Gunther: Yeah, you don't want to rely too much on evidence, data, empirical research and all that crap - Austrians know you just need to go with your gut. Sure, if you just look at the evidence, they're dumbasses, but if you listen to your gut, they're... still dumbasses, actually. I guess if you really love Ayn Rand it all makes sense or something.

*Sigh*

Did you understand the point I was making about that research? Was I pooh-poohing ALL of it? Did you miss the part where I said that one of Friedman's many contributions to economics was the use of and defense of empirical data? Did you not understand what I was saying when I said, "Empirical data, so long as it's gathered honestly and tested correctly and transparently, can teach us a lot about economic action and the consequences of economic decisions and policies"?

As I've said, this is one of the major debates among economists right now - especially among Chicagoans and Austrians. Not all Austrians are as hostile towards statistics and econometric measuring as others, and not all Chicagoans and even Keynesians are as keen on the use of statistics as they were before their monumental failure in the financial crisis. Personally, I tend to side more with the Chicago school on this while recognizing the shortfall of econometric measuring and statistical data - an insight which the Austrian school uniquely gave.


By the way, I didn't even mention Ayn Rand. Not sure how she's relevant in a discussion about Austrian economics considering she had some rather scathing remarks about Hayek and other Austrians.

Wendy's Chili: Unimpressed Man: make me some tea: That's interesting.

World War II was the largest per capita era of wealth redistribution the world has ever seen.

Yeah, it went from the dead people to the alive people while spurring a vast increase in American productive capacity and giving Europe a really good reason to build a bunch of new infrastructure. From the ground up so to speak.

Let's kill a bunch of people in another world war!

Unless you're seriously into doing some serious central planning. In which case, I recognize that as a valid viewpoint, but do not adopt it personally.

Yeah. Roads and space programs are only good if they're preceded by massive death tolls.

I think the point being made is that WWII was basically a huge stimulus program, and the results were amazing. This doesn't necessarily mean a war has to be the reason to provide stimulus.

Mrtraveler01: Phony War on Women?

So I guess all those attempts by the GOP to curb abortion and reproductive care rights for women was all just a bad dream then?

Class envy? Which pretty much means anything short of kissing the ass of rich people job creators.

God that cheesy cartoon made me want to barf.

/Yes I'm Angry...my Cardinals lost!

Considering you and I are usually diametric opposites on most everything, would it surprise you if I told you I was a Cardinals fan?


Fart_Machine: It's actually more of a case of empirical evidence contradicting their theories so therefore they don't use it.

Which, of course, is NEVER an argument you've ever used.


See, this is exactly my point; unless you know how the sausage is made - i.e. how the data are gathered and what went into the model-making - you can get a lot of data to say whatever you want. It's tough to tease out what's correlation vs. causation vs. no relation whatsoever. This is the problem with presenting empirical statistical evidence with relation to economics because a person's natural biases will influence how they are gathered and what he does with them. It turns many economists into story-tellers rather than scientists, and it's how Paul Krugman and Robert Murphy can both look at the same data set and draw two completely different conclusions.

There's a reason Twain popularized the saying, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Hydra: Considering you and I are usually diametric opposites on most everything, would it surprise you if I told you I was a Cardinals fan?

It would actually.

It just means that you have good taste in baseball. ;)

Shaggy_C: make me some tea: I think the point being made is that WWII was basically a huge stimulus program, and the results were amazing. This doesn't necessarily mean a war has to be the reason to provide stimulus.

The war itself was stimulating for a few years but would have led to an epic crash afterward if not for the top-down central planning that guaranteed housing, education, and employment for returning veterans. I would argue that the boom time of the 1950s would not have been possible without the original GI Bill. And, of course, it didn't hurt that the rest of the developed world was in ruins while the United States was for the most part entirely unscathed. That plus the fact that we were the primary creditor for all of Western Europe didn't hurt things one bit.

Oh sure, absolutely.

Unimpressed Man: We aren't just going to get our $300 Tricky Dick Fun Bills in your version, are we?

No, that was a stupid and reckless way to stimulate the economy.

Gunther: No, you were just saying you need to ignore the parts of it that contradict what you believe.

Not in so many words of course, but the narrative was clear - I've heard the same tune from Austrians many times before; scientific models and empirical evidence is all well and good as long as it backs up what we're saying, but if it doesn't... well, that means it must be rejected. The reason given varies, but it always boils down to "it said we were wrong, therefore it must be wrong".

And how is that at all different from what Keynesians say when they are presented with statistical evidence and economic models that contradict what THEY believe? It's not like Chicago economists have never presented statsitcal data to support their theories against what Keynesians charged. Friedman and Samuelson were kings of this and were giants in their respective schools of thought (Friedman in Chicago and Samuelson in Keynesianism), and both wrote many columns debating each other in Time Magazine. What would Keynesian acolytes level against the equally-glamorous statistics of the Chicago school?

They gave the exact same charge you level against Austrians - it said we were wrong, therefore it must be wrong.

So what we seem to have discovered is that much economics is little different from the partisan bickering we see in Fark threads, only with a lot more fancy math thrown in, a larger vocabulary, and fewer dick jokes. It's story-telling.


Statistical modelling didn't fail, people failed. Many models showed the upcoming housing crisis, people ignored them because they didn't want the party to stop.

I think you just tacitly agreed with my point without realizing it - people drastically misinterpreted the statistics that were presented to them and made very costly decisions based on those misinterpretations. They mishandled the dynamite and blew themselves up. This is a problem that will ALWAYS be with data gathering and interpretation so long as economics remains mired in math-worship and model-building. What more is there to say?

Hydra,

I don't actually disagree with anything that you're saying, but at the same time you haven't actually full-up discredited anything I've asserted. I admit that I like to delve into flowery rhetoric for the sake of entertainment (because these subjects are boring if our posts are dry and witless...and this IS Fark, after all), but they are all based (or debasements of) core truths. Also, your counter-conjectures are full of goalpost-movings/no-true-scotsmans.

Hydra: Too many economists at the time had "physics-envy" and were so hellbent on turning economics into a mathematically-oriented profession while paying little attention to the human element (which is why your posts looked so promising in the beginning since you seemed to understand this concept).

Yes, and to go to either extreme is wrong, because economics is a mix of both. Yes, there's a human element, but economics at its foundation is the study of finite quantities. It is simply the study of who gets what (while politics is the study of how applied to that equation). There's good evidence that written mathematics might have pre-dated written language, and that written language was developed originally as a vehicle to assist written mathematics -- merchants and traders needed a method to record transactions and keep track of inventory.

Economics is fundamentally a science of numbers. We can plot a lot of predictive trends with these numbers, but we always must recognize that the numbers are not certain. But they are a good way to understand the general way things are going.

Hydra: The housing crisis is a perfect example of how putting too much trust in mathematical models and statistics can lead to bad outcomes.

I'm pretty sure the housing crisis was not entirely due to the stolid dependability of mathematical modelling (however sound or cooked the numbers may have been). Rather, it was due to rank avarice and greed that affected the Bush Administration and the Wall Street Plutocrats. In other words, they didn't care what the numbers said, they were going ahead with their short-sighted Supply-Side agenda because it would make them more money and fark everyone else. Even when the numbers said something bad, they ignored them. For example, mathematical modelling was how Harry Markopolos caught Bernie Madoff back in 1999, and he warned the SEC about it for nearly ten years, and they rebuked him every time. In other words, they knew the system was bullshiat. They didn't care. Madoff was making them money and fark you.

That's neither a fault of economic modelling or even the Chicago School. That's a plain, straight-up kleptocracy, and every system would fail when you put total shiatbags in control.

Hydra: EVERY single person is different from every other person. There certainly are similarities, but those nuanced differences that make each one of us unique matter a HUGE amount when trying to pigeonhole people into economic situations.

This is untrue. It might be a great comfort to think of everyone as an individual, but not really -- there would be no point to marketing otherwise. You give people the freedom of choice, they just end up imitating each other, because socializing and herd mentality always overrides individual expression. They form klatches, which bound together under a loose framework of values and mindsets, and they are apart of a larger ecosystem of paradigms. It's all very hierarchical, which humans do instinctively. We are not individual animals and never were, which is why the Libertarians/Objectivists are always wrong.

To further my point. a great deal many trends and things can be extrapolated through demographics. Population numbers and age brackets can dominate market forces for whole generations (see: the boomers). I won't go too far into this because its long, but there's a link in my profile that explains more in another Fark thread.

Hydra: In my experience (here on Fark and elsewhere), Austrians can oftentimes articulate the mainstream Keynesian theory better than many Keynesians can.

Fine, but I'm not a Keynesian and never claimed to be. This idea that people must pick "sides" in economics akin to sports teams, the way they do in politics, where the goal is to root for your team and denounce the opponent, is stupid to me. I seek the best solution to any problem, irrespective of its political, economic, or social weight/value/platform.

With that said, I disagree that Austrians can articulate mainstream Keynesian theory better than many Keynesians. What they actually do is memorize flaws in Keynesian theory that they get off goldbug sites and WealthNOW! youtube videos to use as ammo in forum debates. That doesn't mean that what they're saying is wrong, it just means that they have a very stunted, warped perception of how they think Keynesianism (or any other economic theory) works through third-hand sources. It's like debating with Creationists about evolution -- they haven't actually read any actual science on evolution, they've only read the shorthand stuff through Creationist websites that thoroughly debunks evolution (or tries to).

I have yet to meet an Austrian who wasn't also a budding Objectivist/Libertarian/teabagger/militia/4channer/teenage miscreant who was otherwise a total shiatbag and only desired a system where they are permitted to be total shiat-bags to others without consequence.

They call it "freedom", of course, but truth be known there are more important things in society than freedom, which to these people has been wrapped into its own religious mythology so pure and exalted that it has stunted their personal growth as normal, able-bodied, well-adjusted people ("freedom", after all, isn't a reason to do things; it is a rationalization for doing them).

Fart_Machine: You realize that Keynesians like Dean Baker were predicting a bubble as early as 2002. You even had Marxists predicting it back in 2004.

Yes. I don't see where I said not a single Keynesian didn't. There were lots of people all over the place screaming bloody murder about the housing bubble, but usually, they just got laughed at. Baker, in this case, WAS able to see the forest for the trees and tried to warn about it. It's too bad more people who normally share his economic perspective weren't persuaded, or we might've headed this recession off at the pass.


Fart_Machine: The difference being is I'm not taking the word of a group who paid $22 million for a study to get the results they wanted to dismiss Fact Check who used additional sources that weren't in the pocket of the Fair Tax advocates. But I'm sure you thought you had a point there.

With this post, you just gave the essential elements of my critique of statistical evidence: natural biases (from funding sources, from ideology, from whatever) tainted the statistics they gathered and influenced what they did with them as they constructed their models.

You also just gave the SAME EXACT CHARGE as you accused me of doing - their statistics say I'm wrong; therefore, they're wrong (as a side note: you're naive if you think those "additional sources" weren't in someone else's pocket).

So either you agree with me in saying that we should be skeptical of statistical evidence since it is open to manipulation and interpretation, or you're making a contradictory charge. Your choice.

/by the way, it's okay for us to actually agree on something - no one will think any less of you


KhanAidan: I just have to point out that honestly, I think our peer-reviewed journals are a big part of this issue. So many of the articles that the top journals publish are more about the methods than the underlying studies. Data problems are so often overlooked it gets depressing. Take a look at AJR's famous 2001 paper. It's cited so often in the development field, but my god their data is horrendous. Their paper has an interesting idea, but that is its only merit; yet that gets it published in the AER. Ugh. And that's from MIT grads.

I think there's still an unfortunate tendency to fixate on the econometrics above all else. I do hope that continues to change. Good papers with quality data and honest statistical analysis can add a lot to the field.

Thanks for the link and for understanding my point; I do want to further stress that I'm in full agreement with the part I highlighted and that I'm skeptical largely because so much of what you said is true - too much focus is placed on the methodology rather than the content that goes in, so we must remain vigilant and sift through the pile of dirt to find the diamond that shows up every now and then.


Ishkur: I don't actually disagree with anything that you're saying, but at the same time you haven't actually full-up discredited anything I've asserted.

Again, man, in your post that prompted my response, I hardly saw anything of substance that you asserted aside from the usual broad-brushing statements that I'm used to seeing on Fark.


I admit that I like to delve into flowery rhetoric for the sake of entertainment (because these subjects are boring if our posts are dry and witless...and this IS Fark, after all), but they are all based (or debasements of) core truths.

I've been around the block on this site for a while (though not as long as you) and have said in the past much of what I've been saying in this thread; you don't stump for a gold standard in threads about the Fed without growing a tough skin on this site.

/I hope you don't think I was being overly hostile in any of my responses

DrPainMD: I don't think I've ever read a Fark post that was more wrong than this one. It's almost as if your entire knowledge of the Austrian school is based on reading Fark posts.



/just be glad this wasn't a thread about gold

Hydra: Again, man, in your post that prompted my response, I hardly saw anything of substance that you asserted aside from the usual broad-brushing statements that I'm used to seeing on Fark.

You mean other than the Austrian school is wrong?

Hydra: you don't stump for a gold standard in threads about the Fed without growing a tough skin on this site.

The gold standard is a completely insufficient monetary standard for our modern economic needs and the Fed is not only a highly valued and useful institution but might very well be the most important and most enlightened economic idea of the past 100 years. Dare to ask me how.

"All of this strongly suggests that we're suffering not from the teething pains of some kind of structural transition that must gradually run its course but rather from an overall lack of sufficient demand - the kind of lack that could and should be cured quickly with government programs designed to boost spending. "

If only the Nobel Prize were revocable...

andino: How?

First,
On Gold:

For the longest time people thought that gold was a compound, like steel. They thought that if they discovered the right formula they could "make" gold, often using lead as a base material because lead is just as heavy as gold (and frequently used as a counterbalance to determine gold's purity). And lead was cheap and plentiful. This was the Grand Unified Field Theory of alchemy: How to turn lead into gold. Isaac Newton worked for decades trying to uncover this answer and thought of himself as a failure for not finding it (yeah, those Laws of Motion and Calculus things were just brainfarts he developed in his spare time).

But the important part is people thought gold was everywhere (or that it could be made) -- you just had to find it (or make it). That optimism (ie: belief in fiscal fluidity) is what kept ancient economies going.

Understand those words: "fiscal fluidity". It means the ability for money to change hands, readily and easily. It is the most important facet of economics. The purpose of money is to change hands -- it's supposed to be spent. When money is not spent, when it sits in one place and doesn't do anything (ie: when the rich hoard it), that's bad for economies.

Today, we know that gold is an element, and transmuting lead (or any other element) to gold requires a biblical amount of energy -- so much energy that the process is not worth it. So we know that there is a finite amount of gold in the Earth's crust and we even know how much: About 33 cubic metres worth. It's been estimated that about 25 cubic metres of gold has already been discovered and scooped out of the ground, most of it within the last two centuries. There's hardly any gold left that we either don't know about or is inaccessible (bottom of the ocean, volcanoes, etc.). But the important thing to understand here is that we cannot get, nor make, any more gold. This is all we get. The only other place to get more gold is in the exploded cores of stars.

The Gold Standard was fine for world economies up until about 100 years ago because of a few things:

1) Belief in the fiscal fluidity of gold. If legal tender got scarce, you could always just go scoop more out of the ground to grease the engines of capitalism.

2) There were only a handful of nations with global currencies/economies. Less players in the capitalist game == less pressing need for fiscal fluidity. Economies moved relatively slow, money supply/inflation stayed the same, and all the gold in the world was enough for the major players at the time.

Today, however, there are over a hundred global currencies and 150 global economies. The dependency on a finite resource has moved from a few million bit players a century ago to most of the world's population (let's say 5+ billion), which as you might imagine, has reached a tipping point. There simply isn't enough gold to ensure fiscal fluidity (gold -- or lack of it -- frequently caused bank panics and Depressions in the 19th century for this reason).

Economists knew this as far back as the 1890s and their response was to devalue the gold supply by printing "gold certificates" (paper money representations of gold), essentially increase the amount of gold that existed by dealing in an abstract representation of gold. They needed to devalue the gold four times in the first half of the 20th century alone -- in 1921, 1934, 1938 and finally in 1944, where under the Bretton Woods agreement gold was officially worth 40% of what it was. It stayed that way until 1971 when the emergence of post-colonial economies necessitated a massive shift in global economic policy. Gold was too rigid and too structured (not fluent enough) to handle the influx of a billion more capitalist customers, so that's when they moved off gold and into the age of fiat currency (floating paper money printed by governments), backed by the US dollar.

Fiat isn't perfect. It has its problems too. There are pros and cons to every economic system (one of the more consistent problems with economics is that the law of unintended consequences plays havoc with longterm planning, foresight and policy), but at the time, moving to fiat may have been the most sensible choice. It's just that every forty years or so, whatever economic system is in place starts to show some cracks and faults, necessitating an overhaul. We've done this five times in the modern age:

Bimetallism (gold/silver) - 1873
Gold Standard (pure gold): 1874 - 1918
Gold Exchange Standard (gold certificates): 1918 - 1944
Bretton Woods (half-gold): 1944 - 1971
Fiat (no gold): 1971 -

If we are to follow this pattern, then we definitely need to overhaul the system and start a new global economic policy.

Question is: What kind? (If you know the answer to this, there's a Nobel Prize in it for ya)

If we move back to the Gold Standard, all that will happen is nations will hoard gold. They may even fight over it. There will be multiple runs on various national banks as individuals try to secure their portion of the gold supply (and if you're not rich, that's not you). Governments will seize gold all they can -- it will sit in various Fort Knox-like structures and it will not move. Gold will increasingly be represented by more and more abstract representations to increase fiscal fluidity. Those who own gold will control the money supply.....but there won't be any noticeable difference in the way things are run or the way your life is affected.

The gold standard is not some magic bullet solution to our economic troubles. It brings some positives to the table, but it also brings some negatives. Don't pretend that things were fine before we went to fiat. Bank panics were frequent and severe and it is utterly impossible to stimulate the economy during recessions/depressions under the Gold Standard (which is why many countries left the standard in the 1930s).

I don't understand why Ron Paul or his supporters think going back to Gold is such a good idea. It won't eliminate inflation or deficits, it won't encourage economic growth (may even hamper it in certain circumstances), and it won't make your life any better or the governments any more honest. But of all of Ron Paul's platform points, it is the one that is the least concerning.

andino: How?

Finally,
On the Fed:

The Federal Reserve system was created in 1913 to prevent economic Depressions based on banking panics from ever happening again, and for the most part it succeeded. Let me explain.

Cycles of short, bullish climbs followed by crushing economic depravity was considered normal according to Capitalist theory ("the market correcting itself"), and so were not considered bad or even unwelcome. After all, the standard of living was much lower 100 years ago so most of the damage was done to the working poor which no one in any position of power cared much about, so there was no effort to make corrections to the market for the sake of human suffering.

Depressions are almost always caused by bad banking and things that bad banking can ruin, such as currency, commodities, gold/silver, stocks, lending, derivatives, and yes, even mortgages. Before the Fed, they were ALWAYS caused by bank runs/panics, usually on gold reserves. That's what happens when you have a finite currency and exponentially increasing demand.

Like the Depression of 1819, caused by post war (of 1812) inflation and depreciation of bank notes due to war debts (there was no Fed, so banks could print their own money), which led to widespread foreclosures, bank failures, high unemployment, a collapse in real estate prices, a slump in agriculture and manufacturing, yadda yadda...

And then there was the Depression of 1837, caused by the Specie Circular, a government mandate that all indian-claimed land purchases to be paid in either gold or silver, causing a rush for hard currency which the banks couldn't meet because they over-leveraged, forcing them to print money to meet calls, leading to inflation, currency devaluation, bank failures, high unemployment, death and poverty, yadda yadda....

And then there was the Depression of 1857. By now, economies were becoming more globally integrated, such that changing conditions in a war in one country would affect another. This Depression was caused by a speculative bubble in US railroad interests driven by European investors scared off by the looming Civil War. The drop in railroad securities led to bank and insurance/trust failures, high unemployment, death and poverty, yadda yadda....

And then there was the Depression of 1873, caused by unstable European markets due to the Franco-Prussian war which led to a global devaluation of silver (and the end of bimetallism) and less cross-atlantic trade that flatlined global economies, reduced lending, bank failures, high unemployment, death and poverty, yadda yadda.....up until the 1930s, this was called the Great Depression. It's now called the Long Depression (it extended well into the 80s).

And then there was the Depression of 1893/96, a sort of double-dip recession which was caused by supply side bubble (especially in the rail industry) as a result of over-lending by banks with no guarantees on return, leading to a run on gold exchanges, causing bank failures, high unemployment, death and poverty, yadda yadda..... some economists like to combine this Depression and the 1873 one into one, Long, 30 year Depression that never really recovered.

Then we come to the short Depression (technically a recession) of 1907 that led to the Fed. It was actually caused by an attempted hostile takeover of a copper company's stock. When it failed, there was a loss of confidence in the banks that funded the attempted coup (and in the world of banking confidence is everything). A quick run ensued, annihilating the banks and reducing confidence across the country. Everyone was pulling their money out and the Depression might've gone on to be one of the most catastrophic if JP Morgan himself hadn't personally stepped in and put up his own money to restore liquidity. He encouraged other bankers to do the same, and the Panic stopped.

From this gesture, the seed of an idea was planted: What if the government can do that?

This led to the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913. From this moment forward, banking panics no longer caused Depressions (but Depressions could still occur for other reasons).

You want to end the Fed and return to Gold? Say hello to catastrophic Depressions every 12-15 years and untold suffering, misery, confusion and death for millions of people. Because that's what we had before with these things.

quatchi: jso2897: Ishkur: o5iiawah: Then you need to read Hayek, who acknowledges that as much as men try to manipulate and understand the economy, they havent got a farking clue.

Yes, but the problem with Hayek -- and all Austrians, for that matter -- is that they run screaming like retards in the opposite direction. So while no one can understand everything completely about economics, the Austrians know even less (in addition to their theories being completely farking useless).

Austrian Economics consists entirely of ideological catchphrases, talking points and flowing rhetoric deliberately left open to interpretation. It has no scientific basis or any practical application, and it conflicts with obvious empirical data (the Austrian school is in opposition to empiricism. Its papers use no math, in a subject that is all about math). One of the most distinguishing characteristics of most followers of the Austrian school is that they often display a gross misunderstanding of modern economics.

Just as "Objectivism" is autism expressed as a personal philosophy, and "Libertarianism" is autism expressed as a political philosophy, the "Austrian School" is autism expressed as economic theory.

THESE.

Hydra: You were doing so well before you started spouting off a bunch of strawmen thinking you're accurately describing what Austrian theory says about anything.

/this is Fark, though, so it's no surprise that I see it so often

Feel free to point out said strawmen and/or explain what you think Austrian theory says.

The Austrian theory pushers, like the Ludwig vonMises institute, is staffed with economic moralists. They have no model outside of let it fail, let it die, for when market failures occur. Especially when there is massive market failure like what we experienced in 2007. I was a long time subscriber to his mailing list. I've read lots of their work.

And, yeah...lots of catchphrases.

Krugman may have been slow to recognize the bubble, but he did see it before it burst. And his modelling and predictions have been pretty damned spot on in regards to the effects of austerity policy and Randian day dreaming on an economy in recession/depression.

But if you don't trust Krugman because he's shrill, read some others instead. And I would recommend looking elsewhere, because the Von Mises folks have been provably wrong all along.

Short list:
Partha DasGupta
Yves Smith
Nouriel Roubini - (who had the bubble correctly id'd and was warning about for years)
Calculated Risk (who also saw the Bubble Coming for a long time)
Brad DeLong

Ishkur: jpo2269: Unfortunately, austerity is going to have to play a part in any economic plan our country embarks on

It will, but not until after the last Boomer dies.

In typical Boomer fashion, they don't plan to pay for anything. The debt is pretty much the Official Baby Boomer Unpaid Party Tab. You think they're going to stick around in the morning to help clean up this mess they made? ....course not. They're going to retire in splendor, raid the government coffers and stuff themselves with enough drugs to completely numb the horror of encroaching mortality. And there's nothing we can do do stop them because they're all in power, they outnumber all other demographics, and they'll continue to vote themselves more entitlements and benefits.

This is one of the things that OWS is upset about.

Now you're pissing me off. You should cite something to back up THAT piece of claptrap.

DrPainMD: make me some tea: That's interesting.

World War II was the largest per capita era of wealth redistribution the world has ever seen.

WW2 also saw the average American's standard of living drop, continuously, until the war was over and the war spending stopped.

I wonder if war rationing had anything to do with that? Hmmm.....

erveek: X-boxershorts: Ishkur: jpo2269: Unfortunately, austerity is going to have to play a part in any economic plan our country embarks on

It will, but not until after the last Boomer dies.

In typical Boomer fashion, they don't plan to pay for anything. The debt is pretty much the Official Baby Boomer Unpaid Party Tab. You think they're going to stick around in the morning to help clean up this mess they made? ....course not. They're going to retire in splendor, raid the government coffers and stuff themselves with enough drugs to completely numb the horror of encroaching mortality. And there's nothing we can do do stop them because they're all in power, they outnumber all other demographics, and they'll continue to vote themselves more entitlements and benefits.

This is one of the things that OWS is upset about.

Now you're pissing me off. You should cite something to back up THAT piece of claptrap.

Medicare Part D would be my starting point.

Though he's wrong: austerity need not wait until all the Baby Boomers are dead. Just until enough of them are dead that they are outnumbered.

Until then, austerity is for younger generations.

Ted Kennedy was no Boomer....

erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: Ishkur: jpo2269: Unfortunately, austerity is going to have to play a part in any economic plan our country embarks on

It will, but not until after the last Boomer dies.

In typical Boomer fashion, they don't plan to pay for anything. The debt is pretty much the Official Baby Boomer Unpaid Party Tab. You think they're going to stick around in the morning to help clean up this mess they made? ....course not. They're going to retire in splendor, raid the government coffers and stuff themselves with enough drugs to completely numb the horror of encroaching mortality. And there's nothing we can do do stop them because they're all in power, they outnumber all other demographics, and they'll continue to vote themselves more entitlements and benefits.

This is one of the things that OWS is upset about.

Now you're pissing me off. You should cite something to back up THAT piece of claptrap.

Medicare Part D would be my starting point.

Though he's wrong: austerity need not wait until all the Baby Boomers are dead. Just until enough of them are dead that they are outnumbered.

Until then, austerity is for younger generations.

Ted Kennedy was no Boomer....

Neither was Queen Victoria. If you intend to make a point, do so.

Wide brush stroking of a generation of 55 million or so is flawed. Many boomers that I know personally have been anti-war their entire lives. Are just as pissed at Dems who cave on American military intervention around the world.

If you wish to blame a subsection of Boomers, that's more appropriate. I would start with Flyover country boomers.

erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: Ishkur: jpo2269: Unfortunately, austerity is going to have to play a part in any economic plan our country embarks on

It will, but not until after the last Boomer dies.

In typical Boomer fashion, they don't plan to pay for anything. The debt is pretty much the Official Baby Boomer Unpaid Party Tab. You think they're going to stick around in the morning to help clean up this mess they made? ....course not. They're going to retire in splendor, raid the government coffers and stuff themselves with enough drugs to completely numb the horror of encroaching mortality. And there's nothing we can do do stop them because they're all in power, they outnumber all other demographics, and they'll continue to vote themselves more entitlements and benefits.

This is one of the things that OWS is upset about.

Now you're pissing me off. You should cite something to back up THAT piece of claptrap.

Medicare Part D would be my starting point.

Though he's wrong: austerity need not wait until all the Baby Boomers are dead. Just until enough of them are dead that they are outnumbered.

Until then, austerity is for younger generations.

Ted Kennedy was no Boomer....

Neither was Queen Victoria. If you intend to make a point, do so.

Wide brush stroking of a generation of 55 million or so is flawed. Many boomers that I know personally have been anti-war their entire lives. Are just as pissed at Dems who cave on American military intervention around the world.

If you wish to blame a subsection of Boomers, that's more appropriate. I would start with Flyover country boomers.

You asked for examples and I provided one. Then you make some nonsensical allusion to Ted Kennedy and start talking about the war.

The hell?

Medicare part D was a Ted Kennedy wet dream for years. He's not a boomer, he was born in 1932. You gave an incorrect example.

If you want to talk budgetary waste, start with allocating 2.5 trillion dollars to blow the shiat out of some 3rd world hell hole filled with brown people and then allocate another 500 billion to rebuild it. And...Medicare Part D is a pittance compared to that.

The hell is right. I had the same scratch yer head response to you using Medicare Part D as an example.

erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: Ishkur: jpo2269: Unfortunately, austerity is going to have to play a part in any economic plan our country embarks on

It will, but not until after the last Boomer dies.

In typical Boomer fashion, they don't plan to pay for anything. The debt is pretty much the Official Baby Boomer Unpaid Party Tab. You think they're going to stick around in the morning to help clean up this mess they made? ....course not. They're going to retire in splendor, raid the government coffers and stuff themselves with enough drugs to completely numb the horror of encroaching mortality. And there's nothing we can do do stop them because they're all in power, they outnumber all other demographics, and they'll continue to vote themselves more entitlements and benefits.

This is one of the things that OWS is upset about.

Now you're pissing me off. You should cite something to back up THAT piece of claptrap.

Medicare Part D would be my starting point.

Though he's wrong: austerity need not wait until all the Baby Boomers are dead. Just until enough of them are dead that they are outnumbered.

Until then, austerity is for younger generations.

Ted Kennedy was no Boomer....

Neither was Queen Victoria. If you intend to make a point, do so.

Wide brush stroking of a generation of 55 million or so is flawed. Many boomers that I know personally have been anti-war their entire lives. Are just as pissed at Dems who cave on American military intervention around the world.

If you wish to blame a subsection of Boomers, that's more appropriate. I would start with Flyover country boomers.

You asked for examples and I provided one. Then you make some nonsensical allusion to Ted Kennedy and start talking about the war.

The hell?

Medicare part D was a Ted Kennedy wet dream for years. He's not a boomer, he was born in 1932. You gave an incorrect example.

If you want to talk budgetary waste, start with allocating 2.5 trillion dollars ...

Now, was that so damned difficult?

Now, to address Medicare Part D: It's unfunded. It helps out Baby Boomers, and it won't be around very long after they're dead. Who passed it is immaterial. It was passed largely to pander to the nation's largest demographic.

The war was supported by people who were against war until they were too old for the draft. To be honest, I don't care about your anecdotes about boomers you know who are currently anti war.

The bulk of the demographic votes in its own self interest and against that of the rest of the country. If we're going to talk at all about how a segment of the population tends to vote, you're going to have to use a broad brush. There's no way around it. You want the brush so narrow that it's less than a bristle wide - you're splitting hairs.

No, not every baby boomer votes selfishly and doesn't care about what happens once they're dead.

But look at what politicians do when they pander to Boomers. They're not doing it because it doesn't work.

Look at the proposed Medicare reform that would only conveniently effect people too young to be Boomers.

Can't wait to see your next opaque allusion to nothing in particular. ...

Starting with the Kent State Massacre and on to the million people march on the Pentagon to protest the Viet Nam War, the dirty farking hippies hated that kind of waste. They also fought and died for civil rights for more than a decade. They were beaten, killed and jailed by their government for doing this, yet persisted for years until Nixon had no choice in Viet Nam and Johnson's hand was forced in the South. THAT level of commitment doesn't fade with age, son. The Pentagon budget is the biggest waste of yours and mine resources like ...FOREVER!!!

Medicare Part D being an unfunded prescription add on give away to Big Pharma was not the doing of those dirty farking hippies.

Your perspective of history is flawed. Them dirty farking hippies made the cover of time magazine, not because they were weir'd...it's because there were MILLIONS of them.

Did the dirty farking hippies have conservative counterparts? They sure did. In flyover country. hence my statement that you should not play generational divide and conquer by painting with a broad brush that tries to negatively define 55 million people, many of whom have been fighting Washington's waste and corruption there whole life.

Nothing opaque about that point at all.