have to think about the next election, you know.

[pimpdave]

What a great title for a thread.

Here are several Limbaugh problems:

1) addiction to prescription pain killers
2) inability to maintain a marriage
3) proclivity to lie about service in Vietnam (this Limbaugh problem was first revealed by Al Franken!)
4) being incredibly, morbidly, disgustingly, cartoon villainy, fat.
5) talking out of ass all day long without things like facts or own opinions.


So now, if someone tells you that you're too fat, just say, "Yes, I do have a Limbaugh problem, thank you for informing me."

[InkL0sed]

I find the way Keith Olbermann says "Rush Lim-baugh" to be quite amusing.

[Napoleon Ier]

You should have asked that question when W was in. Your 401K went to shit before Obama came to office. The Republicans have fought every effort to fix the problem since Obama won. The Republicans remain the problem. Besides, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, leaving your 401K in stock?

Probably because those efforts to fix the problem are the economic equivalent of having an African shaman witch-doctor apply leeches to you.

[MeDeFe]

You should have asked that question when W was in. Your 401K went to shit before Obama came to office. The Republicans have fought every effort to fix the problem since Obama won. The Republicans remain the problem. Besides, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, leaving your 401K in stock?

Probably because those efforts to fix the problem are the economic equivalent of having an African shaman witch-doctor apply leeches to you.

Pretty much any attempt to fix it would have an effect comparable to the treatment of said witch-doctor.

[Napoleon Ier]

Exactly MeDeFe... a period of sustained deflation liquidating malinvestments is a necessary for full recovery.

[MeDeFe]

Exactly MeDeFe... a period of sustained deflation liquidating malinvestments is a necessary for full recovery.

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

[Napoleon Ier]

Exactly MeDeFe... a period of sustained deflation liquidating malinvestments is a necessary for full recovery.

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Take those 80% and treat them as a separate economy: can't they just start up their own chains of capital structure?

[got tonkaed]

your actually going to argue that seriously?

[mpjh]

Exactly MeDeFe... a period of sustained deflation liquidating malinvestments is a necessary for full recovery.

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Medefe, you miss a central reality. You can't have production unless you have customers. Thus, if you robotize everthing, you have not employees (to speak of) and no one has any money to purchase your product.

It reminds me of the Amish farms. A university did a study of the productivity of Amish farms (which use no fossil fuel machinery or artificial fertilizer) against a modern farm in the same zone. The Amish farm was as productive as the mechanized large farm. The Amish farm used five times as many people to farm the land. Lesson, it can be done a different way if we give dignity back to work and eliminate the pornographic disparity in wealth of this country.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah. The reason they were just as productive probably had something to do with 5 times the labour cost being input to production.

And I'm sorry, but no, banning all technology to make us all equally miserable isn't a valid answer to unemployment. Neanderthals all had jobs. I'm sure we still don't envy them.

[got tonkaed]

Yeah. The reason they were just as productive probably had something to do with 5 times the labour cost being input to production.

And I'm sorry, but no, banning all technology to make us all equally miserable isn't a valid answer to unemployment. Neanderthals all had jobs. I'm sure we still don't envy them.

it remains about as valid as your claim that 80 percent of people would suddenly just start developing new capital chains in any type of reasonable, effcient or sustainable way if you were going to go off of medefes claim.

[mpjh]

Yeah. The reason they were just as productive probably had something to do with 5 times the labour cost being input to production.

And I'm sorry, but no, banning all technology to make us all equally miserable isn't a valid answer to unemployment. Neanderthals all had jobs. I'm sure we still don't envy them.

it remains about as valid as your claim that 80 percent of people would suddenly just start developing new capital chains in any type of reasonable, effcient or sustainable way if you were going to go off of medefes claim.

Actually the productivity measure took into account cost. Amish farms run at a cost lower than the mechanized farms, and they don't end up with massive debt loads that cause their dissolution upon the death of the owner. All in all, we could learn a lot from the Amish.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, couldn't they? I mean, there's demand from 80% of the population, it does sort of make sense supply will rise to meet it.

[got tonkaed]

Well, couldn't they? I mean, there's demand from 80% of the population, it does sort of make sense supply will rise to meet it.

I feel that maybe you should try and analyze how well that is working out in areas with far less unemployment before you make such an outlandish and pretty unsupportable claim.

Just because something on a base level makes theoretical success doesnt actually mean a whole lot.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah. The reason they were just as productive probably had something to do with 5 times the labour cost being input to production.

And I'm sorry, but no, banning all technology to make us all equally miserable isn't a valid answer to unemployment. Neanderthals all had jobs. I'm sure we still don't envy them.

it remains about as valid as your claim that 80 percent of people would suddenly just start developing new capital chains in any type of reasonable, effcient or sustainable way if you were going to go off of medefes claim.

Actually the productivity measure took into account cost. Amish farms run at a cost lower than the mechanized farms, and they don't end up with massive debt loads that cause their dissolution upon the death of the owner. All in all, we could learn a lot from the Amish.

Well, no they don't.

Five times more labour-hours are used. If those labour-hours were poorly remunerated, well, neither I, nor certainly capitalism, can be blamed.

[mpjh]

Actually, nappy, you are forgetting to compare the capital carrying cost of machinery, the expenses of fuel and fetilizer, and the interest costs of the mortgage -- none of which are experienced by the Amish. Their higher labor-hours do not overcome that cost. Further, they give organic product, high quality livelihoods to an entire population, and greater dignity to farm workers.

[Nobunaga]

Actually, nappy, you are forgetting to compare the capital carrying cost of machinery, the expenses of fuel and fetilizer, and the interest costs of the mortgage -- none of which are experienced by the Amish. Their higher labor-hours do not overcome that cost. Further, they give organic product, high quality livelihoods to an entire population, and greater dignity to farm workers.

... Do the Amish hire Mexicans?

...

[Napoleon Ier]

Actually, nappy, you are forgetting to compare the capital carrying cost of machinery, the expenses of fuel and fetilizer, and the interest costs of the mortgage -- none of which are experienced by the Amish. Their higher labor-hours do not overcome that cost. Further, they give organic product, high quality livelihoods to an entire population, and greater dignity to farm workers.

In which case, the problem lies not in technology, but in the lack of it, rendering the use of it prohibitive in cost.

Of course, your story is bollocks, since if it were the case that the Amish had developed some amazing system of production so much more effective than the conventional ones, every farmer in the world would be desperate to switch to it.

But even then: the beauty of a free society, is that everyone is very happy for the Amish to go ahead and do as they please. You however, want every human being to be forced to live on a kolkhoze and refuse the basic right of migration of labour.