[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So, the GOP will vociferously oppose any new taxes and the Dems will play the “They’re pushing Granny off a cliff!” game (which played very well in NY-26, BTW) and the bullshit will continue.[/quote]

They’re installing cliffs inside Obama’s death panels? BAD. ASS.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So, the GOP will vociferously oppose any new taxes and the Dems will play the “They’re pushing Granny off a cliff!” game (which played very well in NY-26, BTW) and the bullshit will continue.[/quote]

They’re installing cliffs inside Obama’s death panels? BAD. ASS.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So, the GOP will vociferously oppose any new taxes and the Dems will play the “They’re pushing Granny off a cliff!” game (which played very well in NY-26, BTW) and the bullshit will continue.[/quote]

They’re installing cliffs inside Obama’s death panels? BAD. ASS.

[afx114]

WikiLeaks cables show speculators behind 2008 oil bubble

Well, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that when the Bush administration reached out to the Saudis in the summer of ’08 to ask them to increase oil production to lower prices, the Saudis responded by saying they were having a hard time finding buyers for their oil as it was, and instead asked the Bush administration to rein in Wall Street speculators.

…

All of this is significant because both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have denied this narrative to various degrees. The CFTC only recently admitted that speculation played a role in the 2008 mess, having originally (and stubbornly) blamed supply and demand issues. Subsequent analyses have shown that the Saudi position, that worldwide demand for oil never increased nearly enough to account for the gigantic 2008 price spike, was almost certainly correct.

More on this to come later. Given the surge in commodities prices in the last year (which may in part have caused the rise in food prices that led to disturbances in the Middle East) and the Obama administration’s seeming reluctance still to rein in speculators, it’s remarkable that this issue doesn’t get more press. It’ll be interesting to see how much ink these Wiki cables get.

[afx114]

WikiLeaks cables show speculators behind 2008 oil bubble

Well, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that when the Bush administration reached out to the Saudis in the summer of ’08 to ask them to increase oil production to lower prices, the Saudis responded by saying they were having a hard time finding buyers for their oil as it was, and instead asked the Bush administration to rein in Wall Street speculators.

…

All of this is significant because both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have denied this narrative to various degrees. The CFTC only recently admitted that speculation played a role in the 2008 mess, having originally (and stubbornly) blamed supply and demand issues. Subsequent analyses have shown that the Saudi position, that worldwide demand for oil never increased nearly enough to account for the gigantic 2008 price spike, was almost certainly correct.

More on this to come later. Given the surge in commodities prices in the last year (which may in part have caused the rise in food prices that led to disturbances in the Middle East) and the Obama administration’s seeming reluctance still to rein in speculators, it’s remarkable that this issue doesn’t get more press. It’ll be interesting to see how much ink these Wiki cables get.

[afx114]

WikiLeaks cables show speculators behind 2008 oil bubble

Well, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that when the Bush administration reached out to the Saudis in the summer of ’08 to ask them to increase oil production to lower prices, the Saudis responded by saying they were having a hard time finding buyers for their oil as it was, and instead asked the Bush administration to rein in Wall Street speculators.

…

All of this is significant because both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have denied this narrative to various degrees. The CFTC only recently admitted that speculation played a role in the 2008 mess, having originally (and stubbornly) blamed supply and demand issues. Subsequent analyses have shown that the Saudi position, that worldwide demand for oil never increased nearly enough to account for the gigantic 2008 price spike, was almost certainly correct.

More on this to come later. Given the surge in commodities prices in the last year (which may in part have caused the rise in food prices that led to disturbances in the Middle East) and the Obama administration’s seeming reluctance still to rein in speculators, it’s remarkable that this issue doesn’t get more press. It’ll be interesting to see how much ink these Wiki cables get.

[afx114]

WikiLeaks cables show speculators behind 2008 oil bubble

Well, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that when the Bush administration reached out to the Saudis in the summer of ’08 to ask them to increase oil production to lower prices, the Saudis responded by saying they were having a hard time finding buyers for their oil as it was, and instead asked the Bush administration to rein in Wall Street speculators.

…

All of this is significant because both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have denied this narrative to various degrees. The CFTC only recently admitted that speculation played a role in the 2008 mess, having originally (and stubbornly) blamed supply and demand issues. Subsequent analyses have shown that the Saudi position, that worldwide demand for oil never increased nearly enough to account for the gigantic 2008 price spike, was almost certainly correct.

More on this to come later. Given the surge in commodities prices in the last year (which may in part have caused the rise in food prices that led to disturbances in the Middle East) and the Obama administration’s seeming reluctance still to rein in speculators, it’s remarkable that this issue doesn’t get more press. It’ll be interesting to see how much ink these Wiki cables get.

[afx114]

WikiLeaks cables show speculators behind 2008 oil bubble

Well, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that when the Bush administration reached out to the Saudis in the summer of ’08 to ask them to increase oil production to lower prices, the Saudis responded by saying they were having a hard time finding buyers for their oil as it was, and instead asked the Bush administration to rein in Wall Street speculators.

…

All of this is significant because both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have denied this narrative to various degrees. The CFTC only recently admitted that speculation played a role in the 2008 mess, having originally (and stubbornly) blamed supply and demand issues. Subsequent analyses have shown that the Saudi position, that worldwide demand for oil never increased nearly enough to account for the gigantic 2008 price spike, was almost certainly correct.

More on this to come later. Given the surge in commodities prices in the last year (which may in part have caused the rise in food prices that led to disturbances in the Middle East) and the Obama administration’s seeming reluctance still to rein in speculators, it’s remarkable that this issue doesn’t get more press. It’ll be interesting to see how much ink these Wiki cables get.

[afx114]

[quote=zippythepinhead]This is a very interesting article. Still, the Possibilians share the same problem as other permutations of athiests/agnostics: there is no future in it (at least not a good one). Why not spend your time studying reasons for faith in something with the promise of a payoff? Christianity, for example.[/quote]

Pascal’s Wager is a weak argument — essentially belief in God as a cost/benefit analysis. It states that belief costs nothing, yet the potential reward is infinite. There are a few problems with this argument:

* It presupposes that belief costs nothing. Considering what little time we have here in the real world, spending your limited hours worshiping/praying/churching is quite a big cost.

* What if you’re right that there is an afterlife but it turns out that you’ve spent your real life worshiping the wrong God and preparing for the wrong afterlife? What a bummer it would be if you spent your life as a Christian only to find out the Hindus had it right.

* Do you think that if God exists, he appreciates people believing in him simply to hedge their bets? This strikes me as quite an insincere way to worship God.

So with Pascal’s Wager, you are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zippythepinhead]This is a very interesting article. Still, the Possibilians share the same problem as other permutations of athiests/agnostics: there is no future in it (at least not a good one). Why not spend your time studying reasons for faith in something with the promise of a payoff? Christianity, for example.[/quote]

Pascal’s Wager is a weak argument — essentially belief in God as a cost/benefit analysis. It states that belief costs nothing, yet the potential reward is infinite. There are a few problems with this argument:

* It presupposes that belief costs nothing. Considering what little time we have here in the real world, spending your limited hours worshiping/praying/churching is quite a big cost.

* What if you’re right that there is an afterlife but it turns out that you’ve spent your real life worshiping the wrong God and preparing for the wrong afterlife? What a bummer it would be if you spent your life as a Christian only to find out the Hindus had it right.

* Do you think that if God exists, he appreciates people believing in him simply to hedge their bets? This strikes me as quite an insincere way to worship God.

So with Pascal’s Wager, you are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zippythepinhead]This is a very interesting article. Still, the Possibilians share the same problem as other permutations of athiests/agnostics: there is no future in it (at least not a good one). Why not spend your time studying reasons for faith in something with the promise of a payoff? Christianity, for example.[/quote]

Pascal’s Wager is a weak argument — essentially belief in God as a cost/benefit analysis. It states that belief costs nothing, yet the potential reward is infinite. There are a few problems with this argument:

* It presupposes that belief costs nothing. Considering what little time we have here in the real world, spending your limited hours worshiping/praying/churching is quite a big cost.

* What if you’re right that there is an afterlife but it turns out that you’ve spent your real life worshiping the wrong God and preparing for the wrong afterlife? What a bummer it would be if you spent your life as a Christian only to find out the Hindus had it right.

* Do you think that if God exists, he appreciates people believing in him simply to hedge their bets? This strikes me as quite an insincere way to worship God.

So with Pascal’s Wager, you are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zippythepinhead]This is a very interesting article. Still, the Possibilians share the same problem as other permutations of athiests/agnostics: there is no future in it (at least not a good one). Why not spend your time studying reasons for faith in something with the promise of a payoff? Christianity, for example.[/quote]

Pascal’s Wager is a weak argument — essentially belief in God as a cost/benefit analysis. It states that belief costs nothing, yet the potential reward is infinite. There are a few problems with this argument:

* It presupposes that belief costs nothing. Considering what little time we have here in the real world, spending your limited hours worshiping/praying/churching is quite a big cost.

* What if you’re right that there is an afterlife but it turns out that you’ve spent your real life worshiping the wrong God and preparing for the wrong afterlife? What a bummer it would be if you spent your life as a Christian only to find out the Hindus had it right.

* Do you think that if God exists, he appreciates people believing in him simply to hedge their bets? This strikes me as quite an insincere way to worship God.

So with Pascal’s Wager, you are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist.

[afx114]

[quote=zippythepinhead]This is a very interesting article. Still, the Possibilians share the same problem as other permutations of athiests/agnostics: there is no future in it (at least not a good one). Why not spend your time studying reasons for faith in something with the promise of a payoff? Christianity, for example.[/quote]

Pascal’s Wager is a weak argument — essentially belief in God as a cost/benefit analysis. It states that belief costs nothing, yet the potential reward is infinite. There are a few problems with this argument:

* It presupposes that belief costs nothing. Considering what little time we have here in the real world, spending your limited hours worshiping/praying/churching is quite a big cost.

* What if you’re right that there is an afterlife but it turns out that you’ve spent your real life worshiping the wrong God and preparing for the wrong afterlife? What a bummer it would be if you spent your life as a Christian only to find out the Hindus had it right.

* Do you think that if God exists, he appreciates people believing in him simply to hedge their bets? This strikes me as quite an insincere way to worship God.

So with Pascal’s Wager, you are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist.

[afx114]

Here’s an hour-long wonky talk titled “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss that covers some of these issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

If you’ve got the time and aren’t scared by lots of math and physics, it is a fascinating talk.

[afx114]

Here’s an hour-long wonky talk titled “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss that covers some of these issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

If you’ve got the time and aren’t scared by lots of math and physics, it is a fascinating talk.

[Author]

Posts