₦airaland Forum

Barkinde is a barefaced liar. The only uni's that offer PostGrads in Petroleum studies in UK are Imperial College and Robert Gordon uni. How can such a charlatan be made Petroleum minister? We are fed up with these Northerners controlling our oil. If Yar'Adua is serious about quelling dissent in Niger-Delta, he better stop foistering Northern Ministers upon us.

No wahala, he will get an adequate response.


https://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/3/1/27/f_NigerDeltam_8268147.png

Those German guys should just forget it. They will probably borrow against Chelsea's assets to fund their take-over. We only accept multi-billionaires at SB.

Even if Mikel is another Etim Essien, he already has enough money for the rest of his life, unlike Etim.

debosky:
There was nothing gramatically wrong about your post, but it IS logically flawed.

There is everything grammatically wrong in ALL his posts.

I keep telling Dede1 to stop speaking English to me. I can understand Igbo if that is his preferred means of communication. If we had to dissect his grammatical mistakes, we will be here all day.

Do you know the values of shares traded daily can sometimes be worth way more than the marketcap?

It is simply about market volume because that shows how much willing buyers and willing sellers there are.

If Nateevs holdings PLC is worth $50 marketcap and I own $40 dollars of it, I assure you I will have no problems selling my $40 dollars as long as Blue Diva or FBS are willing to buy it.

Do you know the vast amount of stocks that market makers hold and use to create instruments? RA can sell his stock to one market maker alone.

What happens after RA sells is arbitrary. The market does not know there is such a large volume of selling until he has already sold and the price he receives isn't affected.

How I go hold money for City Group?  . I'd rather throw it away.

oya, its enough. Let the voters vote.

Yeah, Im also waiting for Oyb's discourse on his final year project.

Its got nothing to do with marketcap, more to do with market volume.

On any single day billions of shares in a single company can be traded.

That RA wants to sell does not affect the price he recieves, only those trying to sell after him.

BTW, remember that the Kremlin itself is now buying shares in the Russian stockmarket.

The only problems I can see are regulatory problems.

nateevs:
@Ibime,

It's not that simple. . . . We can dump our stocks but your broker doesn't tell you that he has found a buyer for your supposedly "dumped". You can't dump holding in a stock unless there is a corresponding buyer.

Although dictated by a number of factors, there are many times you want to dump your stock and there's no buyer for it. . . you continue to own it or maybe forced to own it until there is a buyer. . .

Wrt to Roman he might have billions of shares, if there is no corresponding buyer for the billions of shares, he can't dump . . . .The questions are . . where do you actually dump? . . and who pays for what you have dumped?

As long as the market has enough breadth and depth, you can dump even up to $1bn of stock in a day. . . .traders do it every day. . . when they say the 30 companies in the Dow dropped by 700 billion in one day, who do you think is doing all that selling? . . . . . .it is a question of how liquid that stock is. . . . I don't imagine that RA would have had problems dumping $500m of his stock in one or two days. . .people are ready to enter that trade for different reasons. . . .they may see it as the lowest price at which to buy with regard to the long term, whilst RA just wants to get out . . . .  this is not Naija where people no want buy. . . . most Western stocks have gone beyond that stage of people not being able to sell cos there is no buyer. . . . it is almost unheard of. . . . the market is just too liquid. . . . Have you ever had a problem buying stock?. . . . you would think that one day, you would want to buy, but there would be none left to buy right?. . . . no such thing!. . . . as RA is selling, another 10,000 people are buying. . . . Sometimes, the company itself will reabsorb its own shares. . .

See as Dede1 dey scatter kpoa for here.

Odikwa highly educated. 

I have told him several times to stop speaking English and stick to his mother tongue.

nateevs:
@Ibime,

But you also can't sell Roman's worth is stocks in wateva company overnight. . . Well maybe you can. . . but then you have to have a buyer or buyers for the lot to be able sell. . . .

He can dump stocks overnight, just like you and I can dump our Tesco stocks.

Look at this idiot. . . .you launched a full-page diatribe about Merill Lynch and Lehman bros and you are here grinning teeth like you know what you are talking about. . . . after that, you started talking about Carbon footprints and God knows what else. . . .your befuddled brain cannot stay on a single topic. Do you think this is a bailout debate which you opposed and which 4Play supports as evidenced by his support for the "bad bank" approach. You have no clue what we are talking about here. I had no clue because I live in Britain and was not abreast of the debate in Yankee. That does not mean I do not know the theory. I do not have to know the intricate details of everything being discussed in minor-stream media in Yankee. It is not my country. As for you, you are completely clueless about economic issues, full stop.

Where in your post did you address anything to do with spending multipliers?

nateevs:
Secondly Ibime, If the reports are true that Roman sold off shares at a loss, why didn't he sell Chelsea instead? I mean what better way to raise cash?

Unlike stock, Chelsea is not something you can sell overnight. . . I doubt he wants to sell Chelsea anyway. . . besides, the only bidder so far is Debosky and he only bid £0.50p.  

Storari. . . . OK oh!

Anyone but Hilarious.

chamotex:
@ Ibime

I actually felt ur last verse against Sauron was ur best in the whole tourney. What do you think?

I write my verses according to the level of competition.

No seriously, all the battles I did before were with punchlines I had written like 4 or 5 years ago.

I did not know that I could reach that level again, but Sauron brought out the beast in me.

kaydee:
@ Ibime

If u ain't cool with the judges decision,take the semi finals to any Netcee Site U know and gimme the link.The only battle i ain't kool with is Sauron Vs Chamotex.U shoulda won hands down if U had not kept the best for the last.So sad UE is nomore,I'm sure LD with his love of complexity won't give it 2 U still.AHH won't give U the feedback U need,AHH is sleeping.

You keep saying that, but I beg to differ. . . you keep sweating a joke that I made. . . .you must take it more serious than me. . . .I didn't even mention it, Sauron did. . . . it means nothing to me so I won't waste my time. . . .like I said, its all in the name of fun. . . . but facts is facts, any real emcee would give me that match if they had been following events. . . .half of my verse was based around current events that you may not have been abreast of, hence you wouldn't have gotten the joke. . . .but I was writing that verse solely for the judges who had been following events. . . . . the other half followed the same rhymescheme for 8 lines straight, punching every time. . . .  and I did not save my best bars for the final. I wrote my verse against Sauron the night before I posted it. . . . otherwise, how did 'Tangents' name crop up in my verse? Did I know of Tangent before?

Who be dis ChidiOparaReports? ShareReporters never do?

This guy is just making up conjecture in light of Atiku's meeting with IBB.

It is the next logical direction in which any 'creative' journalist would think.

Does he know Ibori personally? Abi na from him dey come up with all this 'creative' news.

For all we know, I could be Chidi Opara.

nateevs:
@Akola

Don't mind Debosky. . . aw can he go for free? Though the figures I am seeing now are ridiculous but free is not it!

See this one. . . . it is FREEEEEEEEE!

I read in The Times last week that Chelsea are willing to let him go for free because he expressed a strong desire to leave, his contract is running out in the summer and Chelsea wanted to reward his loyalty by granting him a free transfer.

Methinks that they thought that £50,000 is too much to pay a reserve player and they were happy to get rid of the expense.

Roman just sold shares in one of his mining companies at a huge loss. . . he is definitely strapped for cash, otherwise only a desperate man would not wait until the share prices recover. . . he must need that money NOW!

I wonder if Hilarious is going to be our back-up for the rest of the season or if we are going to do a loan deal for someone.

MailMalcs multi's were forced. . . accepted. . . .but they are multi's nonetheless and no more forced than Chamo's.

That means Mailmalc trumped Chamo by 6 multi-schemes to three.

It is not about quantity though. Its about quality. . . .but Chamo never managed to rhyme more than 2 multi's together. . .

MailMalc actually rhymed 4 straight multi's in a two bar prose:

ma detach ur spines nd leave u 'cordless' like a mic accessory/ just for testin me/
best believe/ in this final tour i leave ur eyez sore/ my lines spells defeat/


Now, this is the FINAL thing that gives Mailmalc the edge for me:

Multi's are highly linked to flow. A multi only drops nicely if the flow is on point. I find it hard to detach flow from multi's.

ilovetgirl, sharrap dia!

This is an objective discussion, not some cliquish beef.

BTW, Sauron beat MailMalc hands down in that semi-final. You can take that battle to any qualified HipHop forum and Sauron would win. I don't know what the judges were thinking.

Since when do we say that multi's must be three words each or two words each?

Are you gonna tell me these are not multi's:

Spitzofrenik-remains/ the unquenchable-flame/
Every rapper trembles-in-pain/ when they mention-my-name/

Whats the difference?

The first line are two-word rhyming schemes, the second line are three-word rhyming schemes/

But there is NO WAY you can tell me they are not multisyllabic because the no of words differ. Thats absolute rubbish!

Multi-SYLLABLE, not multi-WORD!!!!

How does accessory and testing me not form a multi?

Because one is one-word and the other is two-words? Get outta here!

All of Mailmalc's multi's ARE valid in any emcee's book!



Now, tell me this,

How do you give top marks to Chamo for this piece of wordplay:

It’s the final LAP but ‘MailWANK’ is still on ‘shuffle’ like an ‘iPod’, just running on empty battery
'Achilles' (I-kill-his) clan's ankles till they dangle, so im not the one getting ‘de-feeted’ verbally
This ‘MALC’ loves to receive SPAM (sperm) MAIL up the arse via ‘SPECIAL DELIVERY’

Since when do Spam and Sperm equate phonetically? How many times have we heard 'de-feet' lines? I can pull up a hundred sites with 'de-feet' lines. How does 'shuffle' like an 'Ipod' equate to a punch?

Is this a Mancunian Conspiracy? 

^^^ Come on man, that's disrespectful to MailMalc. I think he knows exactly what a multi is without your lessons.


Look at his whole verse, its got 6 multis:


smack this bitch/ cannabis   (I suppose he'd have wanted "dis-arm his wrist" as well, but thats a mispronunciation)

accessory/ testing me/ best believe/ spell defeat/

these-mortals/ free-portals/

keep off dude/ reached ya doom/

missiles dispatched/ crippled biatch/

winning streak/ publicity/ kidding me




Chamo only had 3 occasions:


taken aback/ scathing attack/

imbibe and ride/ bribe in your tribe/

borrow ya bride/ swallow ya pride/



Thats why he has a right to question what you mean by multi's when you say Chamo won on multi's.

@ Sauron, you can use triplettes if ya lines are short enough or the beat is a slow Durrrty South beat.

Big L:

And my swoll knob/ your main girl cold slobbed/
And gave a Mouth Action/ to my whole mob/ with no prob/

First line is couplettes, second line is triplettes.

In our battle, I used mostly triplettes.



Anyway, well done to both emcees for making it to the final. . . .

Decent battle, nothing preternatural, but not mediocre either.



Flow: Mailmalc wins this by a long way. Chamo, you need to shorten ya lines.

Cadence: Draw

Multi's: Mailmalc no doubt. Chamo's multi's are somewhat forced. I'm surprised Sauron gave this category to Chamo.

Wit: Draw


Punchlines:


Chamo:

Chamo:
Imma throw you off a ‘plane’ with your hands and feet tied, bitch go ahead . . . . . ‘sky dive’!

Best line of the whole battle. . . .the flow didn't impede the landing of the punch. It dropped just right.

Chamo:
'Achilles' (I-kill-his) clan's ankles till they dangle, so im not the one getting ‘de-feeted’ verbally

Good use of wordplay in Achilles. . . . but 'de-feeted' lines are SO played.


Mail:

Mail:
u still wouldn't drop a 'dope shit' even if you swallow 10 (w)raps of cannibis/

dope shit = canibus / (w)raps are also played

Mail:
r ma detach ur spines nd leave u 'cordless' like a mic accessory

Decent hit.

Mail:
these 'pure' barz are adult rated while ur whole style comes adulterated .
i ain't got hatred/ but u's the end result after a maggot nd a gay mated/

Good hit, with nice wordplay.


I'm gonna have to call it a draw on punchlines. Chamo punched more, but his flow and set-up impeded the way the punches landed. Instead of uppercuts, they landed as left-hooks, except for the 'skydive' line which landed perfectly on the chin. MailMalc punched less, but his set-ups were almost perfect, turning somewhat average jabs into solid hooks.


Vote: Mailmalc

South-East did not reclaim the lead in education. They have been in the lead for the last 15 years.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=223342.msg3382269#msg3382269 date=1232856861]The point, in response to your question, is nobody knows for sure that such an outcome in a 50% return on investment is attainable.  At best, they are forecasting based on historical data. The problem is, as everyone else has attested to including the President, this is a new territory and we must learn as we go along and discover new humps on the road ahead.[/quote]Look at this idiot talking about Shepherds and Sheep, yet you fell into the same trap, even after having it explained to you that this is about "Spending Multipliers" not about a "return on investment".

I may have miscomprehended the original question because of the way it was asked, but you just proved that you are a downright spastic.

BTW, even if the fiscal stimulus package is worth $400bn and $600bn is spent throughout the economy over the next 5 quarters, it may not be enough to get us out of the recession. Besides, the only way Obama can achieve 1.5 multiplier on all of the $400bn over the next 5 quarters is if the $400bn is spent immediately. By 4Play's assertion, infrastructure projects take a long time to complete so the $400bn cannot be spent immediately, it must be spent over a long period, hence the 1.5 multiplier looks bogus if applied to the full sum. It could well hold for any monies spent immediately, however, 4Play is trying to say that the $400bn does not provide an immediate solution to the problem as you can only spend the money over a long period of time.

Muki, please get Seun to ban this guy.

4 Play:
Look at this long discredited charlatan. I purposely waited for you to go out on a limb before addressing the issue. ''Obama's multipliers'' are a well known matter.

You have to have intelligence for it to be insulted. This is a thread exclusively about Keynesian spending and you are spewing utter bollocks about everything from CDOs to the Swedish banking rescue model.

You're a blithering idiot. Anybody who knows the issue and is not reeking of sciolism like you would know that this is about Keynesian spending.

If you don't know about a topic, don't try to come here and impress me. You are offering your opinion and you don't know your head from your a*se. Imagine, you're telling me how to phrase the thread so that your bovine brain can grasp it, ode.

Look at this charlatan yapping. The Keynesian precept here is about priming demand and it starts with the assumption that the multiplier is at least, or more than, 1.0. If you have learnt anything today, please learn this or shut the hell up.

My friend sharrap dia!. . . . is it today that I have been discussing Keynesian economics on Nairaland?. . . that I do not know about the debate on 'Obama's multipliers' says nothing about my knowledge of Keynesian economics. . . . your original post was very unclear to those not in the loop. . . you came in talking about Obama's fiscal stimulus and how much society gets back and bla bla bla. . . . since Obama's stimulus contains both keynesian and non-keynesian elements, I talked about Sweden etc thinking that you were referring to returns on government spending (both Keynesian and non-Keynesian elements of the fiscal package). . . . how was I to know that you were referring to Keynesian multipliers if I am not abreast of the debate in Yankee?. . . .it was only about 3 posts in that I deciphered that you were talking about Keynesian multipliers, a topic I have not covered since 2nd year Macro-Econs. . . . . I just thought you were having your usual rant against Keynesian economics as you love to do. . .

My friend sharrap dia. . . how many people are aware of this debate here in Britain. . . or even in Yankee sef?. . . .of course, I had to certify that the initial info was correct before jumping into the debate. . . just like you, I did not believe that Obama could achieve 1.5 multiplier in the short-term, that is why I questioned the validity of the initial info. . . . if I thought those figures were correct, I wouldn't question them. . . . so like you said it really is "the miracle of the fiscal stimulus multiplier". . . . I believe this recession is going to last long and five quarters is too short a period.

4 Play:
An easy way of rebutting this charlatanism is to ask where on this thread anyone says Obama has stated the above. Or presumably, I can as well ask for a single link of the Obama team saying their stimulus plan is in regards the long term and not the short term.

Simple question - please provide the answer!

You came on here spewing rubbish, irked at the fact that Obama's fiscal plans come with a proviso of 150% returns.

Oya, where is the link that says that the 1.5 multiplier holds for the short term?

Did Obama or any of his economic team make such an assertion or are these assertions that you manufactured in your head?

If it is in the public domain, surely CNN and the like would report on it, and we would be able to get a link from you. Methinks it is not in the public domain, only in your head.

4 Play:
(1.) If you think the current debates about the multiplier in Keynesian spending is about supporting the banks or the auto-industry, that means you haven't got a clue what the subject is. It's like coming to a thread about the effects of communism to talk about the effects of Islamism.

(2.) What the hell is the banking rescue measures got to do with Obama's planned Keynesian spending? .

My friend sharrap dia! I did not mention the banks as part of Keynesian policy. Dont insult my intelligence.

The second question should have been the original title of your thread instead of harping on about some 1.5 multiplier bullshit. Your original question should have been "Are Keynesian policies the solution to the present crisis?" Like I said, the Keynesian element of Obama's fiscal package are simply to keep employment up, create artificial demand, as well as long term benefits to the economy through the creation of capital goods. You cannot talk about Keynesian multiplier in the short term without considering the Long Run Keynesian multiplier and the effect of the increase in capital goods. Any attempt to hash out a figure of 150% in the short-term is evidence of your own stupidity. Besides, we do not know if this 1.5 figure of yours is just a fable that you created. At least, until we get a credible url confirming your initial yarns.

Guy, all this rambling is not helpful.

Can you provide a link where Obama says his stimulus package will make 150% returns in the short-term?

I do not know the actual contents of the stimulus package until it is passed, but I believe some of it will be geared toward the banks¹, whilst other money will be allocated to the auto-industry, infrastructure, medicine², etc. On top of that we will be seeing middle-income tax cuts and no repeal of the Bush tax cuts³.

I believe the keynesian elements of (2.) is what you have a problem with as (1.) and (3.) do address the immediate crisis.

Hence, Obama is tackling the immediate problem whilst simultaneously protecting jobs and creating artificial demand through (2.).

All this talk of 150% returns in the short-term can only be substantiated if you provide us with credible http://.

Guy, just think of it as a collaterised debt obligation.

Government buys the economy's bad assests, giving it a chance to recover.

The economy subsequently recovers in the medium term, paying Government back slowly and periodically over the longer term.

Hence, the time-frame for economic recovery and the time-frame for Government to recoup it's investment are two different entities.


Now, as to the Keynesian elements of the stimulus package such as infrastructure spending and computerised healthcare, these are even longer term strategies design to re-orientate the economy AND provide jobs for those who have been displaced in the short-term.

4 Play:
What? He saves he will create or save, 2.5 million to 3 million jobs over the next 2 years. That is putting a time period on when the stimulus will start having effect.

Creating jobs and recouping investment fully are two different things with two different timescales.

4 Play:
Besides, how can a defense of Obama be that he has no time frame for his economic plans? That is not a defence of Obama but a denigration.

Again time-frame for the economic plans and time-frame for recouping investments are two different things. The Swedish economy has been going well for the last decade, but they only just recouped their investment.

4 Play:
If a major part of your recovery programme won't take start coming into effect until a couple of years' time, what happens to the economy in the preceding time? The likely outcome will be that in 2 years' time, the economic outlook will be much worse.

It is already in effect. Without it, there would be a total systematic collapse by now. Simply, the Government will not 'recoup' their investment in the short term. I don't know why this hard to understand. We do not judge the economy by the budgetary deficit, we judge it by GDP.

The market will not move in a positive direction for a year at least, even by the most optimistic estimate. Some such as myself believe it will take upwards of 3 years.

4 Play:
Obama's plan has been sold by him, and the supporters of the plan, as the answer to today's problem.

He can either let the whole system collapse, with catastrophic short-term consequences which could lead to anarchy and even social unrest or he can limit the fallout by spending big in the short-term. Either way, his objective has always been to have strong fiscal governance and to produce budget-surpluses like we had in the Clinton years. Unfortunately, he is going to have to put that off until he takes care of this mess.

4 Play:
You are advancing a point that the stimulus advocates don't even share - that the fiscal stimulus is about the long term, not the short term. That is a bizarre argument. .

No, my point is exactly the same as theirs. The fiscal stimulus is intended to rejuvenate the economy in the medium term, and the Government will make back its investment in the long term. For example, you cannot hope to have quick returns on infrastructure projects, nor on the 'bad banks' which are created to take away toxic assets from the banks.