You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 3:38 PM

PERHAPS HASTE MAKES WASTE/

An initial report from the Senate oversight committee estimates that Treasury overpaid Financial Institutions in the rough estimate of 78 BILLION dollars in the first TARP in light of the assets we bought.-no comment from Treasury yet. In case you are much like me and cannot get your mind around that figure, one pundit made this comparison.-one billion would be the number of days Jesus had been living if he were alive today. Not trying to start any religious controversy, but that is a concept I can understand. Gives me something to think about.....Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 3:45 PM

Oh, and by the way... the emergency food packets that FEMA distributed to Kentucky disaster victims are now being recalled as they might contain peanut products contaminated by salmonella that the FDA should have caught by inspection but did not-so much for government running things.... ..

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 4:32 PM

Excellent concept of a billion.

foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 848)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 5:09 PM

If Jesus were celebrating his 2009th birthday this
year, he would have lived 733,285 days. Not quite a
billion. If you convert those days to hours you get
17,598,840. Still a bit short. Take the hours time 60
for the number of minutes in his life and you get
something over a billion, 1,055,930,400.




garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6640)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 5:26 PM

but only if you use American billions not English.




alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.4 - Posts: 7560)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 5:54 PM

MacDonalds understand billions too.
They raked in a lot of them last year.

Big Mac® 7.5 oz (214 g) 540 calories.


There are 160 calories in a York Peppermint Pattie.

What's in your belly?







smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 6:01 PM

LOL Al!

Now if the government actually overpaid an underpaid citizen like myself, I wouldn't complain, never seems to happen though.


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 6:13 PM

LOL any way you "crunch" (new word I have recently added to my vocabulary) the numbers, if the figure is correct we poured 11% of the first TARP was poured down the drain. Different President same Chicken Little message that the sky is falling so act FAST... Linda

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 8:40 PM

I think the sky IS falling and somebody better do something and fast!

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 5th Feb '09 9:34 PM

The sky IS falling - and it's raining money on the wrong people.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 3:11 AM

The idea of TARP was to buy TOXIC assets. So it is possible you have misinterpreted what you have cited, Linda.

mplaw51
Mplaw51  (Level: 179.5 - Posts: 1582)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 6:20 AM

I was once told that the difference between a million and a billion was this: A man gave his son a million dollars and said spend $1,000.00 a day and come back when it's gone. He was back in 2.74 years. He then gave him one billion dollars with the same rules, $1,000 a day. He came back in 2,740 years.
I think the math is correct. I never put it on a calculator to check it.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 6:57 AM

Not sure how it was calculated, Andy, but tried to paraphrase what I heard- know I was correct on the end result being we had poured 11% of the first TARP down the drain. The full report is coming out today so perhaps someone can read it and clarify my post-sure I got the end result right correct though. LIinda The report is coming from some kind of Congressional oversight committee)

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 7:00 AM

NO, Linda, TARP was intended to buy up non-performing loans and mortgages but keep the banks afloat. Probably expected that they would decline in value.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 7:08 AM

Believe the PURPOSE of the first TARP was to buy up toxic assets, Andy, and that is what the "powers that be" voted for but Paulson changed his mind and used it for something else thus the complaints-again could be wrong-Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 7:49 AM

Uh, I don't think so.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 8:08 AM

I think because it was unclear to anyone how the Financial folks used the money and didn't seem to want to explain or perhaps couldn't, that the Oversight Committee started digging in the first place. Perhaps you understood Paulson's explanation as to his reason for his "about face" and what the banks would ACTUALLY do with the money, but obviously some did not. It seems the banks themselves didn't understand as many used the money to buy up other banks. Just in case anyone thinks that all is clear now that Paulson is gone, remember Geithner was his second guy and had his hands all over the first TARP. If I am misunderstanding a lot of much smarter people are misunderstanding too-Linda

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 9:48 AM

Linda:

I think you are about right. One can only hope that there will be greater oversight by the Obama administration of TARP funds; I never believed this was a real goal of Bush but, rather, TARP represented a last chance to distribute wealth upward. Obama's economic team is not impressive; you are right about Geithner. He is even more crooked than I had originally thought over the tax issue. This guy actually applied for, and received, money from the IMF for reimbursement of payroll taxes. He received the reimbursement for several years, but didn't pay the taxes. He admitted a couple of years ago that he owed the money, but didn't bother paying it back until he was nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury. See, Bartlett and Steele, "Why Geithner Was Worse than Daschle" at www.dailybeast.com. Having a tax cheat as the head of the Department of Treasury is something I would have thought was more in keeping with the Bush administration than the new "ethical" administration of Obama.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 1:37 PM

Problems are beginning to emerge with the second TARP now. This time there is an attempt to buy toxic assets which include bad mortgages. In order to do that a value has to be set on them which is impossible to know for perhaps years. In the end they may be worth NOTHING!. It is expected that we will see TARP 3 in the near future. Wish someone had a clue as to what would work before they rush into these BILLIONS of dollars whether they are called TARP, stimulus, or economic recovery and investment packages. Linda

donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 2:23 PM

I'll bet there's one toxic asset that even Obama would like to zap. Her name is Nancy.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 2:28 PM

LOL Believe you are once again right on target, Donden!!

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 2:30 PM

"I never believed this was a real goal of Bush but, rather, TARP represented a last chance to distribute wealth upward."

Looney tunes, TSK

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 2:54 PM

Are we now clear though on what the intent of the first TARP and what actually was done, Andy? You can feel free to disagree with TSK on his interpretation of intent, but you surely agree that it was not used as it was voted on to use- Linda Note: I find it also rather bizarre that the President is going on the campaign trail agsain to push this through. He even said he agrees it is a "spending" bill which is okay with me if he can explain how the spending will create jobs in the short-term. Robert Gibbs today could only repeat the unemployment figures which we all know are HUGE but did not state how this package will create jobs immediately. Both he and the President keep going back to November and saying the people voted for CHANGE. That is true but polls are showing that the people kind of think this won't work-to me that borders on "looney tunes"-no offense intended to the office of Te Presidency as I find that practice most distasteful - Linda ( Diane Finstein Ca just said she reserves the right to vote against this bill)

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 3:21 PM

LOl clueless as to how the cocktail glass appeared in my last post here-was trying to type D for Democrat-must have included some unintentional brackets or something-Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 3:34 PM

Linda, the statement is highlighted above is sheer looney tunes. These folks who think the fix is in, no matter what happens, will find no agreement here. I have a term for them, but I will keep it is reserve for the moment.

I'm not backing any of these plans other than to say for the most part those in power are trying to find the handle on a path out of this mess. Surely they hang political ornaments (read pork) on the tree, but the basic intent is to avoid a deep depression.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 3:48 PM

Okay, but see much of the "politics as usual" at play. Gibbs said today that the President will be making trips to 3 states-two of them are Maine and Pennsylvania-forgotten the third. Those states all, have Centrist people and it is a sure thing that he is trying to put the pressure on them by going "to the people" to get them to push this thing through before any more time can elapse and people see what is in it. As I said, haven't a clue if it will work but believe someone in leadership needs to point out how other than the theory if you throw a bunch of money at something some will stick and work. Done that a couple of times in the past administration and it is yet to work if it EVER will- Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 4:02 PM

Now you're talking about Obama rounding up votes for his stimulus bill.

One topic at a time, please.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 4:30 PM

Okay-on topic. Was the first TARP used as it was voted to be used? Yes or no whether you believe banks deserve the money or not- Linda It is clear that they did, indeed, overpay them by 78 billion minimum. Details are coming out on the second TARP this one in the 100s of billions-yes to back toxic assets but there is no evidence that these assets will ever be worth anything.. Still nothing for people like me who make my mortgage payments on time- some speculating that it is inevitable because of the outcry from folks like me the the government will back and write loans for anyone to rewrite their mortgage - Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 4:45 PM

Did the feds use the money correctly? I have no idea.

Did the banks deserve the money? Of course not! FYI I don't think the money they got were gifts.

Did we have a good alternative strategy? Probably not.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 4:51 PM

Sorry, Andy, i have a tendency to get 'touchy'. I felt your post before you went off to bed am assuming strongly suggested I didn't know what the h--- I was talking about. I apologize for my combative tone as you are an intelligent addition to the site- Linda

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 5:13 PM

Hey, Andy, here is another "loony tune" for you. Writing at www.counterpunch.org in the January 30 / February 1, 2009 edition by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, who teaches economics at Drake in Iowa:

"Third, in light of the fact that the bailout giveaway dollars represent a subtle redistribution of national resources from taxpayers to Wall Street gamblers, declaring these gamblers bankrupt would protect taxpayers from having to shoulder the costly bailout burdens, thereby helping to protect the nation from further plunging into debt. There is absolutely no reason why taxpayers should bailout giant banks, insurance companies, investment banks, and hedge funds.

Indeed, for all the money that the government is (or would be) paying for the insolvent banks’ toxic assets, taxpayers could actually own those banks if they are let to be priced according to realistic market values, which are bound to be only a small fraction of their inflated book values."

And this article also addresses taxes paid by American corporations:

"Few governments in the world have been so utterly under the influence of corporate-financial interests as in the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two-thirds of corporations in America paid no federal income taxes at all between 1998 and 2005. This includes a fourth of all large US companies (those with assets worth of $250 million or more). An earlier GAO report showed that 61 per cent of US corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1996 and 2000—a period of high growth and huge corporate profits [14].

After reviewing these and similar statistics, which indicate a steady redistribution of national resources from the bottom up since the early 1980s, P. Sainath, author of Everybody Loves a Good Drought, wrote: “There's 'corporate governance' for you—they simply run the country. Administrations exist. Corporations govern” [15]."

The bracketed numbers are footnote references that I have not copied.



collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 5:23 PM

Hey, Andy, here is another "loony tune" for you. Writing at www.counterpunch.org in the January 30 / February 1, 2009 edition by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, who teaches economics at Drake in Iowa:

"Third, in light of the fact that the bailout giveaway dollars represent a subtle redistribution of national resources from taxpayers to Wall Street gamblers, declaring these gamblers bankrupt would protect taxpayers from having to shoulder the costly bailout burdens, thereby helping to protect the nation from further plunging into debt. There is absolutely no reason why taxpayers should bailout giant banks, insurance companies, investment banks, and hedge funds.

Indeed, for all the money that the government is (or would be) paying for the insolvent banks’ toxic assets, taxpayers could actually own those banks if they are let to be priced according to realistic market values, which are bound to be only a small fraction of their inflated book values."

And this article also addresses taxes paid by American corporations:

"Few governments in the world have been so utterly under the influence of corporate-financial interests as in the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two-thirds of corporations in America paid no federal income taxes at all between 1998 and 2005. This includes a fourth of all large US companies (those with assets worth of $250 million or more). An earlier GAO report showed that 61 per cent of US corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1996 and 2000—a period of high growth and huge corporate profits [14].

After reviewing these and similar statistics, which indicate a steady redistribution of national resources from the bottom up since the early 1980s, P. Sainath, author of Everybody Loves a Good Drought, wrote: “There's 'corporate governance' for you—they simply run the country. Administrations exist. Corporations govern” [15]."

The bracketed numbers are footnote references that I have not copied.

Now you're talking some sense.

Please don't color me with the bailouts. I wasn't at the table. I don't know what all the options were. I do know that to prosper we must have a viable banking system. Period.

Extensive corporate influence in government as we have it is not my preference. And until we get at the federathe kind of campaign finance reform that they have in Vermont, for example,

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 5:30 PM

Now you're talking some sense, TSK.

1. Please don't color me with the bailouts. I wasn't at the table. I don't know what all the options were. I do know that we must have a viable banking system to prosper. Period.

2. Extensive corporate (and labor union) influence in government as we have it is hardly my preference. And until we get at the federal level the kind of campaign finance reform that they have in Vermont, for example, it's going to increase.

And it'll be a while until you see the constitutional amendment required to put such in place because people who have power don't give it up easily. Heck, you won't even find that kind of reforms introduced in larger states. The corporations and labor unions want to protect their cozy relationships with political power brokers.

(NB: I don't understand how the redistributive phenomenon observed has anything to do with this)

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 5:36 PM

Andy, I contend that the article which you state reveals I am now "talking some sense" supports the claim that the bailout resulted in upward redistribution of wealth, i.e., from typical taxpayers to Wall Street corporatists. I happen to believe this was a consequence intended by the Bush administration.

True, in classical economic theory, you don't expect ill-performing managers to be rewarded, but this is precisely what happened. Bonuses were given to corporatists who are responsible for large economic losses. Bonuses were paid to these people after bailouts were announced. Doesn't matter which corporate account the monies to pay those bonuses came out of -- they were subsidized by, or outright paid for, by taxpayers, depending on the actual state of the economic devastation at each particular company.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 5:43 PM

Andy, I contend that the article which you state reveals I am now "talking some sense" supports the claim that the bailout resulted in upward redistribution of wealth, i.e., from typical taxpayers to Wall Street corporatists. I happen to believe this was a consequence intended by the Bush administration.

I think that's mullarkey and in fact, more of the Dems voted for it than Republicans.

True, in classical economic theory, you don't expect ill-performing managers to be rewarded, but this is precisely what happened. Bonuses were given to corporatists who are responsible for large economic losses.

I don't know that to be true. In fact, I very much doubt that to be the case.

Bonuses were paid to these people after bailouts were announced. Doesn't matter which corporate account the monies to pay those bonuses came out of

Excuse, but it does matter. Bonuses are generally paid to those who perform well.

-- they were subsidized by, or outright paid for, by taxpayers, depending on the actual state of the economic devastation at each particular company.

Disagree again.



tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 6:50 PM

F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, whom Andy admire, are associated with what became known as the Austrian school of economics. These economists were a primary source of thought for what became the Chicago school of economics, which was opposed to what was then the dominant Keynsian economic school. The Austrian and Chicago schools of thought influenced Ayn Rand's "objectivist" philosophy. Alan Greenspan was one of rand's inner circle and a proponent of "Objectivism". These economic schools and Rand's philosophy are known for their extreme laissez-faire economic views. Greenspan admitted in testimony before Congress in October, 2008, that there were errors in this philosophy, shown by the subprime mortgage crisis and that the lending institutions did not act as his philosophy predicted. Among other things Greenspan said:

"As I wrote last March: those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief. Such counterparty surveillance is a central pillar of our financial markets’ state of balance. If it fails, as occurred this year, market stability is undermined."




spacecat
Spacecat  (Level: 158.7 - Posts: 667)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 6:57 PM

The following is meant to be humorous, as the cat has ceased to post anything of a serious nature.

A billion, forget a billion or billions a TRILLION is where it is at, as in, the military not being able to account for 2.1 trillion (in a speech by D. Rumsfeld, September 10,2001 or the national debt of the US, now nearing 11 trillion. Someone is making money , it's just not us.

Everyone have a great weekend.



collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 7:00 PM

I don't admire F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Only the first name rings a faint bell. However, those folks are apparently not exactly in awe of New York Times hackonomics shill Paul Krugman. In fact, when you think about it, what serious economics professor would write a biweekly column for a highly partisan editorial page?

It is important to note that the Chicago school of economics put forward the negative income tax - already in place as the Earned Income Tax Credit, about to be expanded by Obama's plans to distribute more money to struggling working couples.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 7:16 PM

You quoted Greenspan, TSK?

LOL.

He was one of the biggest screw-ups in this mess. He shouldn't be blaming anyone except himself. He used the wrong measures to burst the tech bubble in 2000, and he didn't do anything to prick the housing bubble before he was replaced.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 8:34 PM

Andy:

In the "Economic Stimulus as Government Policy" thread on 04 Feb 09 at 2:50 you made a posting attacking the selection of Paul Krugman as a Nobel Laureate. This posting, reprinted below, was "supported" by a quote referring to Hayek and Mises:

You Cannot Be Serious! Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize

"I will be writing a lot more about this, but the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner. It is not that Krugman's work is entirely without merit, but it always had major problems with it. Right now I have to get over my shock and horror and write a commissioned piece on this. But today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated. Mises supposedly said during his dying days that he hoped for another Hayek, as I am picking up my jaw from the floor I am hoping for another Samuelson or Arrow to get the award rather the hackonomics that was just honored."


Based on this quote and your professed study of Economics, I believed you were familiar with both Hayek and Mises. Apparently, I was wrong.

Greenspan would be in the Hayek-Mises tradition. As was obvious from the context, I quoted Greenspan to show that he admitted that his philosophy had been proven wrong. The person you quoted, who attacked Krugman, was evidently somebody who admired both Hayek and Mises; hence the Greenspan quotation that I offered. I confess, I am now simply amused that you -- who attacked my knowledge of Economics -- really don't know anything about Hayek or Mises, who any academic in Economics would instantly know.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 6th Feb '09 8:56 PM

Andy: Really, it is obvious why a serious academic who wanted to influence actual voters and public policy would consider a regular column in "the newspaper of record". I only respond, because last time I didn't respond to what I deemed a rhetorical question by you, you called me out on it.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 7th Feb '09 3:32 AM

First of all, it was the manner in which you addressed intl trade that told me you don't understand it. I haven't studied economics for decades. However, I do retain the important principles, and the one that is marked indelibly in my brain concerns trade between countries. Anyone who speaks in the terms you did doesn't understand free intl trade which is based on economic advantages.

Secondly, what happened in the USA these last 10-15 years does not prove or disprove any economic theory. What it demonstrates is that Mr Greenspan himself missed the boat a few times. It seems he seeks to blame his latest error on blindly following some economic theory, rather than admitting his own lack of foresight.

"Irrational exuberance" was his term for the tech bubble as I recall - it is now conceded that he should have addressed it by raising margin requirements instead of interest rates. He missed "irrational exuberance" in the housing market a few years later and not because he followed someone's economic theory. He should have been well aware of banks irresponsible involvement in the subprime market and nipped it in the bud.

The names I retain in economics are Keynes and Friedman both of whose ideas are now well-established.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Sat, 7th Feb '09 7:10 AM

So Andy:

1. You attacked Krugman with whatever quote you could readily find -- even if you didn't really understand the quote?

2. And as near as I can see from reviewing the two pertinent threads, your current contention that I don't understand international trade -- and I admit that my knowledge in this realm is general and basic, as this is not an area to which I have devoted systematic study -- is based on my view that allowing international capital to set up sweatshops in countries where local workers are exploited and permitting the sale of the resulting goods in first-world countires does not benefit the vast majority of working people in the first-world countries. I am still waiting for whatever evidence you believe constitutes the refutation of this proposition.

3. Incidentally, Friedman is also in the Hayek-Mises tradition, which is antithetical to the views of Keynes.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 7th Feb '09 8:03 AM

So Andy:

1. You attacked Krugman with whatever quote you could readily find -- even if you didn't really understand the quote?

I didn't have to search very far to find a critique of work. BTW I have read a number of his recent columns - still slanted. Hackonomics is right on.

2. And as near as I can see from reviewing the two pertinent threads, your current contention that I don't understand international trade -- and I admit that my knowledge in this realm is general and basic, as this is not an area to which I have devoted systematic study -- is based on my view that allowing international capital to set up sweatshops in countries where local workers are exploited and permitting the sale of the resulting goods in first-world countries does not benefit the vast majority of working people in the first-world countries. I am still waiting for whatever evidence you believe constitutes the refutation of this proposition.

Well, if one does not retrain workers for the better jobs that are being created on their soil, the net benefit to first-world countries will be diminished. However, you can't stop this flow; you can only master the situation by learning how to live with it. Cf. Tom Friedman, one of two NYT columnists worth reading (the other is Maureen Dowd).

I continue to take exception to the word exploitation - just more evidence of your lack of understanding of the situation in underdeveloped nations.

3. Incidentally, Friedman is also in the Hayek-Mises tradition, which is antithetical to the views of Keynes.

Keynes had good models, and many of Friedman's ideas are already proven out. The two are not necessarily in conflict.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus