If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Can you put a date on that. Since it seems to be the world's reserve currency, the date would be helpful.
The real problem is the Euro, in my opinion.
Hi Gary
Here's a link that refers to a prediction that in 10 years, U.S. entitlement programs (like social security benefits, medicare and medicaid) will run dry:
Gosh, I haven't been called an egghead since the 1950's!
I was thinking more of ECONOMISTS as the eggheads, the guys I thought you were patterning your second post of this thread's page 2 upon. Anyway, I leave the exact details of economic policy to a future Iced Tea Party convention, where we do welcome people with heads of all shapes and sizes :).
But there is no amount of "debt" that can drive a sovereign country with a sovereign currency into bankruptcy. Indeed, have you noticed that, for example, there are no international bankruptcy courts? We can default on our debts if we desire to, but there is never any necessity to do so.
See my reply to Gary above concerning what may happen south of the border. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Here's a link that refers to a prediction that in 10 years, U.S. entitlement programs (like social security benefits, medicare and medicaid) will run dry:
But you were mentioning bankruptcy. In the meantime when bad things happen around the world people want to hold the U.S. dollar. Before the problem with the Euro started our dollar was at about par with the U.S. dollar. Today it's only worth around 94 cents. (It's always a moving target so I use the approximation.) That's around 6 percent our dollar has lost in such a short time.
I seem to recall Tom and I had this discussion regarding entitlements here in Canada. Health care, pensions, etc. Since then, the taxes, up they've gone. Today we start paying the HST here in Ontario. Megabucks for government. B.C. is doing the same thing. The kicker isn't those government expect to be re-elected. It's that they likely will be re-elected.
A good round of worldwide inflation would probably solve government problems. The secret was always to borrow in todays hard dollars and pay back in tomorrows soft dollars.
Of course, it's easy to point to California but that's a different thing in that they have Arnie for governor. I was reading somewhere they got into increasingly large taxation for business. As a result, businesses loaded the machinery on ships and took the machinery to China where they get lower wages and taxes. I'm reading there's at least one large paper company in B.C. which is thinking of doing this. It makes sense because China is a customer and they would be using their workers to make the product they are buying.
But you were mentioning [the U.S. going bankrupt; when?]
Sorry, I surfed a bit and have yet to come up with a projected date the U.S. would go bankrupt if they continued on a similar path that they've been on.
Meanwhile, here's a link to a newspaper article that talks about countries that HAVE gone bankrupt, and that states that, yes, the U.S. can go bankrupt too:
Meanwhile, here's a link to a newspaper article that talks about countries that HAVE gone bankrupt, and that states that, yes, the U.S. can go bankrupt too:
When you see words like "can, might, expect, etc", they are called forward looking statements. Normally companies which give projections have a disclaimer for forward looking statements. These also include expectation of future events or future earnings. Watch for forward looking words in articles you read and soon they will jump out at you like your chess opponents blunders.
I don't expect the U.S. to go bankrupt. Doesn't mean it won't happen but it's not my expectation. I think the Eurozone could (note the forward looking wording) fall apart. The Eurozone is as strong as its weakest link and some of the nations are having problems. It's not only Greece. Personally, I would prefer U.S. currency to both the Euro and Canadian Dollar. Of course, with the U.S. dollar I'd pick my spots for buying it.
If you believe you know a different 'truth', provide an informative link please.
Your beliefs about budgets are not truths, they are illusions for a state with a fiat currency, such as Canada. Now, having called me an egghead, you ask me for evidence! Well I will nevertheless supply some:
But I warn you, that to understand it you will have to do some actual thinking, and that might take away from some of your chess thinking time.
Would you run such an apparently unneccessarily LARGE deficit voluntarily, like the present Canadian gov't, at this time?
There is never any economic or financial need for a sovereign state with a fiat currency to run a deficit budget. Provinces in Canada, not being currency sovereign, must run deficits if they are unwilling to levy sufficient taxes or cut services. Canada, as a sovereign nation with a fiat currency, has no need to do that ever.
On the other hand there is no condition under which a sovereign state with a fiat currency cannot manage it's financial deficit. Financial deficits are unimportant, and only distract people from the real physical deficits that can and do occur and cannot be paid back. Such as our current deficit of oil, to name only one example.
I was thinking more of ECONOMISTS as the eggheads
Actually, as has been pointed out before, we are all largely ruled by dead economists. As the economy is the one thing that largely determines how well or poorly most of us live, why wouldn't we study it? And what would we call those who study the economy but "economists"? Alas, economics is still mostly a pseudoscience, but there are a few rational ones, such as the one who does the blogs I listed above.
See my reply to Gary above concerning what may happen south of the border. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.
It will not happen south of the border or anywhere else for any financial reason. That's simple a fairy story.
Your beliefs about budgets are not truths, they are illusions for a state with a fiat currency, such as Canada. Now, having called me an egghead, you ask me for evidence! Well I will nevertheless supply some:
But I warn you, that to understand it you will have to do some actual thinking, and that might take away from some of your chess thinking time.
There is never any economic or financial need for a sovereign state with a fiat currency to run a deficit budget. Provinces in Canada, not being currency sovereign, must run deficits if they are unwilling to levy sufficient taxes or cut services. Canada, as a sovereign nation with a fiat currency, has no need to do that ever.
On the other hand there is no condition under which a sovereign state with a fiat currency cannot manage it's financial deficit. Financial deficits are unimportant, and only distract people from the real physical deficits that can and do occur and cannot be paid back. Such as our current deficit of oil, to name only one example.
Actually, as has been pointed out before, we are all largely ruled by dead economists. As the economy is the one thing that largely determines how well or poorly most of us live, why wouldn't we study it? And what would we call those who study the economy but "economists"? Alas, economics is still mostly a pseudoscience, but there are a few rational ones, such as the one who does the blogs I listed above.
It will not happen south of the border or anywhere else for any financial reason. That's simple a fairy story.
Thank you for your links.
To make it clear, I was not thinking of you as the egghead, but rather your opinion that was based on that of your source(s). I hope you weren't being intentionally rude either when you referred to the Iced Tea Party as 'the blind' ;).
The first link of yours makes it clear that it's tricky stuff to explain to the layman. The Iced Tea Party is still on the ground floor, and I am looking for a potential minister of finance besides my brother :). Some of the info in my link that I provided for wikipedia's entry concerning budget deficit does appear to be contradicted by your 'expert'. At least my apparent 'misconception' of a federal budget deficit always affecting the federal debt adversely may not be mine alone, if your expert does indeed know all his stuff.
Do your sources explain what happened with a country like Iceland, which went bankrupt (see my previous post, meant for Gary)?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
To make it clear, I was not thinking of you as the egghead, but rather your opinion that was based on that of your source(s). I hope you weren't being intentionally rude either when you referred to the Iced Tea Party as 'the blind' ;).
lol! - I didn't know or notice, but you seem to be an economist! :)
I'll have to inspect this thread again when I visit my chess playing ecomomist friend as usual on a tuesday night. We normally don't talk about his work much.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The Iced Tea Party is still on the ground floor, and I am looking for a potential minister of finance besides my brother :).
Actually, I am of course being a bit facetious about creating an Iced Tea Party. Who knows though, someone may take the ITP platform, along with some of the ideas in this thread, and run with it.
If it were up to me, I'd want the country to be run by biblical principles (NOT necessarily the way the old Reform Party would do it). However that might get way fewer votes in a chesstalk poll :(. So when in Rome...
There is at least one such principle which might co-incide with the ITP platform, though. That would be to think about applying the advice to pay off one's debts first (as an individual) to Canada's Federal gov't.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The first link of yours makes it clear that it's tricky stuff to explain to the layman. The Iced Tea Party is still on the ground floor, and I am looking for a potential minister of finance besides my brother :). Some of the info in my link that I provided for wikipedia's entry concerning budget deficit does appear to be contradicted by your 'expert'. At least my apparent 'misconception' of a federal budget deficit always affecting the federal debt adversely may not be mine alone, if your expert does indeed know all his stuff.
Do your sources explain what happened with a country like Iceland, which went bankrupt (see my previous post, meant for Gary)?
There was no bankruptcy. Iceland made a strategic move for political reasons, not financial ones. And it was not "bankruptcy" in any sense of the word, that's simply hyperbole. Actually it worker out rather well for them since their economy is doing reasonably well compared to other similarly sized economies in the European zone. The ones that are trying "austerity" and "balanced budgets" are doing far worse.
What they actually happened in Iceland was nothing like a bankruptcy. Their private sector banks heavily over invested in dubious financial instruments which went bust, and then could not cover their losses. So they asked the government to bail them out, but their government refused.
The European Union then stepped in and bailed out the banks on their own for their own reasons, and then attempted to charge their bailout to Iceland, which had nothing to do directly with the problem. And when the government of the day tried to get their populace to agree to this extortion, the citizens refused, quite rightly.
So to punish Iceland for their temerity the Europeans withdrew all credit and the government defaulted on this so-called "debt" on the instructions of their citizens. And it's all worked out rather nicely from a financial viewpoint for Iceland.
That's a simplified version, but to call it a "bankruptcy" is nonsensical spin to mislead the credulous.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Friday, 2nd July, 2010, 10:30 AM.
Those who still worry about Government debt should read this article.
In the United States the total indebtedness of the private sector dwarfs government debt. In fact, the total debt of financial companies, the total net debt of individual households, and the total net debt of non financial private businesses, ALL exceed the government's indebtedness as a percentage of the GDP.
Since Government can pay off all it's debts directly without increasing taxation, while the private sectore can't, it is the debt of the private sector that is much more onerous, and yet it is being completely ignored by the deficit hawks.
There was no bankruptcy. Iceland made a strategic move for political reasons, not financial ones. And it was not "bankruptcy" in any sense of the word, that's simply hyperbole. Actually it worker out rather well for them since their economy is doing reasonably well compared to other similarly sized economies in the European zone. The ones that are trying "austerity" and "balanced budgets" are doing far worse.
What they actually happened in Iceland was nothing like a bankruptcy. Their private sector banks heavily over invested in dubious financial instruments which went bust, and then could not cover their losses. So they asked the government to bail them out, but their government refused.
The European Union then stepped in and bailed out the banks on their own for their own reasons, and then attempted to charge their bailout to Iceland, which had nothing to do directly with the problem. And when the government of the day tried to get their populace to agree to this extortion, the citizens refused, quite rightly.
So to punish Iceland for their temerity the Europeans withdrew all credit and the government defaulted on this so-called "debt" on the instructions of their citizens. And it's all worked out rather nicely from a financial viewpoint for Iceland.
That's a simplified version, but to call it a "bankruptcy" is nonsensical spin to mislead the credulous.
I brought up this thread again primarily in case the boat loads of people who have illegally come, and will be heading, our way (no doubt of necessity refuelling, resupplying, and gaining fresh passengers at sea) might persuade anyone else to vote vote for the Iced Tea party platform (Btw I heard of a real movement, perhaps lead in my city, to have a Canadian Tea Party).
Regarding the quote above, I did also mention in this thread the following:
"I didn't know or notice, but you (Ed Seedhouse) seem to be an economist!
I'll have to inspect this thread again when I visit my chess playing ecomomist friend as usual on a tuesday night. We normally don't talk about his work much."
Against my better judgement, I'll give some old feedback on this thread (while it was still hot) I had from my economist friend here in Ottawa (who's been an Economics professor at times, and works for the Federal Competition Bureau).
He is Icelandic, and reads articles direct from Iceland. The bankruptcy of Iceland (that's what he calls it) involved Icelandic banks doing things that were fraudulent (btw it was the sort of think his Bureau watches out for, and, to add my two cents, the lack of bank regulation in the US greatly contributed to the 2008 worldwide collapse, as opposed to some of the [Iced Tea approved] things mentioned earlier that ED apparently thought brought about the collapse instead). After the collapse, in spite of what Ed says, Icelanders are largely still not doing well at all.
As for a number of Ed's posts throughout this thread, my friend thought that, in spite of their being copious, they exhibited a lack of knowledge.
What can I say, I'm not an economist, so I don't have much of a clue who's right, and about what. As one jokester put it to me, God created mountains, then the devil responded with valleys. God made an economist, then, after a pause, the devil responded with another economist. :)
All I know is, a politician doen't have to be an expert on everything, if he has good advisors. I took much of the (tentative) Iced Tea Party platform from apparent common sense, sprinkled with conservative talk radio and kitchen table talk with my family. Future advisors can refine the platform, should a Canadian (Iced) Tea Party actually take root. I happened to get drawn into a discussion of economics, which isn't my strength or profession.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I posted what follows on my CFC Discussion Board blog around a year ago. It was originally a virtually identical platform to what I gave in my first post of this chesstalk thread. This CFC blog entry has received 56,636 views to date, the vast majority before I added five indicated updates (see below). Also, this blog entry currently shows up second on the first page of results when I do a Google search (it was originally titled Hypothetical political platform, in attempting to gain more views).
Updated version 6.0 of hypothetical political platform.
The following is based on an old chesstalk forum post of mine:
Below is a hypothetical platform for a fictional Iced Tea Party of Canada, based on my political leanings. Viewers might ask themselves: would they vote for such a party?
Platform for the Iced Tea Party of Canada:
We have 5 goals to improve Canada for its citizens, as listed below in strictly descending order of priority:
1. Improve the Economy (Reduce the Debt, Grow Jobs, Build Manufacturing Base and Research and Development in Canada);
2. Improve the Environment (Reduce or Combat Pollution);
3. Improve Society (Reduce Crime, Fight Addictions, Improve Education & Health Services where not Provincial matters involved, Tighten Immigration, Move away from Multi-Culturalism to Integration like American ideal, Give better tax incentives to have families);
4. Improve Culture (Give Incentives to have world class cities, artists, chefs, writers, poets, film-makers, playwrights, athletics, chessplayers, etc. in Canada when affordable);
5. Improve Canada's Stature Internationally (return to Peacekeeping role, except only if we/NATO are attacked, Host world summits and sports events, and contribute more foreign aid, when affordable).
[first update: Below is a link to an old chesstalk thread where I first proposed a virtually identical hypothetical platform to the above one, including a poll about it that received a limited response, and with ensuing discussion of that similar platform.]
[second update: To be clear, the fictional Iced Tea Party of Canada would be based on a certain amount of admiration for the Tea Party in the United States. The fictional Iced Tea Party of Canada, if it would ever be in power, would be socially and fiscally conservative, and, as true conservatives, would prefer the size of government to be small.]
[third update: In line with the contents of the second update, and the five point platform at the start, the fictional Iced Tea Party would in any budget not run a deficit, normally not increase taxes, and it would eliminate some of the national debt, all while balancing the budget. In addition, there would be prioritized spending (or be the most minimal of any cutting) involving at least the following federal departments or agencies, which the party thinks are most key to improving the economy, or alternatively to improving the environment (otherwise, the party would look for ways to decrease the size of government in general, or else to improve the following departments or agencies):
A. Industry Canada;
B. Business Development Bank of Canada;
C. Infrastructure Canada;
D. Transport Canada;
E. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council;
F. National Research Council;
G. Environment Canada.]
[fourth update: Similarly, the following key departments or agencies would be next in priority for spending (or the least cutting) in any fictional Iced Tea Party budget, again taking into account the five point platform above.]
H. Foreign Affairs and International Trade;
I. Department of Justice;
J. Health Canada;
K. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council;
L. Department of Canadian Heritage;
M. National Defence;
N. Veterans Affairs Canada.
Below is a link that describes the structure of the federal government at the moment, for those wishing to see for themselves what they might want prioritized, or changed.]
[fifth update: Given the great practical difficulties of trying to change the constitution of Canada in a big way, at least all at once (as demonstrated by the failed attempts of Meech Lake and Charlettown, for example), the fictional Iced Tea Party of Canada sees making constutional changes by way of federal referendum questions as an attractive (though perhaps much slower) solution to national issues that may need to be addressed over time via such changes. Below is a link outlining what would be involved in such a process (which has been used before, though seldom). Certainly our party would be interested in having constitutional experts look for such means for the Canadian populace to vote on moving away from mandatory or enforced aspects of multi-culturalism.]
Tweet
Comment