American Women

[QUOTE=Dickhead]IL, I am fine with you and don't feel personally insulted; it takes a lot to insult a Dickhead. I just find you somewhat contradictory. On the different handles, I just think it's a way to make it look like more people agree with you. I realize you are saying you didn't using them simultaneously. It's just when I found out you were Warbucks I said, hmm okay there really aren't two people out there who think this way.

"Another person has saved up an odd amount of $100,000s. He can live off the interest of that money but his retirement would be dependent on what national interest rates is and he has to pray like hell a tragedy doesn't strike and knock down that lump sum of money because then that means a lower interest return but this guy by all intents and purposes still does not have to work."

That was me until last fall, or anyway I thought I was real close. Sure glad I didn't retire. But I don't want to retire anyway especially given my job is such easy money and has such flexibility. I'd just turn into even worse of a drunk than I already am.

I don't really get early retirement. Look at baseball. Two schools of thought on that: retire at the top when you know your performance or motivation are slipping. Not too many of those any more but Sean Casey would be an example. The other school says, "make them rip the uniform off of you." Like Rickey Henderson. He always said he would play until nobody wanted him any more, and he did. I lean more towards that.

I mean, I doubt IL means he is going to retire at 31 and just pull his pud but men need to work. I have an ex-friend, college grad, perfectly healthy, ain't worked in ten years and just lets his fat AW wife support him. I finally couldn't be friends with him any more.

DJ you can crib with me if I got the space. Shoulda come last year when I was in the big house.[/QUOTE]

I just had to reply, I'll get to Clandestine in a min, I wanna make sure I have my facts straight...

Rickey Henderson is one of my all time MLB players, always talking in the 3rd person was always fun to listen too, best lead-off hitter to play the game period.

Sandberg retired at the top of his game, if your talking about modern day players.

I'm working on a South American plan now, I'll hatch something by the end of summer I think.

Sandberg, sort of:

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sandbry01.shtml?redir[/url]

He hit .238 and retired in mid-year and this is what he said:

"The reason I retired is simple: I lost the desire that got me ready to play on an everyday basis for so many years. Without it, I didn't think I could perform at the same level I had in the past, and I didn't want to play at a level less than what was expected of me by my teammates, coaches, ownership, and most of all, myself."

So that's exactly what I was talking about. Then he fucked it up by coming back for two sub-par seasons although the first one wasn't bad: 25 HR and 92 RBI but only a .244 average, way more strikeouts, and so forth. I actually was going to use him as an example until I remembered he had done this.

Especially not this crack ho:

[url]http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12731991[/url]

So now these two morons have their reputations ruined (Niwot is not a big town) and this ho has her face in the paper.

Or, prostitution could be legalized and this nonsense would never have happened, What a waste of taxpayers' money. And, of course, the waste of resources has only just begun with the hospital bill which I am guessing these fucks are not going to pay.

And furthermore none of these people's names and pictures should be in the paper since two are apparently victims and the other is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if one idiot is her wife, and if they drove to the hospital together, what is the chance of that happening? Bullshit and interviews and DA conferences, then bullshit and plea bargaining and lawyers (what do you think the chances the crack ho can pay a lawyer = public defender) and then some bullshit and probation and all with taxpayer money.

These kinky fuckers could go to Anchorena Swinger here in Buenos Aires and do all kinky shit they want for about a $17 cover charge, You Ess. Matter of fact they could probably all fly down here and do it for less than this little fuck up is going to cost them.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Sandberg, sort of:

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sandbry01.shtml?redir[/url]

He hit .238 and retired in mid-year and this is what he said:

"The reason I retired is simple: I lost the desire that got me ready to play on an everyday basis for so many years. Without it, I didn't think I could perform at the same level I had in the past, and I didn't want to play at a level less than what was expected of me by my teammates, coaches, ownership, and most of all, myself."

So that's exactly what I was talking about. Then he fucked it up by coming back for two sub-par seasons although the first one wasn't bad: 25 HR and 92 RBI but only a .244 average, way more strikeouts, and so forth. I actually was going to use him as an example until I remembered he had done this.[/QUOTE]

Actually Sandberg is an excellent example of the Modern Sports Athlete.

Jordan came back when many thought he shouldn't have and it would tarnish his legacy. In some respects it did, in others, some years later, do people in the public spear talk about his stint in Washington and the fact he like Glen Rice had turned into a Jump shooter because his slash and dash game wasn't there anymore?

We're talking about a player that avoided major injury for the majority of his career, he just didn't have the jump in this legs anymore at the end.

Let's face it, if your on the road 80+ days a year as a MLB player, former teammate Mark Grace said it best on Jim Rome years ago, when was explaining the term "Slump Busting". MLB players often have a woman or two in every town they visit, just like NBA and NFL players do.

He just got tired of being "Ryno" normal citizen and came back. You'll see more of that in the future as many players are wealthy beyond their dreams within their 2nd contract. Some just retire too soon...

I watched the All Star Game last season and I have been so deeply involved with College Football, NFL, NBA, European Road Racing and some NeckCAR the last 5-6 years, I hardly knew any of the players voted on the team.

Clandestine I have read "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins and wasn't surprised at all by what the United States has been doing in conjunction with the IMF and World Bank, especially in South America.

Why do you think there's this titanic shift to the left down there???

I like words and moving pictures, books take too long to read and I work too much, I think I need a Kindle 2...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96GLQ8bpew[/url] Part 1

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPJB0hnUDHA[/url] Part 2

I read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" too. Entertaining reading but a lot of bias involved. Just another guy sensationalizing an issue to make a buck. I am sure a lot of it is true but it's not well-researched or well-supported. A disgruntled ex-employee, albeit a bright and fairly credible one.

"He just got tired of being "Ryno" normal citizen and came back." Which is why I personally would take the Rickey/George Brunet/Warren Spahn/Pat Borders approach and play until I had absolutely pissed my last drop.

But actually, and to get back on the topic of [b]American Women[/b]:

[url]http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/story/2007/2/15/94017/8785[/url]

his [b]AW wife who was [i]fucking his teammates[/i] filed for divorce ten days after his (first) retirement[/b]. Man, fucking his teammates is just so very wrong on [b]both[/b] sides. Maybe even worse on his teammates' side. Some lines you just don't cross. So do ya think maybe just maybe he came back because he [b]needed the fucking money[/b]? Of course I am originally from Chicago so I remember this.

Sorry if this bursts a small little bubble for you bro. In fact he re-married the next year and "was encouraged by his family to un-retire."

[url]http://www.spokane.net/sports/SportsProfile_RSandberg.aspx[/url]

I probably don't need to translate that to you but it [b]could[/b] mean the second wife wanted to board the gravy train too.

Check it out! Getting married, I understand. Getting divorced, I understand. Getting married again, [b]why?[/b]

THIS shit:

[url]http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12738000[/url]

Furries? I admit that was a new one on me. Felching was bad enough.

[quote=djfourmoney]Clandestine I have read "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins and wasn't surprised at all by what the United States has been doing in conjunction with the IMF and World Bank, especially in South America.

Why do you think there's this titanic shift to the left down there???[/quote]
[url]http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/02/middle-class-income-inequality-technology-opinions-columnists-taxes.html?partner=popstories[/url]

Capital
Has Rising Inequality Destroyed The Middle Class?
Thomas F. Cooley, 06.03.09, 12:01 AM ET

Everyone is worried about the American middle class. The decline of the American worker, and thus the middle class, is a key trope in economic downturns, amplified by the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler and the loss of so many well-paid jobs in the manufacturing sector. For many commentators, this feels like the last straw. How much longer, they ask, can the U.S. weather the increasing gap between rich and poor without permanent damage to the social fabric?

But just how bad is it? One of the main problems in the debate is that opinions are advanced that are not backed by data. Interestingly enough--at least for an economist like me--the data tell a rather different kind of story.

Last year, someone sent me a book they thought would interest me. It was a good idea in principle, because the book dealt with labor markets and the plight of workers in the U.S. I looked forward to reading it, but it didn't take long before I threw it against the wall in exasperation. Instead of a data-driven analysis, it was a series of searing anecdotes about workplace injustice, low-paying, difficult jobs, bolstered by "facts" that were either incorrect or interpreted in a crazy way.

Clearly the individual costs of job loss, the tremendous difficulties of lives spent in poverty, should not be diminished. But anecdotes can't substitute for clear thinking.

One assertion in the book I just mentioned was that labor's share of the economic pie had sunk to its lowest level since 1929, with the companion assertion that corporations and CEOs were seizing a larger share of the economic pie for themselves, leaving labor greatly diminished. This is simply not true. Another assertion, this time true, is that American workers toil more hours per year than their French or German or other European counterparts. The author interprets this as evidence that our workers are being squeezed harder and that work is more brutal and demanding than it need be. That's not necessarily the case. A more orthodox--and to me, persuasive--explanation is that U.S. workers receive stronger incentives to work more hours.

Let's consider in more detail labor's share of the pie. This can be addressed using the National Income and Product Accounts. Despite the many emotional appeals to the contrary, it turns out that labor's share of output has remained remarkably constant at roughly 70% from 1950 through 2008. This calculation includes an estimate of the fraction of proprietors' income that is imputed to be labor income. (Slight variations in how one calculates it might lead to slightly different numbers but will not change the fact that has remained roughly constant for more than 50 years. There is some short-term variation over the business cycle, but no trend--and definitely not a decline. Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern has made similar observations in a number of papers.)

So, if labor's share isn't shrinking, what's going on? It's not the size of the share overall, but rather the inequality of distribution that has changed. Emmanuel Saez (this year's winner of the John Bates Clark award given to the best economist under 40) and Thomas Piketty have documented the evolution of income shares using data on income reported for tax purposes from 1913, when the federal income tax started, to 2006. Their data report the number of taxpayers and their total income and tax liability for a large number of income brackets. They combine this information with census and aggregate income data to show the evolution of incomes over time.

This is a wonderfully rich piece of work that will reward a careful reader. What emerges is a different kind of narrative that describes income changes of the top 10% relative to the bottom 90%. The share of income earned by the top 10% declined from a peak of nearly 50% in 1928, the height of the Roaring '20s, to a plateau of around 35% until about 1982. After that the share of the top 10% took off, reaching nearly 50% by 2006.

Even more interesting, as Saez's graph, below, demonstrates, is that it isn't even the top 10% but rather the top 1% where all of the action takes place.

0602_chart_565w.jpg

Now the narrative is less about the declining middle class and more about a gilded age of the super-rich. The middle feels as if it has lost ground because of the extraordinary wealth accumulated by the very, very few. But that suggests that the pie is a fixed size, and that is clearly not the case.

What triggered the gilded age of the late 20th century? There are extensive arguments in the literature about the impact of tax cuts, about extraordinarily high executive compensation in top management, and more. But the recent research does not seem to support these two as major causes. The most compelling argument for this dramatic increase in income has been technological change. Those with the human capital to take advantage of the new technology gained, and continue to gain, at the expense of those who don't have it. This is the "winner take all" phenomenon. In the 1920s, cutting- edge technology meant electrification. Hence the spike in income at the very top level. The fact that inequality has increased in most of the richest countries is also consistent with this explanation.

There is an important lesson for policy makers here. The psychic uncertainties triggered by perceived inequity need to be addressed because they can undermine the social consensus. But the public needs to be brought to an understanding that income growth is not a zero-sum game, and that participation can be expanded, based on investment in education and in human capital. Policies that stifle innovation in the interests of averting social discord are short-sighted in the extreme. On the contrary, greater innovation--and higher levels of educational investment--are what will prick the bubble of class envy.

Thomas F. Cooley, the Paganelli-Bull professor of economics and Richard R. West dean of the NYU Stern School of Business, writes a weekly column for Forbes. He is a contributor to a new book on the financial crisis entitled Restoring Financial Stability (Wiley, 2009).

[b]Here is an article on the point of the vanishing middle class (about which you gave no evidence other than a brief mention of having read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman.")

As for the reason that Latin America is shifting to the left: I would say that they have always been prisoners of their own stupidity. None of this is new. Instability and governments in a status of flux are the status quo there (1) and what makes you think this is any different to what has been that way for a long time (2). Why is Europe shifting to the right? Do you think that their wealth gap is getting any less?[/b]

I don't even think it's true that Latin America is "shifting to the left." It is wobbling randomly and cyclically from right to left as it has always done since the collapse of colonialism. Colonialism was a rigid and structured system and its collapse left a vacuum to be filled by opportunists and charlatans from both right and left who seized power when the opportunity presented itself. In doing they were arguably only trying to best provide for their families and loved ones, especially if future generations were to be considered.

Essentially most Latin American politicians both now and historically remind me of the Senegalese and Angolans selling fake watches on the streets of Buenos Aires. Say and do what you need to do to feed your family. The politicians just earn better wages due to starting from a higher socioeconomic level.

[QUOTE=Clandestine782]
Capital
Has Rising Inequality Destroyed The Middle Class?
Thomas F. Cooley, 06.03.09, 12:01 AM ET

Everyone is worried about the American middle class. The decline of the American worker, and thus the middle class, is a key trope in economic downturns, amplified by the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler and the loss of so many well-paid jobs in the manufacturing sector. For many commentators, this feels like the last straw. How much longer, they ask, can the U.S. weather the increasing gap between rich and poor without permanent damage to the social fabric?[/QUOTE]

I think the chart below sums up the fucked up nature of unbridled(lax regulations) American Capitalism.

Either way and while I don't think one book blows up any one train of thought, it does highlight some "problems" with American Policy outside of America.

Clan is from the "Sink or Swim" - "I got mine, go get yours" heavy lean toward Libertarianism mindset.

I can accept that I guess and when (not IF) we get a strong public option for health care since my current employee(rs) won't provide such benefits or I deem them too expensive considering wage cuts and tripling of stock price since the latest CEO took over (Mostly done on the backs of wage and hour cuts) last year.

Whatever the point is, it all ties into how AW act and many of them still want a "Free Ride" when they won't hold up their side of the agreement nor would they sympathize when hours are cut, benefits cut and wages are pushed down.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]THIS shit:

[url]http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12738000[/url]

Furries? I admit that was a new one on me. Felching was bad enough.[/QUOTE]
Dickhead, you've been in Argentina too long. Furry sex is big in the US. The fur can really fly at these furmeets. There was even a CSI episode featuring furry sex and violence complete with semen stained fur samples. These furries have orgies that take advantage of the anonymity provided by their costumes. You should look up some furries on your next visit to the US. You can dress up as a big red bull.

As for the story in the article, you'd have thought that the boy's mother would have figured things out when her son dressed up as a lamb and a 45 yr old woman in a cougar costume came by to pick him up.

Wow, thanks for enlightening me. That sounds awesome. I will be on the next plane back because most AWs would look way better if they were dressed up as a pig, rhinoceros, or hippopotamus.

Here is a picture of the woman in her pig costume:


[url]http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12738000[/url]

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Here is a picture of the woman in her pig costume:


[url]http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12738000[/url][/QUOTE]
Quite realistic! I could not even tell that she was in a costume. Lots of American guys could be banging furries everyday without even knowing it.

I have to say after having lived almost a year in Colombia now, I find many things about the USA more "third world" than here. You couldn't drag me back kicking and screaming at this point. I really don't get what people like so much about the US. I just thing they are delusional and seeing things as they were a long time ago.

I find it really silly the way people can point accusing fingers at people on here "well, YOU only make $2k a month so your opinion can't possibly be worth anything".... does anybody actually BELIEVE that?