Arabs in U.S. could be held, official warns

[moomin]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why Kurds? Stockholm is a long way from northern Iraq.

We had a couple of cases where traditionally-minded Kurdish immigrant families offed their daughters for such terrible offenses as wanting to choose their husbands themselves and having the extremely poor taste of choosing Swedes! In Sweden, can you imagine. Now, however righteous such valiant defense of family honour might seem to some Kurds, racist Swedish authorities had the gall to take offense and sentence the perps to prison. So far, so good.

But under pressure from various interests groups, mostly feminists, Swedish newspapers have now abandoned the traditional stance of waiting for convictions before publishing name and picture and have gone on a full disclosure rampage as soon as any Kurd is suspected of killing his daughter. We have one such case right now.

Actually, it's rather entertaining watching the contortions PC groups go through over this issue. On one hand, you can't have medieval rules for women, on the other hand taking Kurds to task over this is clearly racist. The current best solution, practiced daily in Swedish newspapers, is to combine thoughtful feminst analysis with amazing amounts of PC retoric fall-out to arrive at the conclusion that it's Swedish males that are to blame for all of this because, after all, Swedish women occasionally get murdered as well.

It's still the Kurds that we needen't bother the courts with in order to establish their guilt. Go figure.

Has Sweden entered into an alliance with Iraq?

I guess you could say so. Sweden is a part of the European Union, after all.

However, in this particular case it's not so much cheering Saddam for his courageous resistance against the Imperialist Yank Pigs as ardent feminist zeal. Anti-Americanism sure makes for strange bedfellows.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger


This still doesn't make any sense, Ned. Say we posit a 50% deflation rate over the space of a year. I borrow 1000$ from a bank at -2% interest. I leave the money in a sock under my bed. At the end of the year, I give them the 980$ I owe them and keep the extra 20$ for myself. Where is the hole in this, please?

Claiming that deflation will hurt me will only work if you tell me I have to buy something with the money, and even then the bank loses value on the exchange. The bank will always lose money on negative interest rates, no matter how high deflation goes. This is so self-evident it feels like I'm talking to a child. Did you take any arithmetic classes in school, Ned?

And, let's further assume that deflation is at 10%. That 980 is worth approx. $1080 in constant value buying power. The loan cost you 1080-1000 (you kept 20) = 80.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I take it that the Supreme Court are morons as well.

I though this went without saying .

Remember this is the body that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Jac de Molay]

From the article:

Braceras, another Bush appointee, said:"There's no constitutional right not to be inconvenienced or even embarrassed."

I dont know about anyone else, but the unlawful detention of over 1000 immigrants and a nationwide program of racial profiling against young arab men are a little bit more than "inconveniences" or "embarassments". Those pesky amendments are mucking everthing up, arent they? And in either case, I would question whether one significant, important lead has turned up because of it.



Imran

Dave

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ned
And, let's further assume that deflation is at 10%. That 980 is worth approx. $1080 in constant value buying power. The loan cost you 1080-1000 (you kept 20) = 80.

Think of it this way Ned. Assume you have no money and no possesions of any kind. Nothing at all!

Now, if you do nothing, you will still have nothing in a years time. Nada, zilch, squat. But with KH's loan, you would have $20 at the end of the year, in your hand. Irrespective of the value of the $20, it is still more than zero. Ego, you have made a profit.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger
If you're going to only be able to lend at a negative interest rate it would be better to stash the money in a vault. At least that way it's still all there when you come back for it in a year's time...

I think the problem really arises in buying and selling. Assume real estate prices are falling at 10% a year. (Japan has a problem like this.) If you borrow money to buy real estate, you have to factor in the deflation of the asset you are buying to determine your total cost of the loan. If the banks are unwilling to loan at below 0%, then the real cost of the loan is 10%.

Now contrast this to an "inflationary" environment.

For years in the US, buying a house was more than a smart move. Assume a 10% annual increase in value and a 10% loan. What is your real interest rate? 0. On top of that, we in the US can write off the interest on home loans.

Today, house prices are falling in California. The stock market is down big time. Real interest rates are very high - even at 1.5%.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Think of it this way Ned. Assume you have no money and no possesions of any kind. Nothing at all!

Now, if you do nothing, you will still have nothing in a years time. Nada, zilch, squat. But with KH's loan, you would have $20 at the end of the year, in your hand. Irrespective of the value of the $20, it is still more than zero. Ego, you have made a profit.

Right. However, since you have no assets, no one will loan you the money.

Take the example one step further. I the bank can hold the 1000 for a year and make 10%. Or I can, for example, make 10 loans (lets forget margin and other requirements for a moment) and make 80 per. That 100 vs. 800 in real value. Which is better?

[Giancarlo]

Ned, it is not possible to put the interest rate at 0% or lower. It just isn't possible. At this point in time the interest rates are the lowest they have been in 60 years and your logic is all wrong. You should take an economics course instead of saying arbitrary statements. If interest rates are lowered to 0% massive waves of deflation and other shocks would occur. So therefore economically, your argument illogical.

The stock market is going back up by the wya.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I take it that the Supreme Court are morons as well.

I though this went without saying .

Remember this is the body that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson.

And Gore v. Bush, the granddaddy of moronic decisions!

[Sandman]

Nobody's mentioned Timothy McVeigh, so I thought I would.

[Capt Dizle]

Well Ned is right and Ned is wrong. Nothing wrong with the theory of what he is saying, but the practical application wouldn't work because most people can't wrap their mind around the concept.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
Nobody's mentioned Timothy McVeigh, so I thought I would.

Why?

[Sandman]

He's a non-Arab terrorist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Gore v. Bush, the granddaddy of moronic decisions!

Actually that was a good decision .

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sandman
He's a non-Arab terrorist.

The non-arab to arab terrorist ratio is probably 1:100000, anti-US terrorists mind you (not counting IRA, Serb nationalists and stuff like that). I still dont think Arabs will be detained, and rightfully so.

However, in this particular case it's not so much cheering Saddam for his courageous resistance against the Imperialist Yank Pigs as ardent feminist zeal. Anti-Americanism sure makes for strange bedfellows.

Its sick that Swedes would take Saddams side over the US. Saddam is a potential threat to everyone in the world. He is not merely a loose cannon, hes a loose vile of anthrax, sarin nerve gas, and maybe even nuclear device. He needs to be removed for this threat he poses towards the SU and most of the rest of the world aswell. With or without Swedes we will bring him down.

Kman