Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (341585)	6/28/2007 12:28:25 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573644

"I'm not sure what you find "cute" about it. Its accurate and relevant information." Because it involves straw man arguments. Accurate, maybe. Relevant? Not hardly. It is another one of your fan dance posts. Or, "let's ignore the forest and focus on the trees. Say, look at that oak over there. Because we will discuss that oak, everything else is irrelevant...". Because LBW is the issue. Either the babies are premies, or the are small for gestational age(SGA). Either way, they are at risk for very early death or for a variety of developmental disorders. And the US leads the developed world on that statistic. However, when you throw out those below middle class, the US averages get much closer to the top. In the medical community, the generally accepted reason is access to prenatal care. In your circles, I dunno. I doubt if they trump reality, but who the hell knows?

To: TimF who wrote (341585)	7/3/2007 1:13:20 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573644

Capitalism bad for men's health, study finds By Mira Oberman in Chicago July 01, 2007 09:45pm l COMMUNISM may be oppressive, but capitalism is bad for men's health, according to a study that found a rise in mortality rates after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The life expectancy for men freed from the Iron Curtain dropped by six years between 1991 and 1994 amid social disruption, physical hardships and economic instability. The degree to which men were affected depended upon how rough the transition to capitalism was and how much income inequality increased, the University of Michigan study found. And they were significantly more likely to be impacted by the transition than women, the study found. "The inequalities in status and resources that can come with capitalism does lead males to behave in ways that are detrimental to men's health," said lead author Daniel Kruger. Increased competition can create an environment that encourages risk-taking behaviour that results in fatal accidents, he said. An increase in social and economic stress can manifest itself in suicide or homicide and can also cause physical strains which can lead to heart attacks. "It seems as though there is a physiological embodiment of stress from being in a competitive environment," Mr Kruger said. Mr Kruger compared the mortality rates of men and women in 14 post Soviet countries. Male mortality from intentional causes – homicides and suicides – doubled in the region, although it varied significantly by country. Poland, which had a relatively smooth transition, saw the rate increase just 15 per cent while Estonia, which was much more unstable, saw violent deaths increase 238 per cent. More significantly, Mr Kruger said, was that the gap between the male and female mortality rates grew an average of 9.3 per cent which showed that "this economic changed was more damaging to men than to women". "The impact was really for men who are in their economically prime years," Mr Kruger said. "If you were an adolescent or young adult they may have seen this as an opportunity but those who are say 45 and settled into a routine they might see this as a threat." The countries most affected were Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Albania, which saw the gap widen by 14 to 30 per cent in the first five years after the fall of communism. The gap grew by eight to 12 per cent in Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and East Germany. It grew a modest one to six per cent in Slovenia, Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary. The study was published in the current issue of Evolutionary Psychology. news.com.au

To: TimF who wrote (341585)	7/7/2007 2:19:46 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573644

How much you want to bet the national media doesn't pick up on this story? Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll 07-06-2007, 20h09 WASHINGTON (AFP) Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday. The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney. The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site. The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq. The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote. Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office. Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely. In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week. But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course. turkishpress.com

To: TimF who wrote (341585)	7/7/2007 3:32:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573644

Why I don't buy the 4.5% Unemployment Rate Friday, July 06, 2007 \| 07:13 AM in Data Analysis \| Economy \| Employment \| Federal Reserve Where is the wage pressure? That's the question on my mind as we await today's NFP. Yesterday saw a stronger than expected ADP Report, which whacked bonds and sent yields back over the 5% level; The 10 year closed at 5.144%. A prime mover: growth in service industries, which accelerated to the fastest pace in 14 months in June. The Fed will be closely watching the data for signs that Average Earnings are rising, as a gauge of potential inflation. Which brings us back to our original point: If Unemployment is actually as low as its been reported by BLS, then there is no slack in the labor market. We have a situation where demand is outstripping supply. In the Oil market, that sends prices higher. In Agricultural commodities, the same thing occurs. Indeed, in every market I can think of, when Demand is greater than Supply, prices rise. That's Econ 101: prices should be rising robustly in that environment. Yet we see little evidence that wages and salaries are moving appreciably higher. Outside of bonuses and stock options, most wages have been pretty stagnant. For most of the past 4 years, they had been falling on a relative basis to inflation. Its only the past few quarters or so that hourly wages have risen at the rate of inflation or better. A sign of a slack labor market is sluggish wage gains. Which is pretty much what we have been seeing. The WSJ's Ahead of the Tape column looks at the same issue, and asks a different question: The Federal Reserve says measures of inflation have improved lately. But it's still worried that there's little slack in the economy, which could ultimately push prices and interest rates higher. A key measure of slack is the unemployment rate. When it gets very low, it can be a signal of labor shortages that create wage and price pressures. The labor market appears to have weakened a bit. Through May of this year, surveys of U.S. businesses show they added an average of 133,000 nonfarm jobs per month to their payrolls, according to the Labor Department, down from last year's average of 189,000. Yet even though job growth has been slowing, the unemployment rate isn't budging. It is expected to come in at a relatively low 4.5% for June, around the level it's been at for nine months. This is all the more striking because the survey of households that the Labor Department uses to calculate the unemployment rate shows especially paltry employment gains through May this year. Those paltry gains suggest the unemployment rate should be rising. His take is that since NFP gains have been on the low side, we should see unemployment tick up. My view is that all these Quarters of low unemployment should have sent wages skyrocketing, late 1990s style. Yet neither has happened. I cannot help but wonder why . . . Where's the wage pressure? Read more.............. bigpicture.typepad.com

To: TimF who wrote (341585)	7/16/2007 12:05:26 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573644

July 13, 2007 Read More: Homeland Security Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate. The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support. "We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense." Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War. During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq." The comments come as several prominent terrorism experts have warned the U.S. is facing an increased risk of attack this summer. Earlier this week, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" the U.S. would be attacked again. The remark angered some Democrats, who criticized Chertoff for being too vague. And some pundits seized on his remarks, saying the vague warnings were meant only to revive flagging support for the war in Iraq and Bush’s larger war against terrorism.