Discussion in 'Overtime: Off-Topic Discussion' started by reznick, Jun 14, 2011.
not in reznicks world.. and as we all now know, hes an expert on the subject.
I think he misunderstands...that say a trust fund baby may get 50k a month or something every month and it may add up into millions that rich person is a dumbass who doesnt have to worry coz granddaddy owned a string of skyscrapers generating millions a year in income....those people do exist but even if they accounts was cleaned out they still getting they 50k a month no matter what lol they just dumb spoiled and dont know how to invest or ever feel they need to....
Everyone else who gets rich knows how hard it was and go to great lengths to protect it...
rather than 100million in the bank, rich people would rather get 300k a month for the rest of their life, to get that means investing 100million over the course of your working life, smartly tho....
No your right, most people do not keep big money in bank accounts.
Some people also split their savings into increments among several banks, some simply don't. People with big money, like you said, mostly invest it in bonds/stocks rather than sitting in an account.
You guys are right, the FDIC repayment aspect of the run on the banks is not exactly a detrimental part of this chain reaction meltdown, other than the banks closing down. I spoke on assumption, but after looking more into this specific event, I have to say I spoke too hastily.
Although many people would still be screwed over directly from run on the banks and not getting all their money back, the rippling effect of big banks shutting down on entangling relationships is why there would be a world wide economic collapse.
so you agree you've been making assumptions and upon further inquiry have grasped the concept more fully and realize you were wrong... but then you continue on to stake claim that your initial point is still valid, even though your understanding of the mechanics has been wrong this entire time?
i got nothing.
I WILL JUST RE POST THIS
HAHA to say nothing happen dead. You right that was an indication of nothing to come eyerate. There was no response in the market from that (lehman brothers)
chicken/egg.. you truly KNOW dickall about any of this. lehman failing had no major lasting effects on anything.. anything that wasnt entangled with lehmans bad business, anyway.
are you trying to tell me lehman failing was more detrimental to the dollar than tarp?
This. Argument is OVER.
(I just wanted to see if I was understanding you correctly) but that short sentence just hit the nail.
I cant take you seriously, dude I'm studying Physics and I know for a fact what science is capable of. However, you're implying that science will overrule political/social/psychological culture and that's where you have to GROW UP, dude it's not all unicorns, rainbows, and shit. The sad thing is that reality is gonna kick you in the ass one day, yes science is there to help BUT if it's not beneficial to make a profit then businesses wont bother even investing in it c'mmon now. Remember stem cell research? It's STILL a heated debated regardless of how much it would benefit us. Get real
so there was no reaction from what happen to lehman ?I am not even talking about the dollar.
No, I said that for the particular subject of FDIC repayments being a detrimental aspect of the economic collapse, I was wrong.
Don't worry, I don't expect your brain capacity to handle such a complex human action.
I'm secure enough to admit when I'm wrong, even though it's not 100% wrong, while you make stupid comments like "We didn't bail out the .coms, and there was no depression," and then totally ignore the fact that you said it after you look like an idiot for saying it.
Good for you Mr. Physics.
Because Ray Kurzweil, IBM founder & co-founder, White House CIO, and pretty much any reputable name in the technology field will tell you without hesitation that we are on the brink of a huge technological growth explosion.
lmao at studying physics. Name one relevant aspect of studying physics to technological growth lol
You want to put up a serious argument? Instead of "I've been on the planet for 25 years, and I know exactly what is and isn't realistic in the future," try countering the DATA, and LOGIC of people like Kurzweil's argument.
Counter the logic of Hans Rosling's DATA, and GRAPHS, and NUMBERS.
Until then, please continue humoring yourself with your talk of unicorns and physics.
lol @ physics not being relevent to technology growth lmao HAHAHAHAHA hehehehe Hoohohohohohoh
This isnt real is it???
I can tell you without theoretical physics ASIC and SoC Chip design wouldnt be making the strides it is today....
I mean I suppose once we understand DNA fully we wont need to worry about Chemistry or Biology anymore right?? I mean DNA will solve all the problems we have in understand WHY things react the way they do with each other and such....Making a super fast microchip will suddenly mean that we understand all forms of physics and ways the universe works because the chip will tell us lol
One thing you gotta accept...machines dont program themselves...and to say "one day they will" well, someone will have to program that first one wont they, machines and technology only does we tell it to do and no more....
Complex algorithms can fool you into thinking 'artificial intelligence' but thats all it is...a trick...
Im in the technology field....our company just got bought by Qualcomm (my Uncle has just become even richer lol) because our Chip Design IP is on some next generation type shit....and Im telling you, physics and chemistry are two of the most important fields for us...
we can develop IP but without a chemistry expert figuring out how to manufacture our ideas, we cant move along....so we can on paper and in our tools make chips small and this and that but theoretical always encounters problems in the physical...
Now your just TRYING to have an argument about nothing.
If you say you are studying physics, and therefor have more knowledge of the feasibility of technological growth than the founders and the execs of IBM, you may have a damaged brain
Again, the opposition of the idea of tech growth never address the logic and DATA of the reasoning behind it.
You know there was a time when it was a FACT that Earth was the center of the universe. It fucked a lot of people's minds up when they realized it wasn't the case, and people were burned at the stake for bringing for the scientific data that proved it wasnt the case. But life moved on now didn't it. Jut like it will when you realize your brain is just a super complex array of Neurons and circuits. Something that will be recreated in mere decades.
Viacom should be elected president.
Have you ever met a CEO of a big company like IBM?? lol I have...they are not some magical beings you know, they are often wrong too...
We double the number of gates on a chip or half its size...but what do we do about power?? how does Moore's law affect power and heat Mr. Genius??
Moore's law isnt something magical....we've had areoplanes for hundred years why are they not that far advanced??
We got kids in Africa that have access to automobiles their grandparents couldnt dream of...so?? what has that done for them?? Sure he has a phone and access to information but how does that make him any smarter or well adjusted or any less starving coz the rain hasnt come??
That smartphone feeds people does it?? I mean why not its technology so surely the tech for making a phone is the same as the tech for creating food from thin air lmao
Your a fucking idiot on all counts...
WTF are you studying at school? we know its not economics, we know its not any science or technology.....Communications perhaps?? lmao
No..it was never a fact coz it was never true...
I'm a fucking dolphin, that's a fact. Prove I'm lying.
If you trying to raise a philosophical point then its kind of a lame one....
I dont have to prove a negative anyway...you have to prove the affirmative..
And i stopped giving a fuck right about there
Yeah cuz Physics has NO significant value to electronics/conduction/engineering
Separate names with a comma.