Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Prices are sky rocketing!!!

Tags:
  • Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
February 2, 2010 6:29:39 PM

Holy $$$$, prices, are sky rocketing! 80gb Intel SSD g2 drive was 215, in November, it's 300 today on New egg.

I was buying some crucial memory, the price jumped up $30 from saturday, that's 2 days $30 increase on 4gb kit, that's insane.

WTF? I understand supply and demand!!!! But let's demand this sticker shock stop!!!! We are only starting to come out of a recession now!!! They keep hitting my wallet like this, I'm going to do my part so we go right back in!!!

More about : prices sky rocketing

February 2, 2010 6:38:11 PM

Quote:
We are only starting to come out of a recession now!!!


pfffff.....you think we are coming out of resession now? ha..keep dreaming.
I wouldn't be surprised if it gets worse then this. Do you live here in the United States?
Score
0
February 2, 2010 6:52:35 PM

Yes, I mean from a business standpoint, businesses are reporting positive returns now, ... does that mean we are coming out of a recession, well ... from the technical meaning of the word yes, as in our economy will grow as opposed shrinking, as technically a recession is I believe is 2 straight quarters of negative economic growth. From that regard, our economy is no longer retracting, and the job cut rate has decreased although we are still losing jobs. Kind of what was a flood is now a trickle, but that's not mean the sun is coming out just yet and we are heading to the beach, but atleast the ground is drying. Also, housing prices are finally starting to climb.

The main dent is the unemployment, which topped 10%, and that's not going to reach pre-recession levels for several years, we are talking 3 to 6. One of the main factors, is communications, companies have heavily outsourced jobs, and it's not just call centers now, many administrative and even middle management jobs are going over seas, because, simply put emerging markets are cheaper, because, well their markets are emerging. And communication advances have allowed that. So, unlike, previous recessions, jobs lost are not going 2 likely be replaced.

The US as a whole needs new industries for job growth. we've given up manufacturing in the 70's, and it seems we are giving up services in 2000's, so ... what's left to base your economy? I guess we could all go into farming.

But to answer your question, yes, I'm in the US. And the recession for the common folk isn't over and it's going to be for sometime. But then again,we didn't get here over night, this is compound of many decisions over many decades coming to a head, sort of a perfect storm.
Score
0
Related resources
February 2, 2010 9:33:04 PM

"compound of many decisions over many decades coming to a head, sort of a perfect storm."
In a more simple manner, its just a result of liberal made government banks like freddie and fannie who let poor folks get in over thier head with homes they couldn't afford. And the growing market is just a result from an artifical injection of printed unbacked-up stimulus money which will cause inflation and can result in even worse recessions down the road. But i don't want to get into a political debate here because after all its a hardware forum lol :) 
Score
0
February 2, 2010 9:49:11 PM

Newegg is a bad place to look for pricing trends. They alter their prices based on stock on hand, meaning a price increase on Newegg may just show you they have low inventory. Just to exemplify this: Newegg is currently at the high range of pricing on the web based on Google Products ($290), Amazon has the same drive for $256.26 in the same results, the lowest price is $228.

Shop around... or wait for Newegg to get more in stock, they are not shy about the fact that their pricing model contains adjustments for their stock on hand.
Score
0
February 2, 2010 9:58:05 PM

Prices of older RAM is getting hight, for example in september ddr2 800 4gb was 89.99....not 120-130.
Score
0
February 2, 2010 9:58:45 PM

now*
Score
0
February 2, 2010 10:26:46 PM

I'm glad I stocked up on RAM last spring... 4x2GB for $90. I just checked and the same sticks are now $110 for 2x2GB... $220 if I wanted 8GB today. Ouch!
Score
0
February 2, 2010 10:31:22 PM

Newegg is not the cheapest ... look up your local MicroCenter store.. I have bought tons of stuff from there sometimes up to 40% cheaper then new egg. I bought my Q6600 the newer stepping too for $165 from MicroCenter while the same processor at newegg was around $220
Score
0
February 3, 2010 10:55:00 PM

Quote:
"compound of many decisions over many decades coming to a head, sort of a perfect storm."
In a more simple manner, its just a result of liberal made government banks like freddie and fannie who let poor folks get in over thier head with homes they couldn't afford. And the growing market is just a result from an artifical injection of printed unbacked-up stimulus money which will cause inflation and can result in even worse recessions down the road. But i don't want to get into a political debate here because after all its a hardware forum lol :) 


NOt really, it's not liberal or conservative, the issue is that our economics are reactionary to the fundamental flaw in capitalism, greed, as with any system too much of any one element is bad, capitalism is profit motive based, so the market as trend looks a strictly quarterly concerns. Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac are not new entities, Fannie Mae was created in 1933, to provide liquidity to housing markets, because of the great depression, Freddie Mac came along in the 60's, both are GSO (government sponsored organizations) neither was actually government owned until after this latest melt down- contrary to popular belief. Actually, our government owns very little, they rely mostly on private sector contractors, aside from USPS (and for securitiy reasons) the government operates very few companies- contrary to the idea of our government or country as liberal we are far from it compared to democratic nations (although we are technically a republic, not a democracy), anyway back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 2008 was not the first implosion of the banking system, banking is our number 1 profit motive driven endeavor, as such it easily can take down our economy when profits stop. In the '30's there was a complete cash freeze, banks had no money as they had been as usual trying to make money on the stock markets with the money they collect- your deposits, and lost most everyones money (that's why your money is Federally insured now up to a point). So, anyway, the government created Fannie Mae, to provide liquadity so people who could buy homes could get loans, but the government didn't want to get into the lending business (again you think your government is liberal it's really not), so, what they did was sponsor a company which basically buys the loans from banks, this way, banks could make loans but don't have to sit around waiting 30 years, to collect their money, because if banks really can't afford to wait on money that long, and interest rates would go sky high, which would again slow economic growth.

So, back to the point, Freddie came along in the 60's same as Fannie, to spread out the business, so one company didn't basically get all the benefits, avoid (AIG) situations (2 big 2 fail), because they are after all a private company, although, people think of Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC as government owned they were not. So, many of the policies we lived by until the 80's were new deal endeavors, actually, even Medicare which was proposed in the 40's and finally passed in the 60's, was a response, to turmoil of the 30's, through no fault of ordinary people but banks, the economy collapsed and the nation felt that something needed to be done, so government steped in, and it was the right decision in that case. Anyway, fast forward to the 80's, and Reagan, was Reagan a great president yes, and no, Reaganomics makes no sense (trickle down) economically, but idealogically i.e. appeals to conservatives, but it's an idealogical debate not an actual economic debate, nor did laissez-faire capitalism, too much of anything is bad, namely the inherent trend of capitalism toward greed, so a trend towards deregulation, repeal of 30's legislation started, we get S&L scandal, black friday '87 crash, and so on ... these things should have been warnings they weren't, give the banking industry enough lee-way and they will screw everyone, or rather give people with enough money and power and they will screw everyone, because, well they'll be fine regardless.

Here's a note, you think you are have, you aren't, unless your family has some serious generational wealth, to be honest your opinion conservative or liberal makes no difference. But back to banking. In the early 90's there was a big push to loosen the requirements on what loans Freddie and Fannie could purchase, although, they were private owned they have more government oversight being (GSO's). Banks wanted the rules changed so they could , well, sell more loans, as their consumer pool was dwindling, and the government bought it great more people could get homes, ... that in itself, not all that bad by itself. Because, there was still a limit to how much damage they could do, because, Fannie and Freddie only buy a portion of loans to begin, many many many more are sold markets (well that's where things were going). By 1999 the banking industry pushed to repeal "Glass-Steagal Act" from the 30's basically it seperated consumer lending, insurance, and investment banking ... basically, this document kept the banking industry from bringing down the economy as they did in the 30's, they couldn't just go investing your money on the market, willy nilly, but after that repeal, they could. Enter mid-2000's and banking has come up with the derivates market, mortgage backed securities, and other exotic financial instruments. Ok, the storm is brewing, interest rates had been lowered dramatically ... the Fed again was setup in 1900's to address the problem of Banks had tooo much pull on the economy and lacked liquidity at certain times, could set the economy in panic mode. So, as a response, .com bubble, and then 9/11 interest rates had steady been lowered, taxes were cut, to promote growth ... etc ... so all those investors eventually shifted to housing with cheap rates, crazy loans backed by crazy financial instruments, and booooooommmmm ... the storm is perfect. Banking didn't care they warned in the late 90's, as they got more freedom to do XYZ, because, greed, profit driven, ... the collapse was not caused by sub-prime loans or people simply getting loans they couldn't afford, in fact, to the contrary the sub-prime market was quite lucrative, it still only made up a fraction of loans though ... the issue came when some market investors started looking at the derivatives, mortgage securities, ... and then credit default swaps and said, huh ... what the h*ll are these things, and what are they worth. Give me my money. The gravy train stopped. Fannie and Freddie stopped buying loan packages, and ... isht hit the fan.

So, again, you blame government , the defining factor was greed, and quarterly profits, at the end of the day in 10 years the banking industry managed to yet again, take down the economy once it was allowed some freedom, everyone took advantage, home buyers, bankers, corporations, etc ... contrary to popular belief our government is reactionary it creates policy to try and solve "problems". If it does nothing, then people say, why wasn't there more regulation ... well their used to be, and people said why do you have regulation ... much like now, we'll go through this cycle again, liberals will blame conservatives, conservatives will blame liberals, and the reality is the truth has nothing to do with any of these idealogies, it has to do with people with influence and power, and out to make money, ... we are just by standers. To prove my point about power? If you were getting foreclosed on were you bailed out? The banks essentially bet your money lost it, and still was bailed out. You can blame people getting loans they don't deserve, but the rich and powerful and banks get what they don't deserve all the time, but we the people are the only ones that want to play by rules, that don't apply to the people that need it the most. P.S. Bush's Treasur, Paulson, former president of Goldman Sach's said, give me a check for $750 biilion dollars and you can't question what I do with it. Liberals and Conservatives, the people, initially balked, in the end he got his money, the banks, I mean his friends were forgiven, and their house wasn't foreclosed, they still had their healthcare, oh and their jobs. I find it hilarious that people won't use their own money to help themselves, but help will use it to help those who need it the least or deserve it the least. Talk about irony. But hey it's the liberal government, or the conservative greed that's too blame. "Powerful people" have nothing to do with it at all?

I love this quote from the book Outliers, actually, it's from the bible, but I find a strange irony in this because it so fits our world today. And we do it to ourselves it was hilarious as I watched the insurance agencies railroad HealthCare reform, and those powerful people who run those companies count their money, amazing, the people won't help themselves, but they'll help them. Sure don't come up with a system that will benefit you, give us your money, your going 2 give your money to somebody it should be us. Comical.

"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."

Matthew 25:29



Score
0
February 3, 2010 11:03:56 PM

To further illustrate my point, did Imention Q4 2009 was Goldman Sach's best quarter in history, think about that ... during the worst recession since the 30's , this company, has the best quarter in it's entire history? Re-itereate Bush's treasurer Henry Paulson the guy who drafted the bank bailout was former president of Goldman. Actually, Goldman formers run major operations all over the world, France Treasury, IMF, it's actually pretty scare, like, I said ... stick with the liberal and conservative debate if you want but that's so little to do with any of it.
Score
0
February 3, 2010 11:58:06 PM

I like the long essay but you are over-complicating things, keep it simpler just for times sake. The government is entire problem in this recession, when government sticks thier nose into places they shouldn't be.....bad things start to happen. The only cause of the recession was over credit which caused debt, yes the private banks are at fault but liberals in government are the ones who forced private banks to give loan money to people completely unqualified for it and who had no chance to pay it back, once the people couldn't pay anything back and were in massive debt, they stopped paying the banks and went to welfare where they sit on taxpayers necks while the banks just lost huge amounts of money so because of the government, the taxpayer consumer and the busniss sector both get screwed.
Score
0
February 4, 2010 5:05:27 AM

Blackhawk but it's not simpler than that. Government didn't force banks to do anything, again, our government is reactionary it's no a pro-active entity. Why because for the very reason you are complaining about. Did government cause S&L? Did government cause Black Friday in '87? NO, they did not, again, it's the nature of the beast. Saying that it's governments fault is as idiotic as saying that government has no effect through policy as well. Again, you completely missed my essay, and citing of history.

#1) The subprime-market in of itself could not cause the collapse that we saw,

#2) Government can not force banks to do anything, they are private entities, in fact, the opposite was true, Banks pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to change it's purchasing (underwriting) rules, so they could sell more loans to them specifically Alt-A loans, the government doesn't purchase sub-prime loans, these were the only rules that changed, but again Fannie and Freddie only make up a fraction of the loans purchased, the stock market is where the real damage was done ... through mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps (actually people hedging that loans won't be paid back), and derivatives ... not to mention insurance banks get on people defaulting.

#3) Subprime loans were quite lucrative for banks, as it opened up lending to consumers, in fact, many people who qualified for conventional loans were given subprime loans, because, for a bank sub-primes were more lucrative.

#4) You can't just get welfare for being in debt, furthermore, most people on welfare actually have jobs, and finally, welfare really exists to help children, through programs like asdf, food stamps, and so on ... furthermore, welfare, accounts for less than 1% of annual budget, it's a fraction, ... the bulk of our budget almost 70% goes 4 things, they dwarf anything else, so here is what actually sits on tax payers necks, first up 1) Military 2) Social Security (we actuallly are making money, but it will get bankrupt as population ages) 3) Medicaid and Medicare ( healthcare for seniors, also, all doctors residency salaries are actually paid through medicare program) 4) Debt Interest ... so if you want to talk about the things that actually our taxes go to atleast know what you are talking about , those 4 things alone, account for nearly get this $1.8 trillion a year of what used 2 be a $2.5 trillion a year budget.

The business sector doesn't ever get screwed, the rich stay rich, my friend, did the banks disappear, is Paulson sitting in the unemployment line. No, the peasents, get screwed but the master will be fine, trust me on this one.

You are as naive as anyone else who thinks it's government or not government that causes these problems, remember, there was very little regulation on markets or even entitlement programs before 1930's, yet, the greatest depression we've had happened during that time? I mean was it government then too???? Remember thosemarket derivates, credit default swaps, even the mortgage backed securities fiasco could not exist without removal of Glass-Stegal Act in 1999, as people like yourself, clamored for less regulation. The fact of the matter, is you need a balance between government and business, think of business like a dog, it will keep eating regardless of whether it's hungry or not, which is ultimately bad for it, so you need a leash, but if you keep a leash on it all the time it can't run, be healthy, or even get food, so ... yes there has to be government involvement, just like business needs to have some flexibility to operate as well. It's naive, and very, very, very uninformed to think government caused this fiasco, as if that was the case, and say you removed government out of the picture, because that din't prevent the depression from happening.

Finally, in conclusion, no one thing could cause this, that's why I said it was the perfect storm. #1) Freddie and Fannie Mae would not exist if the depression never happened,neither would Glass-Stegal, all safe guards put in place, because, banks screwed the people before (rather powerful people that run banks screwed the people) #2) .com bust, leaving an investor vacuum #3) low interest rates, low taxation, to stimulate economy after .com bust + 9/11 #4) Repeal of Glass-Steagal , allowing for investment banking/consumer credit/insurance to merge creating mega companies(2 big 2 fail), as well as allowing for creation of derivates market, credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities (logistically it would have otherwise been impossible) #5) loosening of underwriting laws of freddie and fannie, pushed by both banks (they want more customers) and yes a push to have more ownership of homes by individuals (again though nobody said give a home to someone with no proof of income- that's banks, my friend, or give a 600,000 home to a person with a 50,000 income)

Anyway, a perfect storm. Please stop listening to Rush and go do some real research if you want to have an intelligent discussion about what actually happened.

Thanks.
Score
0
February 4, 2010 6:18:45 PM

Quick question, are you a liberal? if you are, that explains everything :) 
Score
0
February 4, 2010 7:04:04 PM

I'm not liberal or conservative. I'm anti-idealogy, because, idealogical debates are pointless. They are rarely grounded in facts, nor logic, but emotion and perception. But to the point, you have to ask specifically, on a subject and I'll tell you what I think of that matter. If anything, I find that idealogs scare me, and to be honest, I'd probably be far more conservative if not for the undercurrent of idealogy that invades the conservative base. It borders on ridiculous and lunacy. About as ridiculous and idiotic as "code pink", except, I'm not worried about code pink stripping me naked, scrawling, anti-government epitaths all over my body and leaving me for dead, they are more likely to try and smother me with hugs and kisses. Equally, as luny, but atleast I'll be alive.
Score
0
February 4, 2010 7:22:16 PM

Quote:
Newegg is not the cheapest ... look up your local MicroCenter store.. I have bought tons of stuff from there sometimes up to 40% cheaper then new egg. I bought my Q6600 the newer stepping too for $165 from MicroCenter while the same processor at newegg was around $220


MC has better pricing because they can, their statregy is to get the customer to buy more than one product and that is one of the reasons you can get a few items for less than most retailers, on the other hand their RMA process is by FAR the worst, if one of your components is DOA/faulty they will not replace it unless the manufacturer gives the OK. That is why Newegg is prefered by most since it won't hurt to pay a bit more knowing that you are being taken care of.

Now, SSD's are extremely overpriced ATM, unless you absolutely need the speed of an SSD I would recommend raiding dual 7,200RPM drives. My backup PC has dual 640's in RAID0 and it is plenty fast for anything I throw at it.




Score
0
February 4, 2010 7:50:53 PM

I love politics.

You have people who totally ignore that it was a conservative, ehem Bush, who got us into this mess.

Then you ignore the fact that all the experts said that it will take many years to get our economy back up to the pre-Bush era.

Next step is you take step two and blame the opposite party, democrats, for not being able to bend the laws of economics and perform a huge miracle.

Then you listen to your news and lap up all the biased non-sense on Fox and CNN and 90%+ of all commercial broadcasting.

What do you get with all of this? The real problem, idiot people letting greedy and ambitious politicians screw us over because those people believe in one of our ridiculous political parties.

The problem was a lack of regulation. The democrats have been pushing for reform in the loaning areas for a long time, but of course the democrats can't get a damn thing done to save their lives. Then you have republicans thinking that laisse-faire economics will work, despite common sense and everything in history, who are an actually efficient party.

I think Lewis Black said it best, the Democrats are a party of no ideas and the Republicans are a party of bad ideas.

When the nation is divided between two huge, corrupt, amoral, and greedy parties, and they actually believe their chosen party is all roses, you get stupid decisions thanks to stupid people.

For the record arcadia is pretty close to what we think happened, but no one really knows what exactly caused this. We can point to a thousand mistakes, but it takes a lot of guess work to find the beginning of this mess.

Oh and if you are PROUD to call yourself either liberal or conservative, know that you are brainwashed by people who care nothing about you and only about themselves.
Score
0
February 4, 2010 7:53:57 PM

Quote:
Quick question, are you a liberal? if you are, that explains everything :) 


Does it matter? Let me ask you this, are you a conservative? If so then I don't think you have room to talk about politics since most of your information will have come from an extremely biased source, the same goes for all liberals.
Score
0
February 4, 2010 8:07:46 PM

This topic has been moved from the section CPU & Components to section News & Leisure by Mousemonkey
Score
0
February 5, 2010 7:58:58 AM

acadia11 said:
Blackhawk but it's not simpler than that. Government didn't force banks to do anything, again, our government is reactionary it's no a pro-active entity.


Think back to the Carter era and CRA. He forced banks to make poorly collateralized loans if the banks wanted to expand. And after that, there was plenty of blame to go around.

Mortgage bailout: in 2000, I bought a house, Did everything right. Didn't spend more than I could afford. Paid 20% down, 15 year mortgage, should have it paid off 3 years early. Yet I'm stuck with the bailout bill.

Cash for Clunkers comes. I have a 91 Camry. I'm not eligible. The car still gets better than 30 mpg on the highway. Yet someone who has a 3 or 4 year old SUV that needs $100 to fill the gas tank, well, I get to help him make his down payment on a new car.
Score
0
February 5, 2010 8:32:24 AM

AMW1011 said:

You have people who totally ignore that it was a conservative, ehem Bush, who got us into this mess.

Bush was a Republican, not a conservative. There's a big difference.


Then you ignore the fact that all the experts said that it will take many years to get our economy back up to the pre-Bush era.

Next step is you take step two and blame the opposite party, democrats, for not being able to bend the laws of economics and perform a huge miracle.
said:

Then you ignore the fact that all the experts said that it will take many years to get our economy back up to the pre-Bush era.

Next step is you take step two and blame the opposite party, democrats, for not being able to bend the laws of economics and perform a huge miracle.

My complaint here is the Dems wasted a year focusing on health care, the results being two 2,000 page bills that no congress critter has read or really has any idea what they contain. All of that, instead of focusing on the economy.
Too big to read means too big to understand.


The problem was a lack of regulation. The democrats have been pushing for reform in the loaning areas for a long time, ...
said:

The problem was a lack of regulation. The democrats have been pushing for reform in the loaning areas for a long time, ...

:lol:  One example: In 2006, Sen. McCain pushed for increased oversight and regulation of FannieMae and FreddieMac. The Democratic controlled Congress successfully resisted.


I think Lewis Black said it best, the Democrats are a party of [strike said:
no bad ideas and the Republicans are a party of bad no ideas.
]
I think Lewis Black said it best, the Democrats are a party of no bad ideas and the Republicans are a party of bad no ideas.
[/strike]
Fixed it. I think he got it backwards.


When the nation is divided between two huge, corrupt, amoral, and greedy parties, and they actually believe their chosen party is all roses, you get stupid decisions thanks to [strike said:
stupid greedy people.
]
When the nation is divided between two huge, corrupt, amoral, and greedy parties, and they actually believe their chosen party is all roses, you get stupid decisions thanks to stupid greedy people.
[/strike]
Fixed that too.
Score
0
February 5, 2010 1:43:47 PM

acadia11 said:
I'm not liberal or conservative. I'm anti-idealogy, because, idealogical debates are pointless. They are rarely grounded in facts, nor logic, but emotion and perception. But to the point, you have to ask specifically, on a subject and I'll tell you what I think of that matter. If anything, I find that idealogs scare me, and to be honest, I'd probably be far more conservative if not for the undercurrent of idealogy that invades the conservative base. It borders on ridiculous and lunacy. About as ridiculous and idiotic as "code pink", except, I'm not worried about code pink stripping me naked, scrawling, anti-government epitaths all over my body and leaving me for dead, they are more likely to try and smother me with hugs and kisses. Equally, as luny, but atleast I'll be alive.




anti ideology is like saying atheists don't have beliefs.
Score
0
February 5, 2010 1:50:49 PM

jsc had it right; I've done everything right too, and I'm sick of paying for other people's bad choices That's NOT the American Way. Blackhawk seems to get it also. Politicians are parasites who produce nothing of value. They sit around with others of their ilk, voting to confiscate earned wealth from one group in order to provide unearned benefits to another group, buying themselves votes in the process. The biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is simply who the groups are.
Capitalism is NOT part of the problem, nor even is greed. Dishonesty is the problem.
Greed + honesty = a tail-buster who gets out there and produces, in order to earn what he wants. Greed + dishonesty = what we have today, a society burdened with parasites.
And yes, it's going to get a LOT worse, if only when US debt becomes unserviceable. Congress absolutely must be called to heel. Wish us luck.
Score
0
February 12, 2010 5:08:43 AM

Onus said:
jsc had it right; I've done everything right too, and I'm sick of paying for other people's bad choices That's NOT the American Way. Blackhawk seems to get it also. Politicians are parasites who produce nothing of value. They sit around with others of their ilk, voting to confiscate earned wealth from one group in order to provide unearned benefits to another group, buying themselves votes in the process. The biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is simply who the groups are.
Capitalism is NOT part of the problem, nor even is greed. Dishonesty is the problem.
Greed + honesty = a tail-buster who gets out there and produces, in order to earn what he wants. Greed + dishonesty = what we have today, a society burdened with parasites.
And yes, it's going to get a LOT worse, if only when US debt becomes unserviceable. Congress absolutely must be called to heel. Wish us luck.



Wait it's the politicians, wait it's the corporations, wait it's ... democrats, has to be them, no it's the republicans ... damn't I work so hard, and everyone is out to get me, and take everything I have worked so hard for, let me grab my gun. So, the saga continues, in a world where everyone else is wrong and out to get me and I have to be the good guy, because, I'm me!

I can give countless examples in history where capitalism certainly leads to evil, I can give countless examples where socialism leads to just as much evil. And greed is not a good thing, it's absolutely bad, the bible tells me so, that's called gluttony- I'm being facetious but greed is not a good thing, part of the problem is we are conditioned to believe it is so- it like anything else has a bad facet. The fact of the matter is many people work hard, you aren't the only one, even people you swear are not, another fallacy is that you are foolish enough to believe that busting your tail equates to being successful, and that individuals hwo are successful are their simply because they worked hard, and people who are not successful are because they did not work hard. My mom worked for the catholic church, she delt with countless people who were on public assistance, she also was on public assistance herself at one point after she got divorced, she also at one point was working 3 jobs at once (including cleaning houses) - she also went on to earn 2 masters, and raised five kids basically on her own- not because she wanted to, but because, the marriage just didn't work, but I know she's lazy right because she was on public aid at one point, she had no aspirations, right? She just wanted to freeload right? In any event, I tire of these conversations because they are pointless people think what they think, and I'm really have come of the mind I'm not about to change theirs, better yet, I don't even want to.
Score
0
February 12, 2010 5:50:55 AM

acadia, I have no problems with welfare. Anyone through no fault of his (or her) own can run into problems, and need a helping hand. But there's a difference between your mother and a third generation welfare family.

For a while in the 70's, I was one small step away from being homeless. Public aid would have been, short term, a step up. I was young (relatively, anyway), single, healthy, and very lucky.

But jtt and I aren't talking about circumstances. We are talking about choices that allegedly intelligent adults make. And I am getting really tired of subsidizing other people's poor decisions.
Score
0
February 12, 2010 6:23:18 AM

jsc said:
acadia, I have no problems with welfare. Anyone through no fault of his (or her) own can run into problems, and need a helping hand. But there's a difference between your mother and a third generation welfare family.

For a while in the 70's, I was one small step away from being homeless. Public aid would have been, short term, a step up. I was young (relatively, anyway), single, healthy, and very lucky.

But jtt and I aren't talking about circumstances. We are talking about choices that allegedly intelligent adults make. And I am getting really tired of subsidizing other people's poor decisions.


But the reality is the poor decisions of people you want to blame have very little impact, very little power lies in those hands. Remember You didn't bailout those people, the banks are and did still foreclose on peoples homes, the banks were bailed out, did you give a dime to those families or individuals, no, your subsidy went to banks, furthermore as I explained, trying to blame some people who took on bad mortgages, or too much home, is tantamount to trying to blame zebra for getting eaten by a lion in Serangedie. The fact of the matter, that's completely false, and there a whole mess of factors that caused the financial collapse, and I went through it already ... one person made a good point, yeah, economist can't really pin point exactly why, but this what they think, not only that it's not something happened overnight, it's something that's brewed up over decades of decisions. And not just by any 1 political party, much like the collapse of manufacturing in the US, now even further with service jobs in the US , as more companies outsource. But I'm digressing. It's really naive and dangerous, especially, when it's simply wrong.

For example, you talk of 3 generations of welfare, #1 no one can stay on welfare that long (you actually have to be looking for a job) #2 Most people who take public assistance are off of it with in 1 year and a half #3) MOre than 60% of people on welfare actually have a job they just live far below the poverty line, and most assistance is in the form food stamps, section 8 housing, anyway ... the perceptions are far from the reality, in a bid to end public programs and end alot of work done related to new deal, Reagan, painted this image of black welfare cadillac queens, not only was an overt play on racism and a natural belief that many viewed of blacks, but it was completely false, for so many reasons, chiefly as a percentage of their population blacks make up a larger portion of the public aid ranks, however, in totality whites dwarf blacks in terms of numbers on public assistance, because, population wise whites still make up nearly 70% of this country, but here's more to the point ... your tax dollars don't go to welfare, welfare makes up a fraction of a percentage point in our budget, so who are you subsidizing ... but it's this line of thinking that scares me. You see the same thing now with this economic collapse and especially the republican party plays to it that it was poor , let's be frank, "minorities" getting in over their head and they brought down the US economy, you can't be that naive, honestly.

While you have someone like Henry Paulson , a former goldman-sachs president, and Bush's secretary say give me a $750 billion dollar check, and you can't ask me what I do with the money? That literally is your money. The people who have real power to control the flow of money in this country from corporations, to banks, to the very influentially wealthy and powerful, simply get ignored. When Bill Gates can argue an anti-trust case that MS is so important to maintaining the stability of the US economy that you can't break it up, ... but it's the people with the least amount of power in our society who are tearing down the economy. When an insurance company can argue, oh no we want you to be required to by insurance, just from us is all ... because, it's better than giving it to an entity that isn't profit driven and who's sole purpose is actually to provide healthcare and logically that makes sense to people I"m dumb founded. No wonder the have nots remain have nots, because, we live in a delusion about capital and power, and who has it. Many of us think we are way more important in the system, than we really are.

Personally, I just find it all pretty humorous, and have decided, just make sure you have, and the so called "republican (or conservatives) acolytes" and "(the democratic minions)" that means you lay people and your adherence to idealogy can continue to be guiled with non-sense .... I love this qoute from the outliers, rather the bible (Mathew 25:29) ...

"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
Score
0
February 12, 2010 9:16:16 AM

The bank bailout was absurd. I agree. Banks had been compelled by force [of law] to make a lot of bad loans, which they did, duping a lot of people into taking out mortgages they could not possibly afford; not their problem though; the banks just sold those mortgages, making them someone else's problem. The people who bought them, repackaged them into so-called "financial instruments" and used them for gambling purposes, again duping the common man into betting on them. All greed+dishonesty.
I did not ever say, nor intend to imply, that welfare recipients were the bulk of the problem. Politicians, wielding unearned power to confiscate and redistribute not only earned wealth but money that hasn't even been earned yet (another 1.9 TRILLION dollars recently) in order to buy the votes needed to keep them in office is the problem. It will end in one of two ways. One, US debt will become unserviceable. At that point, all those consumer choices Americans love so much will be out of reach, since they come from outside our borders, where the dollar will be worthless. Companies who hastily outsourced production to save money with cheap labor will lose all of their overseas facilities and people. The USA will be set back to a farming economy, without benefit of full mechanization, as there won't be enough fuel to run everything. Perhaps the Chinese (no offense meant) will just want Alaska (for its resources) to write off all the debt they've bought. Will Japan get Hawaii? How about India? We will have been defeated without anyone firing a shot.
Or, Congress imposes staggering taxes, almost exclusively on the middle class, as they're the ones who make up most of the tax revenue (taking 90% from people like Bill Gates won't amount to squat); and massive spending cuts. This means of course that no one in office will be re-elected; you can guess which choice is more likely.
It isn't matter of being paranoid. No one is "out to get me;" I'm don't delude myself that I'm of sufficient importance.
Greed + dishonesty....
Score
0
February 12, 2010 11:57:58 AM

Onus said:
The bank bailout was absurd. I agree. Banks had been compelled by force [of law] to make a lot of bad loans, which they did, duping a lot of people into taking out mortgages they could not possibly afford; not their problem though; the banks just sold those mortgages, making them someone else's problem. The people who bought them, repackaged them into so-called "financial instruments" and used them for gambling purposes, again duping the common man into betting on them. All greed+dishonesty.
I did not ever say, nor intend to imply, that welfare recipients were the bulk of the problem. Politicians, wielding unearned power to confiscate and redistribute not only earned wealth but money that hasn't even been earned yet (another 1.9 TRILLION dollars recently) in order to buy the votes needed to keep them in office is the problem. It will end in one of two ways. One, US debt will become unserviceable. At that point, all those consumer choices Americans love so much will be out of reach, since they come from outside our borders, where the dollar will be worthless. Companies who hastily outsourced production to save money with cheap labor will lose all of their overseas facilities and people. The USA will be set back to a farming economy, without benefit of full mechanization, as there won't be enough fuel to run everything. Perhaps the Chinese (no offense meant) will just want Alaska (for its resources) to write off all the debt they've bought. Will Japan get Hawaii? How about India? We will have been defeated without anyone firing a shot.
Or, Congress imposes staggering taxes, almost exclusively on the middle class, as they're the ones who make up most of the tax revenue (taking 90% from people like Bill Gates won't amount to squat); and massive spending cuts. This means of course that no one in office will be re-elected; you can guess which choice is more likely.
It isn't matter of being paranoid. No one is "out to get me;" I'm don't delude myself that I'm of sufficient importance.
Greed + dishonesty....



Again, more non-sense, there is no the law that requires banks make any such loans. Banks made loans XY,Z because they were lucrative, hence, why individuals who even qualified for conventional loans were steered towards "sub-prime loans", although, these again were still only a fraction of loans given. Without the creation of "obscure financial instruments and very low interest rates" these type of loans would not be possible. Furthermore, to show a more basic principle as to why that statement makes no sense, "assume banks are forced to make loans" .... where in the law would it say banks must make those loans "sub-prime, or not require verification of income, or .... " I mean the preposition is already false, as there is no such law, but that basic bit of reasoning such asking a very simple question such as asking if I am a bank and I'm told to make loans, wouldn't it stand to reason I want to make loans that are most likely to get my money back? All of this of course is moot in that there doesn't exist any such laws, atleast, none in the form that you are trying to state.

Welfare recipients aren't the problem at all, they are simply not on the radar when it comes to budget, neither is NASA's $15 billion budget, again another fraction of a percentage point. etc ... do a little research on where your tax dollars go please, if you want to complain, that's all I ask. Our budget is nearly 70% comprised of 4 things, military, SS, medicaid medicare, and debt interest.

AGain, more fallacy, in terms of taxes have steadly gone down since the end of WWII, the highest taxable income was at 90% in the 40's, enventual eroding to 70% in the 70's, and stands at what 35% today (but again this is only your highest amount of income, I believe all the money you earn over XXXXXX, as our tax code is staggered, everyone pays the same amount for each portion of income earned. The wealthy have seen a huge drop in what they pay over the years (the highest tax brackets), but overall everyone has. The biggest missing portion of taxes are from corporations although our tax rate is higher than many nations, our effective tax rate on corporations is very low. Anyway, this is going back into idealogical debates and I've already pointed out that these are a waste of time, because, they don't have any base in reality. As I've shown you have gross errors (i mean stuff that's really easy to just look up) already in your argument but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

Finally, the US dominance, is faltering because, the world is simpymore competative, after WWII the US faced very little competition, as the rest of the world rebuilt that competition increased, but here is more important the state means nothing, in an ever shrinking global economy, corporations who are driven by profit do what is best is for profits and share holders, because, "greed is good" right ... no it's good for those with the power, for you, it means nothing. A corporation isn't required to give you a job, isn't required to provide health care, isn't required to do anything but make money for it's share holders. the destruction of manufacturing jobs in the US proved that, which initially started the erosion, because no longer did you have middle income jobs that didn't require years of college education (which means alot of people were left out) .... look at the explosino of crimeafter the 70's as thes esorts of jobs wer elossed .... anyway, I'm digressing again. The bottom line is corporations will do just fine, because, the idea of "the country" simply will matter less as time goes on. the idea of loyalty to a country will mean less.

Score
0
February 12, 2010 7:16:24 PM

Wrong. Banks were compelled to make a lot of loans in "disadvantaged" areas. They were assured that they would be shielded from high losses.

Score
0
February 12, 2010 9:51:33 PM

Again, site documentation, site me this law, that states "there is a law that requires banks to make "SUB-PRIME" Loans in disadvantaged areas" Please, point me to this mythical law, I can already tell you it doesn't exist, but feel free. More over like I said "SUB-PRIME" loans are not purchased by Freddi or FAnnie, this is a complete instrument of banks, banks pushed for loosened fannie and freddie laws because they could sell more loans to those companies, and in turn could tap more potential borrowers, but again this has nothing to do with "SUB-PRIME" lending. Although, banks did get incentives to make loans in some depressed area much like home owners aren't required to pay taxes if they buy a home in area a state is trying to build up.

You are simply talking out of your a$$ at this point, like I said, when you want to have a factual based discussion let's do it, especially, when the research is ready available. P.S. I'll be waiting for you to tell me this mythical sub-prime loan law.
Score
0
February 12, 2010 10:16:19 PM

I'll help you out, start with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, if you want to argue your case atleast have a little knowledge about the argument. I'm just tired of discussing things with mindless sheep. Although, banks, covered by CRA actually were less likely to make "sub-prime" loans, the guys covered by CRA or facing more regulator over sight weren't the ones making these loans ... and most sub-primes loans came from institutions that were not covered by CRA, ... but this is all moot as sub-prime lending was not the cause of the crisis, but a simple factor like anything else, there were many factors, but you seem to ignore this fact. Moreover, like I said, sheep on, sheep on, while banks laugh all the way to the bank- so to speak ... "it wasn't us, it was those poor people see ... now give us your money?" Was it the poor people who created S&L? Was it the poor people started the depression too .... LIke the sheep you are jtt283, you eat all hook line and sinker, I hope your bail out money was well spent. Because, I know, I know ... in times of crisis no matter what the society, it's always the poor or the minorities, this seems a recurring theme in history whether it be the US in 2010, Germany in 1929. But, never, the fault of the people who actually have the power and make decisions in these societies. So, naive, my friend, so naive.
Score
0
July 10, 2010 10:14:10 AM

acadia11 said:
Holy $$$$, prices, are sky rocketing! 80gb Intel SSD g2 drive was 215, in November, it's 300 today on New egg.

I was buying some crucial memory, the price jumped up $30 from saturday, that's 2 days $30 increase on 4gb kit, that's insane.

WTF? I understand supply and demand!!!! But let's demand this sticker shock stop!!!! We are only starting to come out of a recession now!!! They keep hitting my wallet like this, I'm going to do my part so we go right back in!!!


There are different sites for prices take a look on www.nexttag.com and see whats on sale it leads to alot of sites that have discounts and price comaprative shop, you can always find a better deal. www.pricegrabber.com
Score
0
July 10, 2010 6:07:30 PM

Also SSID are faster performance but very expensive! RAM Memory transfer is in The GBps range how do you get hardrives to that speed in raid-0 without going Maybe Cheaper Drives. It looks like you need about 4 to get around 1GPps but than again how much is used at peak bandwith and sustained bandwith
Score
0
August 2, 2010 4:15:17 PM

inflation. get used to it
Score
0
August 2, 2010 4:37:54 PM

Look at the prices of games. 60$!!!! remember when it used to be 40?
Score
0
August 3, 2010 2:06:33 AM

60bucks used to be Collector Edition Games not Regular !
Score
0
August 8, 2010 4:04:53 PM

acadia11 said:
I'm not liberal or conservative. I'm anti-idealogy, because, idealogical debates are pointless. They are rarely grounded in facts, nor logic, but emotion and perception. But to the point, you have to ask specifically, on a subject and I'll tell you what I think of that matter. If anything, I find that idealogs scare me, and to be honest, I'd probably be far more conservative if not for the undercurrent of idealogy that invades the conservative base. It borders on ridiculous and lunacy. About as ridiculous and idiotic as "code pink", except, I'm not worried about code pink stripping me naked, scrawling, anti-government epitaths all over my body and leaving me for dead, they are more likely to try and smother me with hugs and kisses. Equally, as luny, but atleast I'll be alive.



When you look at the World News and Software that lets you play as different world leaders, or as Different American Leaders doing business against the world! I would find more touching base in terms of ideology there are so many different varieties of theology of world leaders, find more solutions in terms of concepts, such as more political parties than liberal, conservative, radical, patriot, republican, federalist, democratic, judical! Take some courses in political science from various persepectives than cut people down, or join a merc force (F.e.a.r. 3 and solve these debates)!
Score
0
August 14, 2010 7:14:30 AM

GunBladeType-T said:
60bucks used to be Collector Edition Games not Regular !


It still is.

LOL@ console gamer.

Oh and *The 70s or 80s can't remember* games costed $70 if you convert that into today's money that's about $100 pre a game and those games where often alot shorter.
Score
0
August 14, 2010 12:53:54 PM

Randomacts said:
It still is.

LOL@ console gamer.

Oh and *The 70s or 80s can't remember* games costed $70 if you convert that into today's money that's about $100 pre a game and those games where often alot shorter.


Well thats the conversion of Euro and Pounds!

Score
0
August 14, 2010 5:36:01 PM

GunBladeType-T said:
Well thats the conversion of Euro and Pounds!



Xbox/ps3 games cost $60

PC/wii games cost $50

Collectors edition often only cost $10 more.

:kaola: 
Score
0
November 6, 2010 3:16:51 AM

what happended to the good old days when games were 45 bucks a pop? stupid fed pooping out billions in unfunded money. I love how they just took a 600 billion dollar dump too .........not
Score
0
January 9, 2011 1:55:24 PM

This topic has been closed by Reynod
Score
0
!