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: combjelly who wrote (537689)	12/20/2009 2:30:17 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578965

"Sorry...i mistyped. He told Leno that it would be $140 TRILLION ..." Ah. So now i-node is using Beck as a credible source of economic projections... It doesn't get any nuttier than that. And Beck is laughing all the way to the bank.

To: combjelly who wrote (537689)	12/20/2009 5:21:57 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1578965

Ah. So now i-node is using Beck as a credible source of economic projections... Beck, rush, inhofe...literally anyone who will say what he wants to hear will do. Never mind...he's an insecure little midget minded troglodyte whose generation must die off along with its ill disposed, selfish malevolence. Al

To: combjelly who wrote (537689)	12/22/2009 4:06:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578965

You can reasonably get all sorts of figures from something that is going to effect the whole world economy, and its rate of growth for a long time. Using nominal dollars, taking the whole world's cost, making some pessimistic assumptions, and counting the cost in the very long run and you could even get quadrillions. Don't allow inflation to increase the number (use real dollars), count just the cost for the US, make optimistic assumptions, and use static modeling for costs (count direct costs but ignore drags on future growth and indirect negative effects), and use the most favorable possible dynamic costs for benefits (including the benefit of avoiding the costs of global warming, which you calculate pessimistically (but get very optimistic about how well they can be countered by cap and trade), and you could come up with a negative number for the cost (meaning more real wealth is produced than lost). Specific estimates shouldn't be taken very seriously, there are two many factors, many of which we don't know much about. But its fair to say the cost will be high.