First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Barack Obama Second Term
21074 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/12 , edited 11/10/12

longfenglim wrote:

To play the devil's advocate, I will show you precisely why you are wrong.


(*waits in suspense*)


Liberal Humbuggery! Not worth refuting. There is a natural difference in the inert and idle disposition of the working class, the mass, and the industrious class, the Capitalist.


So no reply there?


Keynesian Humbug. First, we don't need the stimulus, and indeed, the Stimulus is symptomic of a increasing government encroachment of Economic Liberty. Let's review basic Political Economy, as you, and your Nobel Prize winners are so utterly out of common sense, and so without learning, that it is necessary to repeat this basic fact: In a capitalist system, we have cycles of prosperity and recession, during periods of recession, inefficient companies dies, their resources are then more optimally redistributed, workers are forced to accept lower wages as a condition of a weakened Union, and we go back to merry prosperity- the Keynesian Hypothesis is that we can somehow work in a way to stop this cycle with government spending- this is clearly not true, as shown by history and shown now, and the government should never have spent a dime to rescue the bank, rather, they should have let the banks fail and let Capitalism run its course. The Nobel Prize is not an indicator of any merit in their judgement.



So you did it!! Someone I'm guessing because of your age, sliped somewhat of a tip or maybe your teacher is talking about "Keynessian Humbug" and you are already masticating hubris oh my dear kid... Tell me how the Keynesian is just hubris? Since the poor results of the rescue of the american automotive industry? Yes you are right!! the GM, Chrysler and others are just drinking from the breast of the US. Omg they are totally not worth a dime now!! Quick go to the papers show they show them how bad the Keynesians of this world destroyed this industry please please! It is your patriotic duty!


The army is a necessary expenditure to Keep American Dominance in the world, to maintain Pax Americana, if you will, and our Science research (where it really counts) is one of the best in the world- in part because many of it comes directly from our Military Scientific research.



LOL let me laugh a little here pls... so to keep "the pax americana" you need your strong military? XD good one... so like all the empires of the past you want to fall again (not continue as a healthy empire but to die as a big spending one?) And yes that would be if the military didn't stop spending in research (they still do but at a margin of like 6% of what they were doing it, it was all passed to the private sector... again tell me... why do you need then all the military spending if a bunch of 4 guys with knives can hijack a plane and kill 3 thousand people? Are you that dumb? Btw the bulk of the research is done now in the private sector (no not quite at the level of Iron man but one can dream) Again the military passed from being a researcher to being a buying monkey of other's work.



We are better off today, than we were in the 60s and 70s precisely because the rich are now unburdened by oppressive taxes- it came with the 80s and lasted well into the 90s, when we removed those oppressive taxes, under the Reagan Administration and the implementation of Supply-Side Economics, which resulted in a general prosperity- if the gap grew wider, it is only because all wealth gone up, only the wealth of the rich gone up at a higher rate than the working class, but that does not mean that the working class are not benefiting from it.


So with all the problems in the economy today, all the social issues and the loss of the economical power... you are better today? in what world of fary tail are you living? Maybe you are in colorado atm? If that is so please send me some weed



The Rich People don't spend money, they will, however, make investments, which stimulates the economy, stimulating growth, and all that. The reason why they are not investing in America is because Americans work for a far to high wage, in a way that it is profitable to incur the heavy cost of shipping and produce things oversea than to produce things domestically and save money on the shipping. That problem, then, is the minimum wage law that does not allow the market to go its natural course, which is why no company is hiring, and why no Rich folk are investing.


Investing is the Rich people way of "spending" the money my kid, again how was my point wrong about that no matter how low the taxes are, there will always be poor countries to invest in that will return the investments to the rich people? Again... no matter how low the taxes are there will be more places in the poor countries to invest than in first world countries.



Bullshit. Poor People are not patriotic idiots- they will spend money on what is cheapest, for a reasonable quality, and those tend to be what are produced overseas, so, they spend their money, and it goes out of the nation all the same. Common sense goes a long way in the study of Economics.


Hahaha if you think rich people are patriotic you are delusional. (By the way no poor people are not either) It is a simple fact that since poor people can't take the savings to poor countries and spend it there to get nice dividends from investments, even if they can only spend in the "cheapest" like you point it out... it is still SPENDING IN THE COUNTRY! Like you said common sense is a long way in the study of Economics. If poor people spend in the country the consumption is going up so the economy benefits. Are you there McFly?



As shown above, military spending is necessary to maintain Pax Americana, tax cuts for the Rich are necessary because they stimulate the Economy, while education, roads, and healthcare are better provided by private institutions. That is the way to go.


If you think roads education and healthcare are better provided by private institutions... omg... we can cite so many good examples... of why that is not really the case...

Let's see... since the privatization of the healthcare more than 4 million americans were out of the healthcare programs due to preconditions... (changing now thanks to the healthcare of the president)

Once the private sector took over the production of Electricity in California they got a 60% increment in the prices with almost a 120% increment in blackouts. Was in the record that the power companies were artificially reducing the production of electricity to elevate the cost without worring about how the blackouts where affecting the economy and the living of the people. (I'm guessing you don't know this because of your age)
Someone in the private sector makes roads? O.o holy sh... t i didn't knew that nice to find new and interesting things... XD

It was also It has been well researched that giving tax cuts to wealthy people don't stimulate the economy... (the latest a research by someone int he congress i think, but shut down the paper by the dear ones in the republican party)
Wait are you talking about trickle down economics? Are you serious? That is worse than believing in the fairy tales O.o


Why? To shoot ourselves in the foot?


No to get out of the free fall of your economy.


Toss out your Keynesians and your Marxians, and read Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman


Omg so Adam Smith? XD pls pls don't you are making my belly hurt. XD its so nice to have a nice laugh though...
46073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/10/12


"The gap my dear kid is not the problem... the problem is that Ayn Rand stupid supporters think it would solve magically just because its natural. Logical or whatever crap you think you know about Ayn Rand."

So there you have it, the gap between income is nothing to be concerned about at all. Good.

I havent even read Ayn Rand, its just people automatically assume I do. Strawman arguments.

"The one thing that really stopped in my tracks was that you really think Faux News is an acceptable source of information... I mean if you think MSNBC is a lame "left" propaganda cable news company... at least you should admit Faux news is the same just in the side of the Republican party. But i digress."

Oh wow, another Fox News hater. What else is new. Fox News is nothing different from MSNBC, CNN, or any other type of news outlet. Everybody hates on Fox News because they dare give the other side of the stories. If it wasnt for them we would never get to hear it. But I digress.

"If we were going to talk about the "natural" difference (i'm guessing you are using some kind of stupid social darwinism here) you should know that "naturally" every social being (animal, human etc) works for the best of the community... that would be socialism so in order to not make false equivalencies stop there... Obama is not socialist... and never would be... he is all for the "american dream" a dream i must say is totally out of the possibility of the majority of the population. "If you believe in the american dream, you can only believe in it if you stay asleep" Again I digress... "

No, humans do not work for the best of the community, humans for for their self interest. So you already fail to understand human nature. Thank God society wasnt built on good intentions and the happy feelings of community because then it would fail miserably. Hell we wouldnt even need a government. People do things because of their own self interest, not because of community.

I consider Obama a socialist in the sense that he uses class warfare rhetoric to justify taking money from the productive and give it to the unproductive in the name of social justice, fairness, equality. But Obama is more of a fascist. Since fascism means government ownership of property and/or heavy regulation in the private economy.

I agree the american dream is harder than it was before, since government got involved.

You still havent actually refuted any of my points so far. Tell me which public policy I propose would actually have a different result than what I believe it would have and maybe we could get somewhere. But again I digress.

"Sorry is hard to keep up with you since you mix all this half cooked Ayn Rand - pseudo science - social darwinism and I would say poor understanding of the political and economical issues that is really hard to concentrate."

Thanks for the ad hom argument, hopefully you will be able to point out where Im wrong instead of just saying Im wrong.

"2 Economic Nobel winners... agree with the stimulus packages Obama passed, they even went far enough saying it was even less of what it was needed. ( I don't know you but i think i'm never going to get a nobel price) "

Oh wow, appeal to authority fallacy. Jesus you really aren't even worth my time but I guess I will continue.

By the way, 2 Nobel Prize winning economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman would disagree with you. See I can do that too. Now how about we actually debate policy?

"US is in the 14 place in science education, but first in army and military spending it has the combined strength of the 22 countries with the bulk of the military force of the planet, 21 of them are allies of the US. only 1 is a possible threat. still you spend more in military than the other 22 nations combined... (maybe that is where your trillion dollar debt is in?)n "

And what the hell does this have to do with anything related to the economy? Seriously, how the hell is this even relevant?

"The wealthiest persons in the US had in the 60's-70's the highest tax income you would ever believe up to 90% of the income of those guys... still in those years even with the hiccup of the gas crisis in the middle east the rich people were living like... well rich people. And the American dream was a reality. Everyone had the possibility of a well paid job. (If you were not black of brown of irish :P) Now days with the lowest income taxes ever for rich people, US has the worst record of income gap in the first world countries. "

And here we go with your failed understanding of what happened there. Your entire post is the fallacy of correlation equals causation. Just because something happened during that time does not lead to your conclusion.

During the 60s-70s there were a ton of deductibles and the rich never actually paid those taxes. The 70s were the American Dream? Standing in long lines at the gas pumps because of failed price controls was a dream huh? Funny.

Do you understand why people had the possibility of a well paid job? Do you just automatically look for the lowest common denominator between 2 things and automatically think they are correlated?

Once again, explain how the income gap between 2 groups means anything whatsoever.

"The reason is this: RICH PEOPLE don't spend the money they save with the tax cuts. They save it of to send it to other counties to invest (hey if you can afford it go for it) They will never invest it in the US simply put because there are other places where you can earn more money. Even if you disappear the taxes in the country that wont change, simply there are more poor countries than 1st world countries to invest in."

And here is where your economic ignorance is showing. So what if they dont spend that money? They put it into a bank. And what does the bank do with it? it lends it out to other people. And who are these other people? They are entrepreneurs who attempt to start up a business. And the bank makes money on that loan. So its a net benefit to the economy regardless if you spend money or save it in the bank. You are only focusing on the demand and not the supply. Just like what most keynesians so.

And now you are probably talking about outsourcing. Well I got news for you. Outsourcing is not inherently bad. Now I would agree that if government interfering in the marketplace increases the chance of outsourcing then yes that is bad. But even in a completely free market economy you could still see outsourcing. The reason being is because its not bad.

If I am Steve Jobs and I make Ipads or whatever, I may have a portion of the production of the Ipad done in a 3rd world country because the labor costs are cheap there. But does that mean that the entire Ipad is made there? Of course not. The high tech stuff is done here in America. So yes he creates jobs overseas but he also creates jobs here in America. I would then take the revenue I get and then invest it back into my company to expand. Does that mean I will create jobs overseas? Most likely. But I will also create jobs here in America as well. Its not an all 100% over there or here plan. Its a mixture. However if you forbid somebody from outsourcing, they wont have that extra revenue to invest in their company and therefor less jobs here in America will be created.

Investing in poor countries is not somehow bad. World wide competition brings the price of goods down. That benefits everybody since we are all consumers.

"If you help POOR PEOPLE with free healthcare with stimulus with free education.. they tend to spend their money in the same country and community they live. Mostly of the time poor ppl don't tend to save but to invest in houses business etc. and that money spent helps the economy."

Pure Keynesian economic nonsense. You dont understand the costs of free healthcare and free education. You think that there is a multiplier effect that if you take 100 dollars from the top and give it to the bottom, they will somehow create a return on invest greater than a multiple of 1 compared to what the people at the top would have done if they were allowed to keep that money.

If you dont allow for world wide competition the prices of goods in this country will be higher and therefore people will have to spend more money for the same goods.

You are looking at the demand part of the economy and totally ignoring the supply part. You dont understand who creates wealth and that people can spend money more efficiently than others.

"You think that spending less is the way to go... then stop spending!!! Stop the tax cuts to the oil companies... they are having record profits... and they are still getting stimulus from the goverment. Stop spending so much in the damm Military... (if they get a gundam we can talk :P) Start spending more in your people. In education, roads, healthcare etc. That is the way to go."

I agree, lets stop spending. Tax cuts are not spending dude. Its letting people keep their own money. The only way you could think a tax cut is spending is if you thought it was the governments money to begin with.

I agree, dont give subsidies to oil companies, dont give subsidies to anybody!

I can see where you are coming from on the military, though let me remind you that funding a military is a constitutional requirement, though I agree it is pretty big. (If this country ever gets a Gundam that would be awesome :D)

You say spend more money in education, roads etc. Where do you think the money comes from the fund these? Why dont you privatize education? You do realize our education sucks right now right? Lets have a voucher system to give money to the parents to let them choose where to send there kids to school and make the schools be receptive to them and not the other way around.

You have to realize at what cost are you funding education? What would the money have gone to had you let the people keep it in the first place?

"Stop giving tax cuts to the wealthiest of the americans... they can afford not to get the diamond boat they wanted, but if you take the benefits from your poor people is a recipe for disaster. "

Once again, where do you think all of the investments come from in a company? They come from the profits, a higher profit means people are buying the companys product or service. How is that a bad thing? More profits means a company can invest in it more to expand.

In order to give benefits to poor people you have to take it from somebody else. Why cant they just keep their own money. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax system and replace all taxes with a national sales tax of maybe 10 to 15 percent. And allow for basic necesseties to be tax exempt so that poor people will have an easier time. Everybody will be able to keep more of their own money. That would help everyone.

"Again Stop semi chewing the words of others... and read Marx... yes even him can be of use here... Stiglitz, Krugman, (I recomend their late papers) hell many others that study this and say... Republican Party is WRONG
"

Karl Marx is one of the biggest morons that has ever lived. His theories has indirectly caused the deaths of millions of people who tried to implement is ideas. Communism is an impossible Utopian goal. Socialism and fascism leads to totalitarianism.

And Krugman is just dumb. Sure he won a Nobel Prize. But Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. So clearly these wards have lost their meaning.

"BTW Stop watching Faux News"

I dont watch them to begin with, but I know they give the other side of the story where everybody else wouldnt even attempt to


So in conclusion. You dont understand how economics works. You believe that there wont be a cost to any of the policies you describe and never look at the opportunity cost if you allowed people to keep their own money.

You seem like a nice guy. So I hope I wasnt too hard on you. But seriously, these fallacies in economics has got to stop. Or we will never advance.

I would recommend reading some Thomas Sowell (Basic Economics), Milton Friedman (Free to choose), F.A. Hayek (Road to Serfdom)

Anyways, have a good day. (Im going to watch some Hidamari Sketch :D)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/10/12 , edited 11/10/12

zeta2099 wrote:

So no reply there?


No, because the good portion of it is simply slandering Fox News and your opponent in the most libellous, vituperative, and opprobrious way possible, which I have no particular opinion of as I do not watch television. I prefer to keep out of your pettiness, despite your natural inclination towards it.



So you did it!! Someone I'm guessing because of your age, sliped somewhat of a tip or maybe your teacher is talking about "Keynessian Humbug" and you are already masticating hubris oh my dear kid... Tell me how the Keynesian is just hubris? Since the poor results of the rescue of the american automotive industry? Yes you are right!! the GM, Chrysler and others are just drinking from the breast of the US. Omg they are totally not worth a dime now!! Quick go to the papers show they show them how bad the Keynesians of this world destroyed this industry please please! It is your patriotic duty!


What? I really don't understand a single word you just said- please refer to this site, and come back when you have a sufficient mastery of the English language:

http://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/en/

I would respond to the bit about the American Automotive Industry, but I am of the opinion that had we let them sink, the factories, parts, workers, etc. would have more efficiently been distributed amongst more profitable companies, such as the Japanese, Italian, or German Companies, and would have generated better results, not to mention better cars.


LOL let me laugh a little here pls... so to keep "the pax americana" you need your strong military? XD good one... so like all the empires of the past you want to fall again (not continue as a healthy empire but to die as a big spending one?) And yes that would be if the military didn't stop spending in research (they still do but at a margin of like 6% of what they were doing it, it was all passed to the private sector... again tell me... why do you need then all the military spending if a bunch of 4 guys with knives can hijack a plane and kill 3 thousand people? Are you that dumb? Btw the bulk of the research is done now in the private sector (no not quite at the level of Iron man but one can dream) Again the military passed from being a researcher to being a buying monkey of other's work.


Okay...you done laughing?
A large Military is necessary to keep American Hegemony and American Dominance, necessitated by that fact that America is, in fact, in peril, it is threatened by the rising influence of China, Iran, and other nations, as well as the necessity of keeping peace in the world, which I have dubbed approvingly, contrary to others who use the term, 'Pax Americana'. The next part is almost wholly incoherent, and I will refer you back to the site posted above, and rewrite it in a way that I, as an English speaker, can understand. From what I gathered, it is something about the Military being a purchaser of technology developed in the private sector. For the life of me, I do not see how this is a bad thing, for if the technology is developed privately, the government still subsidize the research done by the Military, and, in addition, it provides the private enterprise with money, which can use that money to do more research or to invest. Either way, it has an overall benefit to the system as a whole.

You chastise me for saying that the military spending it justified, but that terrorists were still able to hijack a plane and fly it to the twin tower and the pentagon- how is this relevant? The Military is partially responsible for security, but it reaches is not ubiquitous, it is not an omnipresent force. More care could have been taken, but these criticism are made with the benefit of foresight.


So with all the problems in the economy today, all the social issues and the loss of the economical power... you are better today? in what world of fary tail are you living? Maybe you are in colorado atm? If that is so please send me some weed


It is called 'Reality', and, no, no accusation of being 'high' would make your point any more valid. The proof of our prosperity prior to the crash was evident, and need not any explication to anyone who have lived through those times. In addition, many of America's Social Issues have improved actually- Race is a fine example, the most obvious statement of our vast improvement is the fact that Obama is president, and that Herman Cain was a serious contender.


Investing is the Rich people way of "spending" the money my kid, again how was my point wrong about that no matter how low the taxes are, there will always be poor countries to invest in that will return the investments to the rich people? Again... no matter how low the taxes are there will be more places in the poor countries to invest than in first world countries.


Basic Economics seems to just fly over your head, being beyond your simple minded Keynesian understanding. If you had bothered to read, I proposed more than lowering taxes- I proposed to abolish the minimum wage! Why would Rich people invest in America? Because most of the consumer are Americans, and it is cheaper to hire at higher wages in America and save money on transportation, than to hire at cheaper wages, and incur monstrous shipping cost. At cheaper wages, it becomes more profitable to invest in America, in American Companies, which would increase the general prosperity of America!



Hahaha if you think rich people are patriotic you are delusional. (By the way no poor people are not either) It is a simple fact that since poor people can't take the savings to poor countries and spend it there to get nice dividends from investments, even if they can only spend in the "cheapest" like you point it out... it is still SPENDING IN THE COUNTRY! Like you said common sense is a long way in the study of Economics. If poor people spend in the country the consumption is going up so the economy benefits. Are you there McFly?


They buy things in America no matter what, the hoi polloi, the Vulgum Pecus- lo, they are legion for their names are many!- I am not saying that Rich people are Patriotic, but that they would invest in America if investing in America is profitable, which was, by your failed Keynesian policy, and your Socialistic clasping of Americans enterprise in the chains of Regulation, rendered so wholly unprofitable that it is more profitable to invest in other nations, to set up companies in other nations, and we are reaching quickly the point of no return! Mock, as you will, you cannot deny this- the poor buy things made from other nations, this provides greater incentive to open more factories there, and taking away more American jobs and diverting more investments away from America. The Poor people may spend in the country, but it is spent on foreign goods, which is used to pay the Rich, and gives the Rich an indication that they should continue to pursue such policies, closing more Jobs in America, and, while making the overall standard of living better, make the standard of living in America worse. Since you lack the basic grasp of Economic or of English, I am considering not taking you seriously, as any semblance of intelligence is wasted upon you.


If you think roads education and healthcare are better provided by private institutions... omg... we can cite so many good examples... of why that is not really the case...

Let's see... since the privatization of the healthcare more than 4 million americans were out of the healthcare programs due to preconditions... (changing now thanks to the healthcare of the president)

Once the private sector took over the production of Electricity in California they got a 60% increment in the prices with almost a 120% increment in blackouts. Was in the record that the power companies were artificially reducing the production of electricity to elevate the cost without worring about how the blackouts where affecting the economy and the living of the people. (I'm guessing you don't know this because of your age)

Someone in the private sector makes roads? O.o holy sh... t i didn't knew that nice to find new and interesting things... XD


What the hell is all this bullshit- first, healthcare provided by the private sector are, in fact, better than those provided by the teats of the government, as demonstrated by many able statesmen. Private Companies relieve the government form unnecessary expenditure, and, because we live in a capitalistic system, competition force companies to offer what the best value for the best services, or else lose customers to a more able competitor.

As for the California Energy Crisis, it was the work of a few, unscrupulous individual who would have, had Capitalism taken its course, been punished by the Market. Of course, Age is brought up again, and used to mock my views, but, in the course of this debate, I think it is clearly shown that Age has no relation to knowledge, wisdom, or sensibility, as shown by my complete and utter nihilation of your facile and weak arguments.

As for the private sector making roads- I am saying they should be let to privatise the streets, and would, in all probability, keep it in better condition than our government does.


It was also It has been well researched that giving tax cuts to wealthy people don't stimulate the economy... (the latest a research by someone int he congress i think, but shut down the paper by the dear ones in the republican party)
Wait are you talking about trickle down economics? Are you serious? That is worse than believing in the fairy tales O.o


Tax cut increases the wealth of the Rich, who will then use it to invest when necessary- Tax Cuts are not the sole factor, but must be used in conjunction with a Liberalisation of the Markets, Deregulation, Privatisation, etc. It is a mistake to think that Tax Cut alone is the key, and you are making such an issue of it, you neglect that other necessary parts. After all, as we have seen in the Stagflation of the 70s, the Keynesian premise that deficit spending and inflation stimulate growth and help ends recession is was utter bullshit. It is worse than that, it gives people a false confidence in the Economy, when the Capitalist system, as mentioned above, is, in its nature, Cyclic, with periods of prosperity (as in the 80s) with periods of recessions (as now), where the resources of the companies are more efficiently redistributed by the invisible hand of the Market.


No to get out of the free fall of your economy.


Look up the Stagflation of the 70s to see where your Keynesianism leads you. It is manifest that Keynes was wrong, and we should,if we want a stable Economic system, keep to a purely Free Market, Liberalise it, give tax cuts to the wealthy, etc. Keep in mind that these were the principle causes of our Economic Prosperity during the Reagan years.



Omg so Adam Smith? XD pls pls don't you are making my belly hurt. XD its so nice to have a nice laugh though...


Well, I suppose your limited literacy may impair you from reading anything at all.
21074 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 11/11/12

superluccix wrote:


Not that my grammar is perfect either...



So there you have it, the gap between income is nothing to be concerned about at all. Good.

I havent even read Ayn Rand, its just people automatically assume I do. Strawman arguments.


I think you don't understand what a strawman is but lets leave it like that.


Oh wow, another Fox News hater. What else is new. Fox News is nothing different from MSNBC, CNN, or any other type of news outlet. Everybody hates on Fox News because they dare give the other side of the stories. If it wasnt for them we would never get to hear it. But I digress.


Well is not that i hate them i find them, purely non informative, I just find them purely dogmatic, they use "facts" (no, if the so called facts are based in propaganda they are not facts), as a weapon of hate and fear... You will be enslaved... the nation will be death as you know it... Obama is not really an american, you will lose your guns, government will rape your cat, your dog and make you not believe in god... O.o yes they are purely fantasies of a Conservative mind but still horrible nightmares for the common american.


No, humans do not work for the best of the community, humans for for their self interest. So you already fail to understand human nature. Thank God society wasnt built on good intentions and the happy feelings of community because then it would fail miserably. Hell we wouldnt even need a government. People do things because of their own self interest, not because of community.

I consider Obama a socialist in the sense that he uses class warfare rhetoric to justify taking money from the productive and give it to the unproductive in the name of social justice, fairness, equality. But Obama is more of a fascist. Since fascism means government ownership of property and/or heavy regulation in the private economy.

I agree the american dream is harder than it was before, since government got involved.


Well I guess that we will have to rewrite the whole human history. Cause if humans don't work well in society... that means working for a common goal... I really don't know how we have come to this point of history where we don't kill each other cowboy style... or was spaguetti-western style movie?

Fascism is what? O.o ... hell i think you don't know what fascism is either... but ok... ( I think this is why US is really bad in education this days) I think from what i can remember Fascism is not the take of government over property and regulation of the private sector is more like: "form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation based upon suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, economic corporatism and eugenics."

The key is Suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture... doesn't it sounds a lot like "Traditional America" to you? Or white people will be overturn by hispanics and blacks? Hurry for the hills!! lol


You still havent actually refuted any of my points so far. Tell me which public policy I propose would actually have a different result than what I believe it would have and maybe we could get somewhere. But again I digress.

Thanks for the ad hom argument, hopefully you will be able to point out where Im wrong instead of just saying Im wrong.


I think i did but, ok...


Oh wow, appeal to authority fallacy. Jesus you really aren't even worth my time but I guess I will continue.
By the way, 2 Nobel Prize winning economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman would disagree with you. See I can do that too. Now how about we actually debate policy?


Hmmm well yes i guess is the authority fallacy if we were talking about only opinions but they did responded to you not only based in thought experiments like Hayek and Freedman would. "They provided hard data like: there has been a direct correlation between government stimulus and grow in economy." Btw if you can direct me to some citations of Friedman and Hayek about that what Obama did was the worst in the planet? Joking joking. :)



And what the hell does this have to do with anything related to the economy? Seriously, how the hell is this even relevant?


Wow I mean WOW that US have the worst education (among 1st world countries) and the most spending in military is not related to economy, wtf???? Seriously Now i really know you don't have a clue in how the economy works or functions.


And here we go with your failed understanding of what happened there. Your entire post is the fallacy of correlation equals causation. Just because something happened during that time does not lead to your conclusion.

During the 60s-70s there were a ton of deductibles and the rich never actually paid those taxes. The 70s were the American Dream? Standing in long lines at the gas pumps because of failed price controls was a dream huh? Funny.

Do you understand why people had the possibility of a well paid job? Do you just automatically look for the lowest common denominator between 2 things and automatically think they are correlated?

Once again, explain how the income gap between 2 groups means anything whatsoever.


Hmm yes you need more than a simple correlation of time to find the cause-effect in things... that is why i find interesting that you quote only classical understanding of economics to justify, deregulation and "libertarian" principles to apply to the economy. Again the Hiccup in the petrol industry was just one mini crisis that affected a few years of those decades and was not because of the weakness of the economy but because of other factors involved. Btw standing in line for gas beats the hell out of standing in line to look for work... don't you think?

Yes a well paid job depends of many factors (education, macro and micro economics and of course health of the economy among many others)

Well we can cite that the gap between 2 groups in the income basis is the way of measuring how healthy is the economy of a nation... the more advanced and wealthy is a country the gap between the lowest income and the highest income is small. The more close to a developed nation you will find that the gap is larger.


And here is where your economic ignorance is showing. So what if they dont spend that money? They put it into a bank. And what does the bank do with it? it lends it out to other people. And who are these other people? They are entrepreneurs who attempt to start up a business. And the bank makes money on that loan. So its a net benefit to the economy regardless if you spend money or save it in the bank. You are only focusing on the demand and not the supply. Just like what most keynesians so.

And now you are probably talking about outsourcing. Well I got news for you. Outsourcing is not inherently bad. Now I would agree that if government interfering in the marketplace increases the chance of outsourcing then yes that is bad. But even in a completely free market economy you could still see outsourcing. The reason being is because its not bad.

If I am Steve Jobs and I make Ipads or whatever, I may have a portion of the production of the Ipad done in a 3rd world country because the labor costs are cheap there. But does that mean that the entire Ipad is made there? Of course not. The high tech stuff is done here in America. So yes he creates jobs overseas but he also creates jobs here in America. I would then take the revenue I get and then invest it back into my company to expand. Does that mean I will create jobs overseas? Most likely. But I will also create jobs here in America as well. Its not an all 100% over there or here plan. Its a mixture. However if you forbid somebody from outsourcing, they wont have that extra revenue to invest in their company and therefor less jobs here in America will be created.
And i think that is where yours is showing... putting in to a bank doesn't mean that the bank will lend it to other people just "because" In fact many studies show that the banks are increasingly not lending for "entrepreneurs" but for things like credits for consumption, don't get me wrong that is ok but it will not help the economy in the long run.


Outsourcing is not inherently bad... as the atomic bomb is not inherently bad... as the... sorry joking. The point is that outsourcing is not what you think i'm attacking. Did i said anything about that? I said the rich people will be doing it no matter what you think the country of origin could do to help them to stay. Why? Because again... there are more poor people offering the best deals than rich countries. That is a matter of fact not a matter of dogmatic views.

Btw if you think the high end stuff is done in america... I would say only like 30% is done most of it is done now in Asia and Europe... and that is why US has a problem... its becoming a consumer not a producer of things.


Pure Keynesian economic nonsense. You dont understand the costs of free healthcare and free education. You think that there is a multiplier effect that if you take 100 dollars from the top and give it to the bottom, they will somehow create a return on invest greater than a multiple of 1 compared to what the people at the top would have done if they were allowed to keep that money.

If you dont allow for world wide competition the prices of goods in this country will be higher and therefore people will have to spend more money for the same goods.


O.o what? When did i mess with the prices? Not allowing competition? What the... omg I think my kid you are the one that doesn't have a clue about the cost of healthcare and education... and no: trickle down economics is what you suggest not the thing i'm doing...


You are looking at the demand part of the economy and totally ignoring the supply part. You dont understand who creates wealth and that people can spend money more efficiently than others.

I agree, lets stop spending. Tax cuts are not spending dude. Its letting people keep their own money. The only way you could think a tax cut is spending is if you thought it was the governments money to begin with.

I agree, dont give subsidies to oil companies, dont give subsidies to anybody!

I can see where you are coming from on the military, though let me remind you that funding a military is a constitutional requirement, though I agree it is pretty big. (If this country ever gets a Gundam that would be awesome :D)


Totally agree with the gundam part On the other... yes exempting anyone of paying taxes is a form of subsidy that is a form of spending what you don't have... is like to say: You won't be receiving money for a work you done... in this case providing services the government gives to the private sector and not cashing for it. Is giving money you don't have!!


You say spend more money in education, roads etc. Where do you think the money comes from the fund these? Why dont you privatize education? You do realize our education sucks right now right? Lets have a voucher system to give money to the parents to let them choose where to send there kids to school and make the schools be receptive to them and not the other way around.

You have to realize at what cost are you funding education? What would the money have gone to had you let the people keep it in the first place?


From the taxes!! did you think money came from the hearts of the rich people? from santa? Nope it comes from the taxes... less taxes less money government has to spend... and the more the debt increases... again national debt is not the same as your own personal debt... is not that the gov owns someone money... is the money they plan to spend based in the money they will be receiving and the money they have to "use"


Once again, where do you think all of the investments come from in a company? They come from the profits, a higher profit means people are buying the companys product or service. How is that a bad thing? More profits means a company can invest in it more to expand.

In order to give benefits to poor people you have to take it from somebody else. Why cant they just keep their own money. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax system and replace all taxes with a national sales tax of maybe 10 to 15 percent. And allow for basic necesseties to be tax exempt so that poor people will have an easier time. Everybody will be able to keep more of their own money. That would help everyone.


Because the mecanics of this economy are not made for people to "keep their own money" they are made to spend spend spend! Don't get me wrong is not something that i consider bad... but then if you focus on something just unidimensional you fail to see other factors that will destroy your economy.

Btw taxing everyone the same is the worst you could ever think... let me give you a basic example: lets see... 15% of taxing to everything...

When rich people goes and buys something lets say.. food medicines damm... a car... and pay 15% in taxes... it doesn't matter to them... 15% of say 15k dollars seems a little too much but it wont hurt in lets say 15% of 50 Bucks cause the rich people use their money to buy basic needs at 20% of what their income is...

Let me be more creative here... rich people spends 20% of their income in food and services to put it blunt and poor people use up to 70% of their income in the same (food and services) see the problem there?

Generalized taxes only works if you have the Gap (between the income of the richest and the poorest) small enough so it wont be a problem, taxing poor people more than rich people in the process. You are actually taxing more the poor ppl by ignoring what they spend money into.


Karl Marx is one of the biggest morons that has ever lived. His theories has indirectly caused the deaths of millions of people who tried to implement is ideas. Communism is an impossible Utopian goal. Socialism and fascism leads to totalitarianism.

And Krugman is just dumb. Sure he won a Nobel Prize. But Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. So clearly these wards have lost their meaning.


I would say that ignoring the Economics of Marx just because you don't agree with him is utterly asinine... you have to take what he did and use it not to validate his conclusions but to help you understand that somethings he discovered are ultimately true. And the same can be said about Christ, Jeohva, Mahoma etc... their dogmas are being used to kill millions of people so no, using the words of others to hurt people doesn't make them bad, but the idiots that used them are the ones we should condemn to oblivion.


I dont watch them to begin with, but I know they give the other side of the story where everybody else wouldnt even attempt to


Sorry i fail to see the "other side" they present, they only use their news company to channel some of the worst racist, paranoid, stupid and asinine propaganda in the American society... Sad they use it for that and not for a real construction of what they call the "traditional America".


So in conclusion. You dont understand how economics works. You believe that there wont be a cost to any of the policies you describe and never look at the opportunity cost if you allowed people to keep their own money.

You seem like a nice guy. So I hope I wasnt too hard on you. But seriously, these fallacies in economics has got to stop. Or we will never advance.

I would recommend reading some Thomas Sowell (Basic Economics), Milton Friedman (Free to choose), F.A. Hayek (Road to Serfdom)

Anyways, have a good day. (Im going to watch some Hidamari Sketch :D)


Oh i've know they classics still i think is like approaching quantum physics using Aristoteles Physics.

Maybe you are right though... and good day to you kid!
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/11/12 , edited 11/11/12

zeta2099 wrote:


Thanks for the url I gladly accept it!

So you won't accept the AAI is in good health atm? Are you saying the cars in america are that bad? Omg... and they recently got good reviews!! Aren't you in denial?


I do deny that the automotive industry is not in particularly good heath because, as many economist will tell you, most Americans don't even buy American cars when they are produced more cheaply and in better quality by foreign companies (a truism by now, long past the point of jokes), and if these companies fail (and I have no doubt that they should have failed if they were not robust enough to survive by themselves), then their equipments and their labour will be redistributed more optimally by the market. The government intervention into the Automotive Industry, which began with Bush and continued under Obama, should never have occurred.




It is relevant cause having a big military spending is not giving you any advantage in the economical field and for what it matters in the protection of your citizens... are you that blinded by your dogma that you don't see it?

The "rising threat of China and Iran" (are you kiding me???) China is only because you failed to compete in economical issues it does not have anything to do with your military power or else you would have been the "dominant player" for centuries to come! In the case of Iran is ridiculous... you know they are barely holding right? With the power of the US and allied countries you can obliterate (hell even only the US) many times the Iran guys.


Having a Big Military is advantageous for the economy, for scientific development, as well as protecting our Citizen from enemies abroad. I would like to remind you of several facts, made prominent throughout this war on Terror. First, we have manage to kill Osama Bin Laden, and many of his henchmen, thereby weakening the leadership of Al Qaeda. While it is true that they are replaced, our greater military technology and our great military spending has kept them at bay. In addition, our large military has been stationed across the world (which contributes to this necessary expenditure), but, at the same time, keep at bay the threat to America and her allies, namely Iran, China, and Russia (I, as Juvenal, do not hesitate to name names), and their allies. You mock Iran as 'barely holding', but you neglect the fact that its military is, in fact, sufficiently armed to cause alarm (everyone acknowledges this, which is why they are treading carefully around Iran), and China has a large Military expenditure, with eyes on dominating East Asia (the whole territorial disputes, from the one between them and the Philippines, to the one between them and Japan, should make this clear).

Secondly, your vision of 'obliterating Iran' is an oversimplification of the event that makes even the most adherent warhawk, myself included, nauseated- do you mean that we should indiscriminately bomb Iran, and obliterate all Persians from the face of this earth- not something that many people would welcome, even with our nuclear arsenal. It is a naive, and, indeed, cruel view of things, and the necessary finesse (as fine as wars get, in any case), can only be taken care of by having a large military to liberate.

It seems to me that your grasp of international affairs even more weak than your grasp of the science of Economics, which, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, is weak as it is.


Herman Cain was a serious contender? Seriously? The proof of your prosperity before the crisis is not "proof" of anything or you would call "proof" that a sick person was "ok" that he could do things before he fell ill? O.o what logic is that? Seriously? Many people where in profound concern about the state of the US economy before the crash... even Friedman was aware of problems and was acused of Socialism in the final years of his career!! I'm guessing you were not aware of that fact? that your dear not Keynesian guy was accused of socialism by the Economical Establishment?


I really do not understand what is being said here- please go back to my link in the previous post, and come back when you have a basic command of the English language.

First, the Economy before the crash was still over-regulated, and was in need of more liberalisation and privatisation. And the solution to this crisis is precisely that, more liberalisation and privatisation. This recession, as bad as it is, is necessarily part of the system that is cyclic, and the so called 'prosperity' of the Keynesian years was utterly destroyed by the stagflation of the late 70s, when there was both inflation and rising unemployment, an impossibility according to the Keynesian theory. In truth, it was because of their continued interference into the state that cause such condition, and when the state pulled out during the '80s under Reagan, we experienced a greater overall prosperity and rise in the market by letting the Market correct itself. That same with now, deficit spending and inflation does not decrease unemployment, if anything, it exacerbate it. What is needed is to deregulate it, as Milton Friedman, contrary to your unfounded assertion, have always championed.

This is basic Economics, and no amount of Keynesian sophistry to explain away their failure can curb this. Keynesian is like Marxism, utterly refuted.


I think is you who doesn't get how the economy works... but seriously... abolish the minimum wage? XD oh so profoundly Classical Economics... You do know that at cheaper wages is less likely that common people will spend in things but the minimum to stay alive? With no consumption you don't have a Capitalistic economy but a Socialistic one! Talking about profound ignorance about economy at all.


First, you have no idea what the abolishment of the minimum wage entails- it does not, as you seem to think, entails the inability to spend, to be completely deprived of money, it is merely to say that people will be paid less, that is, paid what their labour is actually worth, as opposed to some arbitrary government imposed standard. Being paid less, it does not follow that they have no ability to consume at all, just because someone is paid less, doesn't mean he is suddenly free from want and needs, and as long as he has these, he necessarily needs to spend, to consume, and to purchase. Your argument shows a profound ignorance of how humans actually function, they are not machines that are stimulated to buying with more money, rather, they are stimulated to buying if when necessity and want dictates. Now, having no minimum wage entails that it is cheaper to produce in America with higher wages, and save on transportation, than to produce elsewhere.

You likewise evoke, what I believe, to be a modified version of Marx's theory of Surplus labour, that is, the worth of an object is somehow tied to the labour that worker puts into, when, we all know, that according to the Law of Supply and Demand, the consumers set the price. If something is priced beyond what consumers can afford, there is no possibility of them making a sale, and then, they will kill themselves- the market, however, will force the companies to price their product at a level which is both profitable and within the reaches of the mass, and producing it in America would actually make things cheaper at the same wages as China (and at considerably higher wages) simply because transportation is considerably cheaper, and they are able to reach their main markets more cheaply. Therefore, I commend you to take a basic economics course before debating someone who has more research than Keynesian Propaganda.


And about why would Rich people investing in america.... Are you serious or just trolling me? You do have an idea of how the rich people make their decisions at all? They decide with how the market will behave not where all "the americans are" Again a question of Economics, different of what you like to embellish with desires of your own... I would say that the main market of consumption now is driving in the way of China... Not the US. Sadly for the US :(


I am afraid you have read absolutely nothing I wrote, and, instead, argued against a position that I have never held, namely, rich people are investing in America, and will do so out of Patriotism, when I have argued that we must liberalise and privatise the Economy so that it becomes more profitable for them to invest in America. As this has nothing to do with any of what I have argued against, I will not respond to any of it.


Nope kid poor people spend in the things they find more suitable for their needs, in other words the money they can spend is best used in things that are cheaper, and give them the best return. Sadly those things will be foreign, in other worlds capitalism at its best!!


Well, if you insist continuing to use our age difference to mock me, as if your seniority somehow confers upon you some special power of intellect (which, for all that, doesn't seem to improve your ability to communicate in the English Language despite being, I presume, an American), I would like to have it known that, I am a Youth in the prime of life, when mind, body, and spirit, propelled by Youth's vigour, are extremely sound, and will only continue to grow more sound, more robust, and stronger and stronger, and you are at a derelict age, when feebleness of the mind and weakening of the body are starting to show (though, in your case, its acceleration seems unprecedented, even when considering the fact that your never had any strength those area to begin with at all- proving that stupidity is, indeed, boundless), and you would do well not to mention this whole age affair, not for my sake, but because it is to your detriment as an old, muddle-brained fool.

Now, having said that, I think I shall address less serious portion of your argument, though I cannot figure what what is being said, lucidity, clarity of exposition, and the English language not being particular strengths of yours. Are you bemoaning the fact that poor people are buying foreign goods (a point that I have made in response to your argument a few posts back), or are you saying that they spend recklessly and have no restraint what so ever, and so help the Economy by being given money to spend (how, then, do you explain the existence of frugality amongst the working class?).



Investing in America won't be ever more profitable if the non regulators get what they want... like you seem to be wanting... for example not putting some sort of wall between the "cheaper" goods from other countries that compete with the products of your own country...
Oh hell so regulation just works?!! Oh no... Keynesian at the worst.... Protectionism is being implemented in so many ways during the years of the Golden Years of the US economy and Sad to say they worked...


First, I am wholly against a tariff and any other form of protectionism simply because such things violate the principle of competition, and, as such, I do not particularly care for tariff against 'cheaper goods', but you must keep in mind that these goods are only cheaper because it is more profitable to pay less there and ship here than to produce here and transport much more cheaply. In fact, this was one of the main reasons we have never opened many factories overseas until relatively recently- it has always been cheaper to produce things in America with higher wages and save on the massive transportation, than to produce elsewhere and incur much heavier cost of transportation- by forcing American workers to accept lower wages, it can once again become profitable to hire American workers, and ship it to America's main market (mostly, America, and possibly Canada and Europe), and which encourages investment in America. This has been the point I have been making and you have been intent on dodging. So, please try and answer the argument instead of presenting facile, weak, and impotent sarcasm.





So no private sector is making roads? Omg I was sure you would give me an example... again I think you fail to understand what is the role of the government. Roads are made for the common good no company would invest in it since won't directly benefit from it... unless is a private road in which the purpouse is defeated... XD

In case of the healthcare... per se yep you are right if you can afford it, private sector can and will give you more for your money but we are not talking about destroying the private healthcare system... we are talking about the health of millions of people that can't afford the money in their own... Again having your own car is better than using public transport don't you think? Oh wait but not all people can afford a car!! What I'm saying...

So non regulated idiots working the companies for their own advantage managed to subdue the good economics of California... it sounds like some kind of regulation would be nice for that... maybe if you had that it wouldn't destroy the economy of the common people...

The wet dream of the "libertarians" is that the market would regulate itself, let me clarify it for you That is not the case, even Friedman agreed with that. (granted not in the same degree as the devil Keynesians) That is why Friedman was marked as Socialist by many in the final years I mean you can even Google it... if you think I'm lying.


How long, O zeta2099, do you mean to abuse our patience? How long do you intend to mock us with your madness? Can you not see that your intellectual pretences are arrested, hindered, and retarded by your stupidity?

Shames upon the time and its morals! Before, men of weaker mind would see that their wrongness and their intellectual inferiority before the weight of reasoned arguments, and would flee, not daring to show their faces! They would openly admit so, and would bow before their intellectual betters and defer to them! Now, this audacity, this idiocy, this mixture of contempt of reason, and this love of folly, worse, this hatred of orthography and grammar, it deserves more than the lashing it receives now, it deserves a full execution!

O, august readers, I wish to be merciful, but it is impossible, not when my foe makes no sense what so ever!

He accuses me first of saying that the government provides roads for the common good- cannot private companies do that also, and better? Do we not see, everywhere, in our rush to privatise, that all thing that have been privatised, by virtue of competition and the Free Market, been made better? That roads, highways, free-ways, stretching across America were made for the private Automotive industry, and that we should privatise it for the good of the market? What lack of understanding, what want of knowledge!

The next accusation, if I can gleam it from the incoherence of his paragraph, is faulting the companies for not being free! Our forefathers were industrious and strong, and, by their hands, they made this nation the greatest of the Earth, the acknowledged, both by the left and the right, the red and the blue, that we are the sole global superpower, the single empire! Our ancestors came from the most distant land to labour with fruitful industry! If they cannot afford it, should the companies be faulted for want of industry on the part of the poor? This anti-Americanism is too much!

He moves on to the example of California- yet, California needs less regulation, it is in deep debt because of its unnecessary public spending and its constant interference in the economy! It is regulation that stifles business, regulations that forces companies to fly to foreign nations, and yet, in his opposition to such thing, he is wanting to intensify the conditions that caused it in the first place, for shame!

You say that Friedman was of your cause! You read nothing of Friedman, for Friedman was consistently of the Free Market, for the Liberalisation, for Deregulation! Lo! You say, but you do not cite! How does it help you to slander a dead man, and adopt his name for the banner of Keynesian stupidity?




Invisible hand of the Market... omg another wet dream! Ok let me see... you know that Deregulation and Liberalization (Think they are the same but hell if you say they are different ok) of the markets is what bring us to this crisis right? Like letting the banks lend themselves at the cost of garbage derivatives? That without a police man, guys working the system decided that having huge profits not based in reality was ok even if the savings of millions in the middle class were destroyed? I'm lying?

The economy was fine... in the sense millions of people were working and spending... the crisis came thanks to utterly stupid people like the "libertarians" that let the banks and investment companies to play Russian rulette with the savings of millions of people. Just so they could made much more.


Au Contaire, Regulation is what got us into the mess in the first place!
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/did-regulations-cause-current-crisis


Btw Friedman was a defender of the Free market but even he were not in the same boat as you think you are... Or i'm confusing you and the other poster in the thread? :(

And for some reason Reagan would be considered worst than Obama this days... you know in the sense that he got Taxes up right? Do you even know what the hell are you typing? XD

The hell from what i can remember he raised taxes like 11 times? Do you even read anything beyond your own political bias?

Kid spend sometime reading more than just rightwing propaganda :(


Really, you were just recruiting him to your spurious campaign against the Free Market.

Do you even know what happened during Reagan's term in office? One of President Reagan's most important legacy was that he lowered Taxes, which produced a growth in the Economy, and brought it out of the Stagflation of the late '70s.

But, seriously, read your own words before you type them, you accuse me of being narrow minded, and reading only 'right-wing propaganda', you, on the other hand, are fed and brainwash with nothing but your liberal propaganda and you treat them as God's truth. My own opinion are not founded on right-wing propaganda but on a careful study of Economics, which is why I am advocating several measures that many right-wingers would probably would disagree with, such as my opposition to the minimum wage. Your arguments are almost entirely conventional, while my own, I acknowledge there is a strong influence of Libertarian thoughts in 'em, but, on the whole, I am advocating a greater degree of deregulation and government non-interference than many would be prepared to openly accept. Indeed, I think your ideas are rather immature and puerile, which is why I have no trouble refuting them.



Well i think I can read more than you if you are still int he classical Era of the Economical Theory. :sweatingbullets:Yep I know but like i said to a poster above (a much nicer guy than you) Is like trying to understand Quantum physics using Aristoteles physics...


First, you say that 'I am in the classical era of Economic Theory', which you equate to Aristotelian Physics, while your Keynesian Theory is somehow equivalent to Quantum Mechanics. If we were to go by that, then, no, Adam Smith would be more akin to Newtonian Mechanics, the classical Aristotelian Economics (yes, he did write on Economics), would be akin to Aristotelian Physics, Walrasianism would be akin to the Theory of Relativity and Milton Friedman's Monetarism would be akin to Quantum Mechanics, while Keynesianism would be something like the Theory of Luminous Aether, or Theosophy.



One thing you seem to think is possible. While Adam defined much things for us in the Economic sense is superseeded by the modern Economical theories... that deal with much complicated and bigger Economics.


Adam Smith is not entirely irrelevant today, as you seem to make him out to be, as the basic principles of his theory is still the standard on which Modern economics is based. Just as we have gone beyond Newton, without having to make him an irrelevance (his Classical Mechanics is still used in most day to day situation involving engineering), so too have we gone beyond Adam Smith without making him irrelevant. Of course, it is easy to dismiss him, as you have not actually read him, that is, if you can read at all.


I think you have a romantic view of how economics work in the modern era... some like the Republican party had when talking about the "good Regan years"

Failing to see that he even drove taxes up 11 times in his time... that many of the regulating problems that the US have now were born in that era... and failing to see that Deregulation is a problem the same level as total Regulation or Fascism like you like to call it my dear libertarian.


I think you have no idea how the Economy works at all. You fail to see that Regulation is, in fact, the principle cause of our decline, that the truly free market must not be stifled by government intervention, you cite Friedman without ever having read him (I doubt you have read anything), you have evaded all arguments, you have raped reason, have idolised idiocy, you are, in short, a typical Liberal, who, despite their inability to think for themselves and their reliance on propaganda propounded by their Liberal Organs (not in the sense of a Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy, but a failure to even read anything remotely critical of their own a priori view of the world), accuse other of being thoughtless.

But, what matters if I am a Libertarian, is it not better to be a Libertarian and Right, than a Liberal and Wrong?



Dear sir, it is quite clear that you are unable to match me in either wit, clarity, or erudition, and should simply admit that you are wrong on all counts, go home, bury your face in your pillow, and weep in shame.
46073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/11/12


My response. But seriously, Im finished, I suck at typing these long responses. So respond if you wish, Ill be moving on. Hopefully to watch some funny anime

"

Cheers! Thanks mate.

Anyways, Im finished here. Respond if you wish. Im finished for good. My responses take too long D:

(Going to watch poyopoyo) :D



18020 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/13/12
Is it ok to say that I am hopeful for the fiscal cliff? If not, too bad.

Too many people are fighting over moral issues that have no effect on our overall government and economy. And this fighting has made a rift between parties that is too wide. Neither party will let their representatives negotiate with the other party (which is their job). I think that the fiscal cliff will bring an end to this, whether they solve this before or after it happens.

The downside? Another recession. The upside? Long term? Economical gains and the parties learning that they need to work together to make sure the American people are taken care of even if they disagree.
8118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Newfane, NY
Offline
Posted 11/27/12

meipurushiroppu wrote:

i WANTED ROMNEY TO WIN...... I want him because I disagree with Obama's choice of legalizing same sex marriage and he legalized abortion! poor unborn babies T_T this is total bs...... It is against my morals for those things to happen



...abortion was already legal before Obama became president though.
Posted 11/27/12
Im happy barrac won becuase ROMNEY IS A RACIST
8118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Newfane, NY
Offline
Posted 11/28/12

ichigofes12 wrote:

Im happy barrac won becuase ROMNEY IS A RACIST



I don't know if he's racist...BUT he's a lying idiot, that's for sure.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.