Weeks of growing opposition against Obama
88- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Madame X wrote:
It helped that they murdered 64 million who tried to stand up against them
That little factoid doesn't matter to Progressives. After all the average person is too stupid to figure out the real villains of the piece, they need to be dragged to the Truth!
92- Ralph Deeds
- 1205 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 752
- Followers: 540
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Beware! Ldt is touting you on very right wing libertarian economics, very far from what most economists believe.
Very far from what Keynesian economists believe. There is a difference. Shame on you, Ralph.
The majority of economists are neo-Keynesians and they support the need for the stimulus package. Many say another is needed.
Are you familiar with the equation C+I+G=GNP? [Consumption expenditures + Investment + Government expenditures= Gross National Product] This equation is central to Keynes' theory and is taught in every freshman economics class in the country.
84- A Texan
- 3814 posts
- Joined: 6 months ago
- Hubs: 43
- Followers: 166
Ralph Deeds wrote:
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Beware! Ldt is touting you on very right wing libertarian economics, very far from what most economists believe.
Very far from what Keynesian economists believe. There is a difference. Shame on you, Ralph.
The majority of economists are neo-Keynesians and they support the need for the stimulus package. Many say another is needed.
Are you familiar with the equation C+I+G=GNP? [Consumption expenditures + Investment + Government expenditures= Gross National Product] This equation is central to Keynes' theory and is taught in every freshman economics class in the country.Slavery is taught in Schools also but no one in the US practices it!
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Ralph Deeds wrote:
The majority of economists are neo-Keynesians and they support the need for the stimulus package. Many say another is needed.
Are you familiar with the equation C+I+G=GNP? [Consumption expenditures + Investment + Government expenditures= Gross National Product] This equation is central to Keynes' theory and is taught in every freshman economics class in the country.Macroeconomics Ralph, they teach it in macroeconomics. Which totally contradicts what they teach you in microeconomics, also known as classical economics. So why is it, when you look at things on the macro scale, you turn economic law upside down? That's why most people don't progress beyond macroeconomics. It doesn't make sense and only people who want to become economists need to study more.
That's just the way Keynesian economists like it. Personally I can see why most people have a problem with Keynes as he uses "animal spirits" to describe consumer confidence. In that he sounds less like a "scientist" and more like a witch doctor. - 92
- Ralph Deeds
- 1205 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 752
- Followers: 540
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Well, I guess you and Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman and his Chicago boys and the supply siders of voodoo economics fame are right and the other 90 percent of mainstream economists are wrong. Conditions are not the same, obviously, in 2009 as in 2003. Krugman and most economists agree that now is not the time to balance the budget or raise interest rates when unemployment is the highest it's been in 40 years. Doing that would "let them eat cake" for 10 years or so. You are correct that Medicare liability is a problem which of course is one of the things health care reformists are grappling with. You are not correct about Social Security funding. With a few minor adjustments Social Security will be fine for the forseeable future. All that's needed is a consensus decision on which of several perfectly feasible and painless steps are to be taken--raise the income cap, gradually raise the retirement age for full benefits, adjust the COLA formula or a combination of the above. Curbing skyrocketing Medicare and health care costs is going to be much harder.
We don't need to worry about curbing the costs Ralph, those programs are going to be bankrupt in a few years. Long before then, though, we'll be suffering through hyperinflation and you'll see the value of things like Social Security and Medicare dwindle to nothing, along with the purchasing power of the dollar.
Funny how in 1983, Reagan had Paul Volcker, then head of the Fed, raise interest rates to 20% and hold them there for three years after Carter's disastrous term in office. You might want to study the parallels of Carter's administration and the current one, they're remarkable similar in many ways. About the only thing I haven't seen from the Obama administration yet is price ceilings. With advisers like Krugman and other "orthodox" economists, I'd not be surprised to see that within the next year or so.
You can try using all the name calling you want, Ralph, but it doesn't change the fact that I can go back through history and find plenty of examples of where tax and spend policies have failed. I certainly can't find any where they have succeeded. Must be why you have to resort to name calling, the final resort of a Progressive.
And our problems have been steadily compounding since the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. What are you going to do in a year or so when you can no longer blame the Bush administration?Name calling? You can cherry pick and misinterpret history all you want. You are still way out in right field. Over the fence actually.
- 92
- Ralph Deeds
- 1205 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 752
- Followers: 540
Make Money wrote:
I've previously read that if there was one person that was responsible for the financial meltdown it was Alan Greenspan.
I didn't understand this until I watched 'The Warning' tonight on CBC's Passionate Eye.
The documentary starts off by saying Alan Greenspan was a student of Ayn Rand's la se fair libertarian philosophy.
Brooksley Born tried to sound the whistle in the 1990s but she was basically attacked by Greenspan's bulldog Summers.
From The WarningGreenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."
Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.
"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."The CBC's Passionate Eye web site just has a trailer for 'The Warning'. But I found the whole eye opening 55 minute documentary at this PBS web site.
FRONTLINE The Warning
Or if you just want to see Alan Greenspan admit that for 40 years his philosophy of how the world works and his resisting market regulations was flawed then you can watch this short clip of 'The Warning'.
Greenspan Admits Philisophical Error in "The Warning"
So ledefensetech so much for Ron Paul or anyone that tries to push Von Mises' Austrian school of economics or la se fair libertarian unfettered capitalist philosophy. It's tits up. It's too bad Alan Greenspan had to take down the whole world with it.Very true. Greenspan himself did a mea culpa on his role.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgx6-fOqr2A - 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Name calling? You can cherry pick and misinterpret history all you want. You are still way out in right field. Over the fence actually.
You can name call all you like, yet the fact remains that the economic crisis has unfolded exactly how and why Ludwig von Mises said it would. Have you ever read Mises' Human Action or even Keynes' General Theory?
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Very true. Greenspan himself did a mea culpa on his role.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgx6-fOqr2AApparently you have a hard time with the definition of lassiez-faire. How can manipulating the monetary supply be anything but taking an active role in the economy as opposed to a hands off style? Are you sure you know what you think you know about economics? I'm inclined to think not.
- 92
- Ralph Deeds
- 1205 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 752
- Followers: 540
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Name calling? You can cherry pick and misinterpret history all you want. You are still way out in right field. Over the fence actually.
You can name call all you like, yet the fact remains that the economic crisis has unfolded exactly how and why Ludwig von Mises said it would. Have you ever read Mises' Human Action or even Keynes' General Theory?
Name calling? What name calling? I've read Keynes General Theory, but not Von Mises or Hayek. They aren't assigned in undergraduate economics classes. Neither is Ayn Rand, not in philosophy, economics or literature. Friedman's monetarist theories are the closest I came.
98- Mighty Mom
- 1055 posts
- Joined: 16 months ago
- Hubs: 90
- Followers: 938
I see this as more like name DROPPING than name CALLING.
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Name calling? What name calling? I've read Keynes General Theory, but not Von Mises or Hayek. They aren't assigned in undergraduate economics classes. Neither is Ayn Rand. Friedman's monetarist theories are the closest I came.
Perhaps misstating thing is a better choice of terms than name calling. Mea culpa. So you've never read anything by Hayek or Mises. How can you possibly critique them, then? I've read Friedman and Keynes and they're both incorrect, Keynes more than Friedman. Since all you've read is Friedman, I can see why you labor under the misconceptions you have. You might want to do yourself a favor and read a little more.
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Mighty Mom wrote:
I see this as more like name DROPPING than name CALLING.
And what, my dear, is wrong with that?
- 92
- Ralph Deeds
- 1205 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 752
- Followers: 540
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Name calling? What name calling? I've read Keynes General Theory, but not Von Mises or Hayek. They aren't assigned in undergraduate economics classes. Neither is Ayn Rand. Friedman's monetarist theories are the closest I came.
Perhaps misstating thing is a better choice of terms than name calling. Mea culpa. So you've never read anything by Hayek or Mises. How can you possibly critique them, then? I've read Friedman and Keynes and they're both incorrect, Keynes more than Friedman. Since all you've read is Friedman, I can see why you labor under the misconceptions you have. You might want to do yourself a favor and read a little more.
I've read critiques of Hayek and Von Mises's discredited theories. That was enough for me to get their drift which was not applicable to the 20th century U.S. economy or its democratic government.
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Ralph Deeds wrote:
I've read critiques of Hayek and Von Mises's discredited theories. That was enough for me to get their drift which was not applicable to the 20th century U.S. economy or its democratic government.
Nice to see you rely on critiques and not actually, you know, reading their works. Doing things that way you get things from the horse's rear end rather than the mouth. Really you should read some of Mises work, it's remarkable how his Theory of the Business Cycle predicted the crash. It also suggests that the stimulus money and bailouts will also fail. Time will tell which of us is right.
- 98
- Mighty Mom
- 1055 posts
- Joined: 16 months ago
- Hubs: 90
- Followers: 938
I guess there is nothing inherently wrong with name dropping.
But it implies that unless one has read firsthand all of the same expert sources, then one's opinion is inferior.
Which basically reminds me that I have no business coming into this forum thread.
So I will go away and do something else Hub related.
Ciao bellos. - 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Mighty Mom wrote:
I guess there is nothing inherently wrong with name dropping.
But it implies that unless one has read firsthand all of the same expert sources, then one's opinion is inferior.
Which basically reminds me that I have no business coming into this forum thread.
So I will go away and do something else Hub related.
Ciao bellos.You have a business going anywhere you wish, that doesn't mean that you'll necessarily find people that share your opinion exactly.
- 92
- Ralph Deeds
- 1205 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 752
- Followers: 540
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
I've read critiques of Hayek and Von Mises's discredited theories. That was enough for me to get their drift which was not applicable to the 20th century U.S. economy or its democratic government.
Nice to see you rely on critiques and not actually, you know, reading their works. Doing things that way you get things from the horse's rear end rather than the mouth. Really you should read some of Mises work, it's remarkable how his Theory of the Business Cycle predicted the crash. It also suggests that the stimulus money and bailouts will also fail. Time will tell which of us is right.
I rely on critiques and opinions of people I respect on a lot of things. In the case of economics in which I majored in college and studied a bit in graduate school, I rely on the position of mainstream economists several of whom have received Nobel awards more recently than Hayek or Mises. Actually, I would be interested in reading Hayek and Von Mises but there are so many books and so little time. I have a fair number of books in the bookcases that I've not read or read only parts of. I don't feel compelled to apologise or recant what I said just because I haven't read a couple of early 20th century libertarian economists. I'm familiar enough with Hayek and Mises to agree with their conclusion that capitalism was a superior economic system to socialism, but to disagree with their extreme libertarian conclusions. In other words, I disagree with them and with you over the optimum amount of regulation required in order to realize the benefits of a market economy and avoid having it destroy itself through economic depressions or through political revolution inspired by excessive income disparity and/or inattention to the needs of people in a modern industrial society.
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 106
Ralph Deeds wrote:
I rely on critiques and opinions of people I respect on a lot of things. In the case of economics in which I majored in college and studied a bit in graduate school, I rely on the position of mainstream economists several of whom have received Nobel awards more recently than Hayek or Mises. Actually, I would be interested in reading Hayek and Von Mises but there are so many books and so little time. I have a fair number of books in the bookcases that I've not read or read only parts of. I don't feel compelled to apologise or recant what I said just because I haven't read a couple of early 20th century libertarian economists. I'm familiar enough with Hayek and Mises to agree with their conclusion that capitalism was a superior economic system to socialism, but to disagree with their extreme libertarian conclusions. In other words, I disagree with them and with you over the optimum amount of regulation required in order to realize the benefits of a market economy and avoid having it destroy itself through economic depressions or through political revolution inspired by excessive income disparity and/or inattention to the needs of people in a modern industrial society.
Ralph, I'd really suggest reading two books by Mises, even if you don't have time for any others. Socialism and especially Bureaucracy. Those two alone will explain far better then I ever could why any sort of outside regulation is doomed to fail.
I'd also recommend reading Murray Rothbard and his books on banking and the monetary system. Absent fractional reserve banking, we'd not have the problems associated with banks runs and would have no need for central banks. It's these banks that cause our depressions not allowing free markets to operate.
Also I'm not sure what you mean by extreme income disparity. By letting the market work freely you give people the opportunity to amass wealth and then invest it. By taking from one group and giving to another, all you do is destroy wealth.
At any rate, Ralph, I've found it useful to read the words of those opposed to you as well as those you agree with. By challenging the assumptions I make, I can be sure that I'm always moving closer to the truth rather than far away. Thanks for reminding me that I've spent years studying the Austrian School and sometimes forget that I've invested a lot of time and effort into that study. Still, it may be worthwhile to spend a little time with them. At the very least you'll get an idea of how intellectually honest the sources of your critiques are. Carter? I will say this about Carter. He's predictable. He a little man. He raised little nuts and that's what he has in his pants. That's why he comes up with these stupendous outcrys for notoriety because he knows nothing else. He will say something with that stupid grin of his (like a mule eating briars thru a bob wire fence) and get into the News because he knows they don't print News anymore, they print Headlines that draw attention away from the huge issues at stake and give the Democrats more of a window to play with. Carter started the "give the folks a home" project because they deserved it" and look what that got us! It has all but collapsed our market when expanded on by Clinton. Carter. What a joke.
Obama is White and Black by the way, so how can you be a racist if you disagree with his policies? Just like Michele having whites in her family history, we are all Americans whether you try to give another name or not. An Afro-American is still an American. I don't call myself an Irish/German/Seminole American. I call myself an American and I hope Obama does not ruin the idea of being an American but he sure is trying, isn't he?Liberal politicians learned from the OJ trial that the race card is a powerful, albeit absurd, weapon.
=) 
=| 
=( 
=D 
:O 
:/ 
:P 
:lol: 
:mad: 
:rolleyes: 
:cool: 
