Deja Vu All Over Again: Total US Debt Passes Debt Ceiling... In Under One Month Since Extension

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RacerX's picture

"Bed Bath and Beyond.. umm".. Lol

andybev01's picture

I prefer Bed Bath & Beyonce.

max2205's picture

When is the next televised fight between POTUS and the 535 retards?

crazyjsmith's picture

STFU Rajat, pay your Cow tax and get the fuck back in line.

Sophist Economicus's picture

Uhmmm, no.  I think this means, Fuck YOU world....

 

Just trying to help a foreign coksuker like you out, brother....

JLee2027's picture

Fuck u America!

How soon we forget that Bobby Fischer (your icon) was from Chicago as well.

fiddler_on_the_roof's picture

I don't think rajat_bhatia clone is Indian.

But anyway America has been F**k**g the world the past 80 yers via dollar seinorage.

crazyjsmith's picture

The whole world had been fucking each other for much longer...If not us, someone else would be right there. 

Human Nature is Human nature. 

Rynak's picture

Nice progress on seeing through the mindcage of nations. Next up: see through the myth of nurture vs. nature.

Rynak's picture

K, guess i should explain that snide remark more, for those with a quick finger.

See, humans (and i define "human" as a "superculture", because that is how humans mostly define "human" themselves) are obsessed with thinking in XOR - either this, or that.... completely excluded are combinations of both, "something else", and especially *interactions* between both.

In the case of nature vs. nurture, the first idiocy in the premises, is that nurture of course is part of nature... so the label makes no sense to begin with. Okay, let's fix that, by calling it "genes vs. culture". Even then, there is not necessarily a "vs": Even for animals which show no strong signs of "culture", genes do not need to store all the information to make the outcome happen: Just "preprogram" a small bias, which in a typical environment will have certain consequences, and the being will "learn" the desired outcome by itself... without it involving only "genes" or only "learning". (one obvious example: Nearly all human individuals can walk - and yet, they need to learn how to walk. How would that happen, without "inborn" aspects (including physiology) AND learning aspects?).

That alone opens up the possibility, that a different environment, may result in different outcomes, even though a bias was preprogrammed (genes) - because that bias will be interpreted differently, depending on the environment (i.e., a baby born in space - absent outside counseling - may use its inborn physiology differently, than a baby growing up on earth. It will not learn how to walk, but instead how to use its body features most efficiently in a zero-g environment).

But the species of which humans are part of, is not restricted to plain "sleepwalking". It CAN (not "must") analyze its own behaviour, and because of this "metaprogram" how it handles "preprogrammed" (genes) biases. A popular example would be sexdrive. This even is a quite strong preprogrammed direction... and yet, even something as fundamental as this, is open to interpretation. I.e. sexdrive is "abducted" in current cultures, to associate it with all kinds of things, which have absolutely NOTHING to do with the original "instinct". And if you can do this, with something as fundamental and strong as sexdrive, how much "freedom" do humans theoretically have in handling less strong "instincts"?

Once you think this through, it becomes quite clear, that current human behaviour is NOT predetermined by "genes"... because there are so many alternative possibilities, how the "preprogrammed" stuff could be interpreted.....

At that point, you may throw up your hands, piss on everything you achieved so far, by subscribing to one of the extremes..... or you may ask your self: Am  i perhaps searching at the completely wrong place? Is the "key" perhaps in a completely different aspect, than "nature vs. nurture"? And when you ask that question, you may make the leap, to treat "culture" as part of evolution... you may look at the history of humans.... how they became the dominant species on the planet.... and which environmental conditions (i.e. access to ressources and usage) allowed it to get to this point.... and what kind of culture that implies.

TL/DR? If you consider how humans got the global rank it has now, then there aren't many culture-styles left which could have brought them to where they are. Or even shorter: Humans became the dominant species of the planet, by being assholes AND technologically smart.... and now it turns out that the way they got here, is not sustainable. Analogy: A (cultural) pandemic.

Buck Johnson's picture

Yep, pretty much and when it ends it will destroy alot of people.

Rynak's picture

Even though it may be "mean", i honestly hope that peoples "spirit" will be destroyed faster than they can come up with counter-lies, because if humans do not learn this evolutionay lesson very quickly, there will not be much left of "mankind".

Your strategy got you to where you are, but it sure as hell will not keep what you achieved. To phrase it in financial terms: You frontrun the entire planet, but to keep your profits, you have to switch to another strategy, because if you do not do so, you will not only ruin all your profits, but actually go bancrupt - just like the TBTF banks.

Rynak's picture

To the braindead parasite junkers: My main arguments:

1. Nature and nurture can complement each other. In fact, from an evolutionary POV, a combination of both is most efficient: By "preprogramming" (genes) only that which is necessary to result in an efficient outcome, relative to an assumed environment, you achive: A) minimum ressource usage regarding gene storage space (which is much smaller than people assume), and B) still keeping up the possibility, for the species to adapt to a changing envirnment. Or in short: If the usual environment is the case, i only need to store the barely neccessary "bootstrap" information, and let the being learn the conclusions by practice (i.e. How inborn biases (which includes as basic things as physiology: If your body allows you to do only certain things, then that puts a filter on how you learn to interact with your environment. (relevant: This HAS been already been experimentally confirmed for BOTH animals and humans! Animals as well as humans react to their inborn biases, depending on in which environment they grow up. To prove it with the aspect which current human culture is most obsessed with: Sexual attraction and associated goals, have changed throughout human history. Plus animals react to their inborn biases differently depending on in which environment they grow up (popular example: a dog growing up together with cats (which have completely opposite body language!) and dogs growing up with other dogs exclusively)

2. Culture is part of evolution. This for fucks sake almost is an axiom: Culture "develops", and the environment obviously has an influence on how cultures develop - if only because of availability of ressources. I don't even know how to strenghten this argument, because it is such a trueism. Culture logically CANNOT be seperate from evolution, simply because: A) culture develops, it isn't static, and B) How a culture CAN develop, depends on environmental limitations. If the environment doesn't allow certain possibilities, then ALL cultures in that environment, cannot develop that way, without going extinct!

Bottom line: If you disagree with THIS, then you're a fucking moron!

blunderdog's picture

When most folks invoke the trope "human nature," it's intended as an excuse for all the worst parts of themselves that they lack the discipline to change.

Diogenes's picture

I can hardly wait till someone comes along and says "You infidel! God planned it that way".

 

Rynak I think you are right, I'm just messing around

Rynak's picture

Actually, i think you have just summarized the root conflict of interest, without all the verbose words i used in my above posts: Considering one responsible for one's own decisions, vs. "outsourcing" them to external "gods" which "command" one to do as one behaves. Or in short: Personal responsibility for oneself.

Someone else told me to do so: I'm not responsible.

Or in short: Integrity and truthfullness, vs mental corruption.

John_Coltrane's picture

" If you disagree with THIS, then you're a fucking moron!"

Wait, couldn't you agree with your interesting arguments and still be a fucking moron?  Its not either or  (XOR), just as you opined.

Logics a bitch, eh?  That's why we're all hypocrits at heart and why confirmational bias is so hard to overcome.

What about the barber who shaves all men who don't shave themselves?  Does he shave himself?

Answer: If and only if he doesn't.

In any sufficiently complex (i.e. real) system, there will be propositions that can neither be proved nor disproved.  So we live with the uncertainly or start worshipping Gods who control everything.

As Dick Feynmann once opined:  "I don't mind not knowing"

blunderdog's picture

"If you disagree with THIS, then you're a fucking moron!"

Wait, couldn't you agree with your interesting arguments and still be a fucking moron?  Its not either or  (XOR), just as you opined.

You got that sentence wrong.  "If A then B" is not "IFF A then B."

You must be rusty.

Are you kidding's picture

Culture and genes...  So what does it mean when the African culture today...matches that of a million years ago?  What does it mean of an Indian living a stone age existance?  Are they evolutionarily behind too?  Their failure to integrate into modern societies tells me there's something different about them.  Genetically different.  I've always thought the three races were different species.  Not necessarilly catagorically...but by behavior...how we interact...more accurately, fail to interact.

Rynak's picture

I don't know enough about that specific case, to judge it. I'd however add two things:

I don't view evolution as a ladder - a one-way street. Evolution to me is not a thing... just a fancy way of saying, that stuff changes according to own intentions and the environment. However, those intentions and environments aren't identical everywhere - heck, they aren't even static - and so, how individual agents, and classes of agents (i.e. species) develop may vary - because their needs and circumstances vary.

As for cultures that live very different from how we live.... variety in cultures has originally been even higher.... the less "greedy" ones simply didn't survive or were assimilated, when the more "greedy" cultures came for a visit.

In a nutshell, what i think happened is that via technology, humans suddenly gained access to much more ressources than the global species balance was designed for at that time. So, basically a breakthrough. Thanks to this overabundance, cultures with greedy and parasitary strategies could "outspend" the others. That appeared to work, until there was nothing left to conquer anymore (except of their own kind), scarcity began to emerge... with both leading to infighting: Back then, we mainly preyed "the others", now with "the others" being dead or in submission, we mainly prey on each other.

zerozulu's picture

Looks like India lost hope of a super-power.

bigelkhorn's picture

What the hell?

You come in here and say EFF YOU AMERICA!?

what you don't realize is that it is not america, it is the bunch of elite the small group of people that are orginzing us, and who invented the collapse of america. So do not blame americans, they are just on the tail end of it. The elites plans have always been to create the solution first...then create the problem (credit crisis) adn now look what we have.

The guys from http://www.forecastfortomorrow.com are saying there is a another crisis coming. And that is scary, because they have been scarily accurate in the past. but there is nothing we can do, we are all under the control of the elite and shadow government. Dont blame american or americans...blame these group of evil elite who are manipulating the financial landscape for their own benefit. 

mailll's picture

I'm a day late on this one but here is something that might interest you.  I find it very enlightening.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5541564304553695985#

The President only does as he is told. The Elite banking families tell him what to do.

 

bharat's picture

Fuck you rajat. And I'm an Indian.

There are 27+ marks for his post - who are they?

dwdollar's picture

Sounds like time for a S&P upgrade!!!

tekhneek's picture

Or a debt ceiling increase.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Coming to a corrupt country near us soon.

:(

Bring the Gold's picture

Wouldn't corruption imply conspiracy DoChen? Didn't you say those don't exist, at least not in "complex form"? So all these you know, complex financial instruments, are either not the result of a conspiracy or are not complex...right?

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

I should have been clearer.  I do not believe the conspiracy theories that require large numbers of people to pull off, are REALLY BIG EVENTS, and yet kept secret.  "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

So, where ARE the aliens at Site 51?

If not Oswald, who killed JFK?

The Mossad pulled off 9/11?

THOSE are conspiracies that I don't believe.  Too many people involved, word would get out.

---

Scams like derivatives, bankster bonuses, corruption, etc. of course are all over the place.  We have counterfeiters in Peru making fake KOREAN bearings (not a whole lot of money in that).  Faking American or Japanese or SKF of course would be far more profitable.

So, sure, complexity is often a feature of crime and corruption.  It's that I just don't believe any of those big conspiracy theories that have a BIG impact and LOTS of participants.

I hope I explained this better.

mick_richfield's picture

I'm sorry, DCRB, I think you're wrong about the grand conspiracies.

First, there's clear historical precedent when a culture is sufficiently homogenous.  Look at the Manhattan Project.  Thousands of people were involved, tens of billions of equivalent 2011-dollars spent -- but it was kept absolutely secret for years and years.

Second -- the very best conspiracies are those that *everybody* is in on.  Word has indeed gotten out about 9/11.  Loud and clear.  And the masses close their eyes, stop their ears and tell themselves that there is no evidence. 

Our culture has many such vast, gaping deliberate blind areas -- while congratulating itself on being honest, open, and rational.

When I send my reports, the people of my time frankly think I'm making it up.

 

Diogenes's picture

What makes you think they are secret? There is lots of info around if you want to look it up.

On the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. According to official Dallas police sources, Oswald was seen on the second floor of the school book depository building by Officer Marion Baker less than 2 minutes after he supposedly shot Kennedy from the sixth floor. They did a paraffin test which proved Oswald had not shot a rifle that day. And his fingerprints were not on the murder weapon.

Any decent lawyer could have gotten him off if he had lived to go on trial.

Maybe he was telling the truth when he said "I'm the patsy. I didn't shoot anybody".

Once the fix is in and the official story is drummed into the public who cares what a few eccentrics think. No one who matters will take any notice.

Bring the Gold's picture

Yep, even Jackie O says she thought it was a conspiracy: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/08/07/explosive-jackie-o-tapes-to-be-released.html

Also there was the sceintific sound test that proved multiple rifles were fired which was upheld in court. The Warren Commission was full of holes and so forth and so on.

9/11 was OBVIOUSLY a complex conspiracy any way you slice it. It was either a complex conspiracy per the governments theories (there are more than one from .gov) or any of the alternate theories.

As to UFO's at area 51 that's just stupid. That's like when people talk about gold being a bubble and throw out whatever unrelated BS. It's meant to make the opposing argument look crazy. It's not a solid argument what soever and is a smear. It actually WEAKENS the argument of the person who derisively throws it out as it shows they are trying to discredit the other person rather than their argument.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Mick, Diogenes, Bring,

I just doubt them that's all.  I have not dug around any of the grand conpsiracies enough to be sure, nor enough to back up my beliefs with links to solid sources.

Good point re the Manhattan Project, lots of people involved there as well as BIG STAKES.

OK, UNCLE!  I will leave the conspiracies theories subject alone, as there are enough who believe them (some of them anyway) who have done their homework, which I have not.

Good weekend!

mick_richfield's picture

You know, it just occurred to me -- if it keeps receding every time we approach -- I really don't think 'ceiling' is the right word.

'Level' maybe.  

Or 'target'.

LoneStarHog's picture

Can't happen...Obummer made sure the CEO of Shit & Pee was fired and one of his cronies is in charge...Watch for an upgrade.

navy62802's picture

I think we're saving that for roughly September or October 2012.

inkarri9's picture

Rally On!  Too soon?

Dick Darlington's picture

Greek style fiscal prudence brought to You by Timmah the Tiny and the rest of the asset bubble band. Be merry, bitchez!

P.S. Hope bonds really kick ass. Yes we can!

Bring the Gold's picture

If only we could return to the fiscal restraint of W and Henry Paulson...oh wait...it's almost like BOTH parties are deeply captured and wasting time on partisan rhetoric is, well, wasting time.

 

P.S. Eff Obama and Bush may they rot in hell together.