Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
LastLast
  1. #241
    Mechagnome durza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    hidden rain village
    Posts
    712
    (replying to op) oh look at that another republican is voicing his opinions that dont match with over 60% (prolly more) of americans! come the fuck on red team get it through your head that we as americans dont want a super mega ultra 3/3/3 upgraded deathball of an army to police the world..... also i hate saying it but im glad they failed to reach an agreement as long as those automatic spending cuts happen to the military like the op's post says
    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigercat View Post
    In other words, the same old bullshit.

    Hey, the republicans didn't cave in and go along with something, let's blame them for not going along with the liberals' demands. We already heard all this with the debt ceiling shenanigans.
    LOL, not "caving in". They get fucking 90% of what they want and you act like "not caving in" and giving up 10% to the other side is a good thing? So your idea of politics is "nothing gets done unless one side gets EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT"? Fucking brilliant bro, you would fit right in with the other conservative fuckwits in office.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Hasnoheart View Post
    Because Demacrats dont do the exact same thing when republicans propose something
    Democrats signing off on Republican agendas is why Clinton gets blamed for NAFTA and the deregulation of the Glass–Steagall Act. Democrats were pushed over on the Bush tax cut extension and the debt ceiling compromises this summer. Democrats are known for having no balls and bending over for everything republicans want. Universal healthcare? No, we get the republican healthcare plan from the 90s, which they now oppose. The stimulus? Bending over to republicans to get a fraction of the intended. Both while democrats controlled every branch of the government and republicans didn't really have much power. I am sorry, but it's ludicrous to assert that democrats have been blocking republican policy with another debt ceiling debate because republicans won that and another Bush tax cut debate because they also got that. For some reason republicans main course of action is to do nothing and instead push these issues into next year. Now, I wonder why that is... Has to be because it's what is best for America...

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 06:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcall View Post
    LOL, not "caving in". They get 90% of what they want and you act like "not caving in" and giving up 10% to the other side is a good thing? So your idea of politics is "nothing gets done unless one side gets EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT"? brilliant bro, you would fit right in with the other conservative wits in office.
    Actually, if you listen to the majority speaker regarding the debt ceiling debate this summer, republicans got 98% of what they wanted. I am assuming that the 2% democrats won was postponing the ceiling debate for a year, instead of the 6 month republicans wanted or the democrat idea of returning to how it was when republicans were raising the ceiling and have no debate at all. You might remember those days as those when a majority equaled to anything above 50%, instead of it being 60% now. I can understand saying democrats don't do anything and just bend over to republicans, but to even assert that democrats block republicans, not only bucks against history, but also reality.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 06:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by durza View Post
    (replying to op) oh look at that another republican is voicing his opinions that dont match with over 60% (prolly more) of americans! come the fuck on red team get it through your head that we as americans dont want a super mega ultra 3/3/3 upgraded deathball of an army to police the world..... also i hate saying it but im glad they failed to reach an agreement as long as those automatic spending cuts happen to the military like the op's post says
    If I understand this correctly, the cuts are mostly to veterans and not towards the funds contributing to the wars or overseas actions we partake in. This isn't cuts to unmanned drones or military spending on wars. This is cuts on people who payed the price, but are now having the reciprocation changed once they returned from protecting our country. It reflects an opinion that soldiers are only meaningful while they are fighting. Once they return, the benefits they were promised would be cut. I'm all for military cuts that involve cutting our world presence, but to cut benefits to those who already bravely served, seems misguided and totally missing the point.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    All this report says is that all of those things increase costs, but it does not propose that those things are the reason that the United States spends twice as much as any other nation on healthcare and receives garbage results.
    All I'm arguing is that the reasons I stated increase the cost of the US healthcare. I even specifically mentioned that there are probably other causes the also increase costs, but the report pretty much says that they are the main culprits.

    Just because legal action can come against you doesn't mean that it isn't worth it. It is FREQUENTLY more profitable to let people get hurt or die and pay the victims or their families off than it is to produce a safe product or treat your customers correctly. The obvious example is the exploding Ford Pinto. Ford found that it was cheaper to put out a defective product that killed people than it was to recall the products. This is not uncommon at all, and to pretend that this doesn't apply to insurance is insane. In fact, it applies to insurance more than any other industry, because the actual test of the quality of your insurer doesn't come until you are seriously ill.
    The ford pinto is a ridiculous argument that Milton Friedman destroyed in his rather famous film clip. Some kid got owned pretty hard.



    All economic systems are arbitrary, man-made creations full of the same amount of flaws and problems as any other man-made creation. Economic systems are unnatural, artificial constructs. They are an imposed order.
    They're all constructs by the community yes. But you can't tear down these constructs, you can only alter them - there will always be an economy as long as there is a society. They're inseparable.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 11:06 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I guess its just a hole if you're artistic about your interpretation.
    "Look it's big and it will make me look good - who cares about the costs." Politics ftl.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    All I'm arguing is that the reasons I stated increase the cost of the US healthcare. I even specifically mentioned that there are probably other causes the also increase costs, but the report pretty much says that they are the main culprits.
    Then your argument is really a waste of time. I'm sure at least one car accident every year is caused by someone eating french fries too quickly, but if I decided to interject that into a conversation about car accident causes, I would be wasting everyone's time.

    The ford pinto is a ridiculous argument that Milton Friedman destroyed in his rather famous film clip. Some kid got owned pretty hard.
    Friedman didn't destroy the argument. All he said was that infinite value can't be placed on a life, which nobody proposes. He created a strawman and destroyed that. The question is whether something as insignificant in value as $13 per car is worth 200 lives every year. The point is that the system is fundamentally broken, and life is valued too little, not that it should be valued infinitely.

    They're all constructs by the community yes. But you can't tear down these constructs, you can only alter them - there will always be an economy as long as there is a society. They're inseparable.[COLOR="red"]
    Sure, but that economy is arbitrary and created by the people in the society, almost always by design, regardless of whether it's capitalism or communism. Your fallacy is assuming that your ideal economic system is somehow a natural phenomenon (which is, ironically, a Marxist way to see history) when it is as equally artificial as the most extreme government regulated and dominated economic structure.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 01:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    actually it would just cause all of the successful people to either leave the country or stop working.. otherwise 100k would have to be the 1%..
    Sure, but the serious question is why the top 400 households in America should have a lower taxrate than a middle class family, which is the case right now.

    oh and congratulations Wells! you found one of the few kinda cool things built during the great depression! yet.. the depression still carried on.. and on.. and on..
    The depression continued in every country, no matter what they did. Every country tried different measures, and nobody was lifted at all until they dropped the gold standard and standard HEAVY investment into their economy, which for most countries was wartime investment. You have a fundamentally warped view of history that's not based on the facts. The idea of digging holes and filling them in comes from a caricature of the economist John Maynard Keynes' proposals. FDR laughed him out of the room. He told FDR the New Deal was too small, because it was, and FDR thought he was nuts. Adjusted for inflation, all New Deal programs combined, over the entire span of FDR's presidency only accounted for about $500B. Considering that we are talking about a ten year period, that's a complete joke. That's really not that much money. That's less than we spend on the military EVERY year.

    The fundamental question is whether this paltry spending eased the depression for the average person, which is CERTAINLY did. The depression was FAR worse in countries that did less. In America, there were numerous programs, which were altogether very cheap, that eased the suffering. The goal wasn't to end the depression, because FDR didn't really think that was possible to do alone. The goal was to make things easier on the average person, and in that sense it was very successful.

    the saddest part is that dam couldn't be built today because of environmental regulations.. EPA has is growing exponentially under Obama as well.. forgot to mention that!
    The EPA has been nothing but weakened over the last 20 years, so that's just crazy conspiracy talk.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Then your argument is really a waste of time. I'm sure at least one car accident every year is caused by someone eating french fries too quickly, but if I decided to interject that into a conversation about car accident causes, I would be wasting everyone's time.
    You didn't really read what I wrote. Read the word: "Main culprits".

    Additionally, the "problems" with health insurance you brought up have existed atleast the last 50 years. Yet the problems with healthcare costs exceeding those of your European counterparts didn't begin until relatively lately. And coincidentally that's when most of the problems I presented started to pop up.

    Friedman didn't destroy the argument. All he said was that infinite value can't be placed on a life, which nobody proposes. He created a strawman and destroyed that. The question is whether something as insignificant in value as $13 per car is worth 200 lives every year. The point is that the system is fundamentally broken, and life is valued too little, not that it should be valued infinitely.
    So where would you draw the line? Maybe you should let the people determine themselves what risks they take? Ofcourse, hiding a massive flaw from the customers is the same as fraud, which is illegal.

    And no, he wasn't building a strawman. The fact is that decisions like these have to be done by everyone all the time.

    The EPA has been nothing but weakened over the last 20 years, so that's just crazy conspiracy talk.
    I don't believe this for a second. Seeing how the overall regulatory burden has increased on society within the last 20 years, I would be shocked to see any evidence that EPA has gone against this trend. I don't think claiming it has grown exponentially under Obama in particular is really correct though. (Pages in code of federal regulations , today it's 165K)
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-11-28 at 02:03 PM.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    "Look it's big and it will make me look good - who cares about the costs." Politics ftl.
    It didn't really cost that much. $175 million if I believe? And I'd say that Las Vegas would like a word with you, as it became a boom city because of the stimulus put into effect in that area. That boom's still in existence btw.

    http://www.onlinenevada.org/hoover_d...t_on_las_vegas

    Also,

    Because of Hoover Dam, the Colorado River was controlled for the first time in history. Farmers received a dependable supply of water in Nevada, California and Arizona. Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas and a dozen other towns and cities were given an inexpensive source of electricity, permitting population growth and industrial development.
    http://digital-desert.com/hoover-dam/history.html

    Sorry, but besides environmental effects, Hoover Dam is not a strawman you can burn down.
    Last edited by Chonogo; 2011-11-28 at 03:53 PM.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    It didn't really cost that much. $175 million if I believe? And I'd say that Las Vegas would like a word with you, as it became a boom city because of the stimulus put into effect in that area. That boom's still in existence btw.
    No offence, while it's possible that the Hoover Dam was a great investment that the private entepreneurs simply missed, you haven't really presented anything that would suggest it is.

    And you sort of proved my whole point, the dam is a huge fucking thing that people can see with their own eyes. But what they can't see is all the other production and investment that would've happened if the money had been left with the, usually, smarter private investors.

    The biggest problem I have with it is that people were purposefully paid too high salaries by the government, and there were too many people hired in the first place. It was made as inefficient as possible with the purpose of "stimulating" or "putting as many people as possible" to work. And the private investors that invested in Las Vegas would've put their money somewhere else if LV wasn't viable.

    P.S. $175 Million in the 30's would've been a ridiculously large sum. I think the real initial spending was around $50mil. Dunno if you're somehow factoring in all the costs of fixing the water shortages that it created?
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-11-28 at 04:58 PM.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You didn't really read what I wrote. Read the word: "Main culprits".
    That report doesn't say they are the main culprits. It doesn't really address at all why the U.S. is comparatively more expensive and gets horrible results.

    Additionally, the "problems" with health insurance you brought up have existed atleast the last 50 years. Yet the problems with healthcare costs exceeding those of your European counterparts didn't begin until relatively lately. And coincidentally that's when most of the problems I presented started to pop up.
    Insurance companies, as with most corporations, became exceptionally vicious and involved in politics in the 70s. They hadn't developed these techniques by that point. The paperwork issue simply didn't exist yet. It's a very modern tactic to target people for rescission of coverage on a large scale, and even the techniques of really isolating reasons to charge people more for coverage are very modern. Insurance was significantly more even back in the 60s, for example. The only basis for your rate was simple facts about you, such as your age and any MAJOR medical conditions. Statistical analysis to predict issues, such as calculating the chances that someone with acne or yeast infections would develop severe illnesses, simply didn't exist yet. All of these things drove the paperwork up.

    So where would you draw the line? Maybe you should let the people determine themselves what risks they take? Ofcourse, hiding a massive flaw from the customers is the same as fraud, which is illegal.
    On what planet is hiding a massive flaw from the customers the same as fraud? The only reason a company would be required to disclose these issues is if the government FORCED them to ahead of time, which is regulation, which you are arguing against. Furthermore, as long as paying the victims is cheaper than fixing the problem, it's still more profitable to commit the fraud.

    And no, he wasn't building a strawman. The fact is that decisions like these have to be done by everyone all the time.
    Nobody argues that life should be of infinite value. His argument is EXPLICITLY against that concept. That's the definition of a strawman. The question is whether a company should be allowed to produce a product with an absolutely massive, life ending defect to save $5 per $2000 car.

    I don't believe this for a second. Seeing how the overall regulatory burden has increased on society within the last 20 years, I would be shocked to see any evidence that EPA has gone against this trend. I don't think claiming it has grown exponentially under Obama in particular is really correct though. (Pages in code of federal regulations , today it's 165K)
    Good old Heritage, doing their best to be intentionally misleading. It's extremely rare that a Federal regulation is actually removed, because most removals are actually nullification created by a new law. For example, if I wanted to allow corporations to dump some toxin into a river, I would not REMOVE the old law. What I would do is actually add a new regulation that provides a stipulation nullifying the old one.

    The overall regulatory burden has done nothing but decrease over the last twenty years, and at best stands still.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    No offence, while it's possible that the Hoover Dam was a great investment that the private entepreneurs simply missed, you haven't really presented anything that would suggest it is.

    And you sort of proved my whole point, the dam is a huge fucking thing that people can see with their own eyes. But what they can't see is all the other production and investment that would've happened if the money had been left with the, usually, smarter private investors.
    Your argument is that during the Great Depression more money needed to be in the hands of *investors*, who refused to invest in anything. Brilliant.

    You've still never presented any evidence that private actors always act more efficiently than public ones. The reality is still that every major first world nation in history has had a strong public sector. This glaring flaw in your argument doesn't ever seem to phase you. If you were right, Somalia would be ready to kick our ass any day now.

    The biggest problem I have with it is that people were purposefully paid too high salaries by the government, and there were too many people hired in the first place. It was made as inefficient as possible with the purpose of "stimulating" or "putting as many people as possible" to work. And the private investors that invested in Las Vegas would've put their money somewhere else if LV wasn't viable.
    That's just bullshit you made up. The Hoover dam was built by private construction companies that got the lowest bid, not by government workers.

    P.S. $175 Million in the 30's would've been a ridiculously large sum. I think the real initial spending was around $50mil. Dunno if you're somehow factoring in all the costs of fixing the water shortages that it created?
    It cost about 1% of the total Federal budget, of ONE year.

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Fed is powerless in this situation. And I don't believe he would approve of any QE.
    I know this is old, but I can't let this slide. This is, literally, the exact thing I was talking about. QE was Friedman's idea. If you are against QE as being government overreach, you are going against decades of conservative economics. Monetary easing is what conservatives have called for from the Great Depression to 2008 instead of fiscal stimulus. There is no macroeconomic model which says that the government should do nothing that can explain the existence of the current recession.

    I understand that this flies in the face of everything you've been told by sources of information that you trust. That is because the sources of information that you trust are blatantly lying straight to your face, while assuming that you are either too lazy or too incapable of admitting fault to actually research the issues at hand. And you are justifying their complete lack of respect for you by blindly reciting the party line while having no understanding whatsoever of what has been tried in the past and present and what the results of those efforts have been. This isn't a difference of opinion - you're simply wrong. Your positions do not match the actual data, therefore your positions are wrong.

  11. #251
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    For the record, I'm not Republican nor did I write this. It's an article from The Guardian.

    I just find it hard to stomach that a lobbyist can have more power and influence than elected officials.
    That just isn't right and points to the system being screwed up in a major way.
    I am going to give you 5 million dollars to get elected this midterm.

    Next midterm I am going to give you 8 million if you do my bidding.

    Who are you going to listen to??? (btw... you get great benefits, connections to wonderful investments, and a salary of around 200k a year in your current position)

  12. #252
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzlebox View Post
    I am going to give you 5 million dollars to get elected this midterm.

    Next midterm I am going to give you 8 million if you do my bidding.

    Who are you going to listen to??? (btw... you get great benefits, connections to wonderful investments, and a salary of around 200k a year in your current position)
    Yes, we get that, they listen to money but that isn't the point. Money shouldn't have that kind of sway in political office. Will it have a sway? Always, I'm not stupid. But there need to be proper limits(which there aren't) to ensure that elected officials are accountable to their constituents; their voters, not rich businesses and rich people alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by absynthe7 View Post
    I know this is old, but I can't let this slide. This is, literally, the exact thing I was talking about. QE was Friedman's idea. If you are against QE as being government overreach, you are going against decades of conservative economics. Monetary easing is what conservatives have called for from the Great Depression to 2008 instead of fiscal stimulus.
    I quite frankly have no clue what the conservatives have been calling for the last 40 years, and I'm not very concerned about that. I'm not a conservative and most conservative politicians are as crooked as they come. I do however know that while Friedman blamed the Great Depression on too big monetary contraction, he is very much against QE when there already is inflation like there is now.

    There is no macroeconomic model which says that the government should do nothing that can explain the existence of the current recession.
    Except the Austrian Business cycle is one example. Harvard's Jeffrey Miron takes it on from another angle, but still very much says government should do nothing.


    I understand that this flies in the face of everything you've been told by sources of information that you trust. That is because the sources of information that you trust are blatantly lying straight to your face, while assuming that you are either too lazy or too incapable of admitting fault to actually research the issues at hand. And you are justifying their complete lack of respect for you by blindly reciting the party line while having no understanding whatsoever of what has been tried in the past and present and what the results of those efforts have been. This isn't a difference of opinion - you're simply wrong. Your positions do not match the actual data, therefore your positions are wrong.
    That's rather arrogant of you. I could say the same about you and whatever voodoo "Politicians can take care of the economy" cult you follow. It's all setup to give the power of printing money to the banking cartel as well as giving politicians an expanded excuse to spend more money.

    I love it when you just conclude with "you're simply wrong" without any accompanying argument.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-11-28 at 08:02 PM.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    No offence, while it's possible that the Hoover Dam was a great investment that the private entepreneurs simply missed, you haven't really presented anything that would suggest it is.

    And you sort of proved my whole point, the dam is a huge fucking thing that people can see with their own eyes. But what they can't see is all the other production and investment that would've happened if the money had been left with the, usually, smarter private investors.

    The biggest problem I have with it is that people were purposefully paid too high salaries by the government, and there were too many people hired in the first place. It was made as inefficient as possible with the purpose of "stimulating" or "putting as many people as possible" to work. And the private investors that invested in Las Vegas would've put their money somewhere else if LV wasn't viable.

    P.S. $175 Million in the 30's would've been a ridiculously large sum. I think the real initial spending was around $50mil. Dunno if you're somehow factoring in all the costs of fixing the water shortages that it created?
    NineSpine already addressed most of it, but I also wanted to point out that private investors were heavily invested in Las Vegas. Why? They were able to score a gambling license. They picked their spot, and the Hoover Dam project made them explode. Sure, they possibly could have made LV viable without Hoover Dam, but to say that LV is what it is today solely based on the private sector "getting it right" is a false claim. They had a tremendous boost from government stimulus(its purpose, stimulate).

    It was a perfectly targeted site for construction, that no private investor would take initiative for on their own. Same with Eisenhower's highway system. Private investors wouldn't see the investment opportunity to be worth it to build it on their own. Yet they profited extremely from government intervention. Examples like Hoover Dam and the highway system are perfect examples of public and private sector working hand in hand to benefit both parties(the people, and the economy). I don't see how they can be argued as some kind of wasteful spending by government.

    I understand the point you're trying to prove, Diurdi, I was just pointing out that attacking Hoover Dam as proof of this is simply folly. It worked out great for everyone involved, except the environmental impact. Economically though, perfectly sound. I don't know how they could've targeted a better way to spend taxpayer money at the time.

    I love the long-term approaches that both Hoover Dam and the highway system projects made use of. We should do this more often.
    Last edited by Chonogo; 2011-11-28 at 08:07 PM.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I quite frankly have no clue what the conservatives have been calling for the last 40 years, and I'm not very concerned about that. I'm not a conservative and most conservative politicians are as crooked as they come. I do however know that while Friedman blamed the Great Depression on too big monetary contraction, he is very much against QE when there already is inflation like there is now.

    Except the Austrian Business cycle is one example. Harvard's Jeffrey Miron takes it on from another angle, but still very much says government should do nothing.


    That's rather arrogant of you. I could say the same about you and whatever voodoo "Politicians can take care of the economy" cult you follow. It's all setup to give the power of printing money to the banking cartel as well as giving politicians an expanded excuse to spend more money.

    I love it when you just conclude with "you're simply wrong" without any accompanying argument.
    The Austrian business cycle is one of the most disproven concepts in the entire field of economics. It's the "sun revolves around the earth" of economics.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I don't believe this for a second. Seeing how the overall regulatory burden has increased on society within the last 20 years
    Given you've never proved this it would be nice to see you stop claiming it.

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The Austrian business cycle is one of the most disproven concepts in the entire field of economics. It's the "sun revolves around the earth" of economics.
    I love this when people just come with these claims without even presenting an argument on why it is like this.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I love this when people just come with these claims without even presenting an argument on why it is like this.
    Seriously dude. Its a half ass theory that hasn't changed substantially in almost 100 years. It fails to explain much of the real world events we see around us today.

    http://johnquiggin.com/2009/05/03/au...-cycle-theory/

    But let's be honest here, Austrian Economics fails so frequently on empirical grounds its barely worth mentioning anymore.

    Hell even Friedman thinks its a load of shit.

  19. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I quite frankly have no clue what the conservatives have been calling for the last 40 years, and I'm not very concerned about that. I do however know that while Friedman blamed the Great Depression on too big monetary contraction, he is very much against QE when there already is inflation like there is now.
    He definitely would have supported QE1 and QE2 based on the inflation numbers of that time and claims that he would not have - like your earlier claims - are strictly wrong. Another round would depend on what metrics you're using - Core inflation and a recently-flattening M2 would imply there's room for growth, while headline inflation shows that we can't do anything. During the Great Depression, headline inflation surged upwards while Core inflation lagged, and governments tightened early, leading to a very preventable double-dip. This is not new. We've been here before. It'd all be a lot cleaner if we weren't at the zero bound, so we could just adjust interest rates and call it a day, but we've got to play the hand we've dealt.

    Also, Friedman wouldn't say that "too tight" contraction caused the Depression. Contraction was already coming from the private banking sector and reduced private spending. Tightening at all was what brought us from a recession to a full-blown Depression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Except the Austrian Business cycle is one example. Harvard's Jeffrey Miron takes it on from another angle, but still very much says government should do nothing.
    Yeah, because if there's a school of economics we should trust, it should be the one that explicitly rejects data and presumes its assumptions as fact. There's a reason that the only people who are fully invested in the Austrian school are pundits and glibertarians. It does, however, remind me of my favorite Milton Friedman quote: "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    That's rather arrogant of you. I could say the same about you and whatever voodoo "Politicians can take care of the economy" cult you follow. It's all setup to give the power of printing money to the banking cartel as well as giving politicians an expanded excuse to spend more money.

    I love it when you just conclude with "you're simply wrong" without any accompanying argument.
    Because your arguments are identical to those parroted by others who know nothing about economics. Your arguments are the same as those being made when inflation was below 1%, and I'm assuming that you were also making those same arguments against QE1 and QE2 (if this assumption is incorrect, I apologize). Once again, with emphasis: if you do not believe governments are justified in 'printing money' (or crediting accounts, in what we like to refer to as the "real world") under literally any circumstances, you reject every form of Monetarism (and literally every other data-driven economic model) as left-wing nonsense.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Seriously dude. Its a half ass theory that hasn't changed substantially in almost 100 years. It fails to explain much of the real world events we see around us today.
    Yeah but surprisingly it was good enough to predict the housing crisis and the following recession.

    But let's be honest here, Keynesianism fails so frequently on empirical grounds its barely worth mentioning anymore.
    Fixed

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •