 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
The problem with the admin and its supporters is that they put up several reasons for war, all of which are not consistent: one day the admin. says that if Iraq disarms fully, then war is off, then they say it is our mission to liberate Iraq and bring freedom to the region: those are not fully equal aims. Make up your minds people!
According to reports, there will be a meeting tomorrow to discuss the how's and when's of these missiles being destroyed.
I also see a fundamental logics problem which no one supporting this war seem to want to deal with: we are told we can't continue this process of inspections cause Saddam has shown for 12 years he won't: so, his past action is a proof of possible future action(he won't disarm). Of course, the afct that for 12 years he hasn't given WMD ot any terrorist group, Al Qaeda, Palestinian, Lebanese, whatever, simply can't be seen as proof he won't in the future. Thus, when it comes to terrorist, his previous actions simply can't be seen as a reliable way of guaging his future action... Why this is true, we are never to be told, of course.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Vel :
I think you're the only one to care about the UN in this whole issue.
As far as I've seen, both parties use the UN when they feel it's adapted. I am impressed by the amount of UN-haters who say "we can't let the UN being disrespected by Iraq" to justify an agression. The very same will say "UN is just a bunch of Frenchized sissies" should it refuse the war, and will support a unilateral attack from the US the same.
And I'm sure you'll see many pro-peace people harshly criticizing the UN if it supports war. I already foresee all the critics about backstage negociations, which decide everything in the interests of the powerful, and not in the interests of world peace 
Let's face it, for an outstanding majority of people here, the UN is just a cheap way to legitimize his motives and delegitimze the others' motives. |
Actually, Spiffor, if I had a choice, I would declare war on France, Germany , Austria and Belgium. Never have I had such anger for other countries as I do for these countries. Saddam is a small menance compared to Chirac and crew.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
quote:
Actually, Spiffor, if I had a choice, I would declare war on France, Germany , Austria and Belgium. Never have I had such anger for other countries as I do for these countries. Saddam is a small menance compared to Chirac and crew. |
This is going to go onto my notepad along with your comments on interest rates. |
Yeah, go ahead frogger. It took awhile, but the Fed finally did lower interest rates. But, but they time they did it, it was too late.
The last time I checked, several months ago now, corporate debt still was falling even though interest rates were a 40-year lows. This indicates that interest real rates still were too high.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
Frogger, members of the Fed have to keep a certain percentage of their short-term deposits on reserve at the Fed. I believe it is 10%. At the end of the day, members who are short borrow from those who have excess reserves. The interest rate they borrow at is the Federal Funds rate, which is now, I believe, 1.25 %. This is the rate the Fed effectively set when they set the discount rate. This rate also effectively sets all other short-term loan rates, such as the prime rate.
For practical reasons, one cannot lower the Federal Funds nominal rates to zero or below. But if the Fed were to now begin paying interest on its reserve deposits, for example, 1%, the effective nominal Federal Funds rate would now be .25. But, by paying interest on the reserves, reserves would grow by at least rate of interest. The growth in reserves has a strong multiplier effect that will cause a growth in the money supply and thereby cause a reduction in real interest rates even while nominal rates remained unchanged. This is important because we are in a situation like Japan where nominal interest rates are very low, but real rates remain high due to deflation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2003 03:43
frogger!
|