The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are we financially literate? > Comments

Are we financially literate? : Comments

By Everald Compton, published 12/5/2014

Should governments protect the vulnerable, the greedy and the reckless?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
Q..OTE..<<..the near four decades post deregulation hosting two stock market crashes,..SARS/BIRD/SWINE-flue..the Dot Com Bubble,..Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC...>>

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

>>So show us..what you KNOW<<
<<..What I know...is that correlation..does not imply
*causation, and that all generalizations are false.>>

causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)
Causation is the "causal relationship
between conduct and result".

That is to say that causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt.

Causation is only applicable where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria.

It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning.[citation needed] Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements. As such, they are the essential basis of all valid deductive inferences. The process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.

The concept of generalization has broad application in many related disciplines, sometimes having a specialized context or meaning.Of any two related concepts, such as A and B, A is a "generalization" of B, and B is a special case of A, if and only if* every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and* there are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 15 May 2014 3:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Pericles, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance which is what I said. "Shareholders" per se, are those that buy stock from the stock market. Insurance companies that were "mutual", transferred their allegiance from policyholders to shareholders when they demutualized and listed themselves on the stock market.

And all you've said is nothing. If you have a theory as to why there have been 5 major financial crises since deregulation, spit it out. Being a naysayer is not proof, it's just being a naysayer. If you actually knew the answer, I'm sure you'd be pointing it out, but your complete lack of substantiation infers that you know nothing other than your own household budget, and what you read from "experts" that fit your preconceived ideas. Life doesn't come from a book, a newspaper article or a blog, it comes from the living of it and the experience learned.

So again, what qualifies you to "know", outside of being an armchair expert?
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Thursday, 15 May 2014 4:18:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In his latest article, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, “The Fed is the great deceiver.” Why is he making this shocking accusation? The reason is tiny Belgium’s whopping purchase of $141 billion in Treasury bonds earlier this year.
http://usawatchdog.com/fed-laundering-treasury-purchases-in-belgium-to-disguise-whats-happening-paul-craig-roberts/

Dr. Roberts explains, “We know that Belgium didn’t have any money to buy $141 billion worth of bonds over a three month period. That sum comes to 29% of the Belgium GDP. So, they don’t have a surplus in their budget that is 29% of their GDP, and they don’t have trade or current account surplus in that amount.

In fact, everything is in the red. Their budget deficit is in the red, and their trade and current accounts are in the red. So, Belgium didn’t have the money, and yet, they managed to pick up $141.2 billion in U.S. Treasuries over a three month period.

So, where did they get the money?”
ctd at link.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2r1XyX/www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057/

i seem to recall..an offer was made..to buy up auto clubs
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 15 May 2014 6:47:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You want the answer to life the universe and everything in 350 words, Dick?

>>And all you've said is nothing. If you have a theory as to why there have been 5 major financial crises since deregulation, spit it out. Being a naysayer is not proof, it's just being a naysayer. If you actually knew the answer, I'm sure you'd be pointing it out, but your complete lack of substantiation infers that you know nothing other than your own household budget, and what you read from "experts" that fit your preconceived ideas.<<

What I was reacting to was your cornflake-packet wisdom, presented as fact. Insight that was not only trite in the extreme, but patently careless in its use of example and analogy. Many quite powerful brains have been working on the problem for years, and to have their efforts discarded in such a cavalier way - even by a talent as great as yours - is more than a little insulting to them.

I don't share your absolute certainty that the various upheavals we have witnessed in the post-war world economy have a single root cause. But if you have a favourite economist who supports your "it was the free market wot dunnit" theory, then by all means point us to the evidence itself, so that we can discuss it intelligently.

(Just for the record, the word you wanted is "implies", not "infers".)
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 15 May 2014 6:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy