If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Some economist says we shouldn't trust some economists concerning the U.S. economy   (nytimes.com) divider line 209
    More: Interesting, Easy Useless Economics, United States, U.S. economy, making excuses, current affairs, fiscal stimulus, American Economic Review, economists  
•       •       •

1899 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 May 2012 at 6:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-12 08:45:54 AM  

erveek: Wow, dude. Are you gonna take credit for the Civil Rights movement while you're at it?

It's funny that the bulk of the Boomers only started caring about war when they started being drafted for it. But yeah, it was bout the financial burden.

The fiscally responsible Baby Boomers stood up to those wasteful Greatest Generationers. It was clearly all about the money.

Boomers are all about financial discipline.

It's like watching a Southerner insist on calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Agression".


You really miss the whole point. It's not about 1 generation vs another. It's about the NeoLiberal (or neocon) Military Industrial Congressional complex.
Millions of Americans stand idly by or actively support it as it drains our coffers daily.

Then again, Millions of Americans (of all generational divisions) also try like hell to stand up against it.

Your broad brush painting is an all too common example of intellectual laziness.
 
2012-05-12 09:04:35 AM  

X-boxershorts: erveek: Wow, dude. Are you gonna take credit for the Civil Rights movement while you're at it?

It's funny that the bulk of the Boomers only started caring about war when they started being drafted for it. But yeah, it was bout the financial burden.

The fiscally responsible Baby Boomers stood up to those wasteful Greatest Generationers. It was clearly all about the money.

Boomers are all about financial discipline.

It's like watching a Southerner insist on calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Agression".

You really miss the whole point. It's not about 1 generation vs another. It's about the NeoLiberal (or neocon) Military Industrial Congressional complex.
Millions of Americans stand idly by or actively support it as it drains our coffers daily.

Then again, Millions of Americans (of all generational divisions) also try like hell to stand up against it.

Your broad brush painting is an all too common example of intellectual laziness.


Who's been running the country?

Who didn't take Ike's warning to heart? Who fell asleep at the switch and let corruption take hold to the point where it's institutionalized?

Is oversight of your government only for when you might have to serve it?

Many Americans believe that they have no voice in politics and for bad or for worse we're just along for the ride. And we feel like the last generation to run things has let us down, particularly considering what they had to start with.

What's worse, with the institutionalization of corruption, it doesn't seem like younger generations will ever get a chance to run things.
 
2012-05-12 09:21:12 AM  

erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: Wow, dude. Are you gonna take credit for the Civil Rights movement while you're at it?

It's funny that the bulk of the Boomers only started caring about war when they started being drafted for it. But yeah, it was bout the financial burden.

The fiscally responsible Baby Boomers stood up to those wasteful Greatest Generationers. It was clearly all about the money.

Boomers are all about financial discipline.

It's like watching a Southerner insist on calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Agression".

You really miss the whole point. It's not about 1 generation vs another. It's about the NeoLiberal (or neocon) Military Industrial Congressional complex.
Millions of Americans stand idly by or actively support it as it drains our coffers daily.

Then again, Millions of Americans (of all generational divisions) also try like hell to stand up against it.

Your broad brush painting is an all too common example of intellectual laziness.

Who's been running the country?

Who didn't take Ike's warning to heart? Who fell asleep at the switch and let corruption take hold to the point where it's institutionalized?

Is oversight of your government only for when you might have to serve it?

Many Americans believe that they have no voice in politics and for bad or for worse we're just along for the ride. And we feel like the last generation to run things has let us down, particularly considering what they had to start with.

What's worse, with the institutionalization of corruption, it doesn't seem like younger generations will ever get a chance to run things.


Do you honestly think that Millions of Boomers...what remains of all those dirty farking hippies, don't share these very same concerns?
 
2012-05-12 09:29:22 AM  

Shaggy_C: There's some pretty massive assumptions built into that graph about interest rates as well as future deficits for entitlement programmes...


Correct. Those assumptions are the CBO's Alternative Baseline Scenario
 
2012-05-12 09:31:58 AM  

Ishkur: Would you stop posting that farking graph? It doesn't even have any farking resonance with anything resembling real life.


Inasmuch as the CBO projections don't resemble real life, I guess you would be correct. However, they are some of the best projections that we have.
 
2012-05-12 09:34:12 AM  

HeadLever: Ishkur: Would you stop posting that farking graph? It doesn't even have any farking resonance with anything resembling real life.

Inasmuch as the CBO projections don't resemble real life, I guess you would be correct. However, they are some of the best projections that we have.


But the CBO gives both hi and low estimates. Based on current projections and worst case scenario.
 
2012-05-12 09:34:24 AM  

El Pachuco: He always retreats to, "if you can't read a simple chart I'm not going to explain it."


Lol, I have explained it to you several times. Sadly, you still don't really know what it shows. I believe last time you kept trying to argue that the yellow line was total debt
 
2012-05-12 09:39:59 AM  

X-boxershorts: Based on current projections and worst case scenario.


Not really worst case. The alternative baseline scenario assumes some widely accepted policy decisions are made that continues the status quo of low taxes and high spending. Things like keeping the tax cuts in place, healthcare costs continuing to increase per present levels, etc.

You can read more here:http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc 10014/budeffects.pdf

Worst case would be akin to double dipping into another recession
 
2012-05-12 09:42:00 AM  

HeadLever: X-boxershorts: Based on current projections and worst case scenario.

Not really worst case. The alternative baseline scenario assumes some widely accepted policy decisions are made that continues the status quo of low taxes and high spending. Things like keeping the tax cuts in place, healthcare costs continuing to increase per present levels, etc.

You can read more here:http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc 10014/budeffects.pdf

Worst case would be akin to double dipping into another recession


Point taken. CBO usually does give multiple projections tho
 
2012-05-12 09:48:26 AM  

X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: Wow, dude. Are you gonna take credit for the Civil Rights movement while you're at it?

It's funny that the bulk of the Boomers only started caring about war when they started being drafted for it. But yeah, it was bout the financial burden.

The fiscally responsible Baby Boomers stood up to those wasteful Greatest Generationers. It was clearly all about the money.

Boomers are all about financial discipline.

It's like watching a Southerner insist on calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Agression".

You really miss the whole point. It's not about 1 generation vs another. It's about the NeoLiberal (or neocon) Military Industrial Congressional complex.
Millions of Americans stand idly by or actively support it as it drains our coffers daily.

Then again, Millions of Americans (of all generational divisions) also try like hell to stand up against it.

Your broad brush painting is an all too common example of intellectual laziness.

Who's been running the country?

Who didn't take Ike's warning to heart? Who fell asleep at the switch and let corruption take hold to the point where it's institutionalized?

Is oversight of your government only for when you might have to serve it?

Many Americans believe that they have no voice in politics and for bad or for worse we're just along for the ride. And we feel like the last generation to run things has let us down, particularly considering what they had to start with.

What's worse, with the institutionalization of corruption, it doesn't seem like younger generations will ever get a chance to run things.

Do you honestly think that Millions of Boomers...what remains of all those dirty farking hippies, don't share these very same concerns?


You know, one of us keeps calling them dirty hippies. And it ain't me.

If Boomers shared these concerns, why haven't they done anything about it? It's not for lack of opportunity; they're the most influential voting bloc, and they've had decades.
 
2012-05-12 09:48:50 AM  

X-boxershorts: Point taken. CBO usually does give multiple projections tho


True. The more optimistic projection is the Baseline Projection. This one assumes that we allow all the tax cuts to expire, get a better handle on healthcare cost among a number of other things. Frankly, I don't know if we have the political will to allow this to happen.
 
2012-05-12 09:55:49 AM  

erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: Wow, dude. Are you gonna take credit for the Civil Rights movement while you're at it?

It's funny that the bulk of the Boomers only started caring about war when they started being drafted for it. But yeah, it was bout the financial burden.

The fiscally responsible Baby Boomers stood up to those wasteful Greatest Generationers. It was clearly all about the money.

Boomers are all about financial discipline.

It's like watching a Southerner insist on calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Agression".

You really miss the whole point. It's not about 1 generation vs another. It's about the NeoLiberal (or neocon) Military Industrial Congressional complex.
Millions of Americans stand idly by or actively support it as it drains our coffers daily.

Then again, Millions of Americans (of all generational divisions) also try like hell to stand up against it.

Your broad brush painting is an all too common example of intellectual laziness.

Who's been running the country?

Who didn't take Ike's warning to heart? Who fell asleep at the switch and let corruption take hold to the point where it's institutionalized?

Is oversight of your government only for when you might have to serve it?

Many Americans believe that they have no voice in politics and for bad or for worse we're just along for the ride. And we feel like the last generation to run things has let us down, particularly considering what they had to start with.

What's worse, with the institutionalization of corruption, it doesn't seem like younger generations will ever get a chance to run things.

Do you honestly think that Millions of Boomers...what remains of all those dirty farking hippies, don't share these very same concerns?

You know, one of us keeps calling them dirty hippies. And it ain't me.

If Boomers shared these concerns, why haven't they done anything about it? It's not for lack of opportunity; they're the most influential voting bloc, and they've had ...


Did nothing about it? As I said previously, you have a flawed perspective on your own nation's history

dougsboomerrants.files.wordpress.com

encrypted-tbn2.google.com

encrypted-tbn1.google.com
 
2012-05-12 10:00:39 AM  
Dirty farking Hippies is what the Flyover country Conservatards like to call us.

Using your generational finger pointing to paint all boomers as the cause of today's troubles is, as I've been trying to point out to you for a while now, a severely flawed premise, not supported by history and plays into the hands of the powers that drive Flyover Country Conservartards.
 
2012-05-12 10:26:22 AM  

X-boxershorts: Did nothing about it? As I said previously, you have a flawed perspective on your own nation's history


I predicted earlier in this thread that you would try to give the Baby Boomers credit for the Civil Rights movement, and now you have.

Who has a lousy grasp of history here? The Baby Boom started in 1946. The oldest Boomers weren't even old enough to vote until 1964. Some political force they were. Dr. King was born in 1929. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act just as the first of the Boomers were becoming old enough to vote.

Oh wait. That was before the 26th Amendment too. So most states had the voting age above 18. Well, hey.

Clearly it was a snap decision on his part, responding to political pressure from the soon to be voting-aged Baby Boomers. The previous decade had nothing do do with it. And they made sure to thank him for it. Baby Boomers are known for their reverence for Lyndon Johnson.

So that leaves ending Vietnam. Which they did for themselves. I'll even give you lowering the voting age so they could end Vietnam sooner.

Now, what about the things that the Baby Boomers didn't do anything about? You know, the ones you ignored, opting instead to give Boomers credit for something they saw on tv?

Boomers served themselves. They let us down.
 
2012-05-12 10:32:17 AM  

X-boxershorts: Dirty farking Hippies is what the Flyover country Conservatards like to call us.

Using your generational finger pointing to paint all boomers as the cause of today's troubles is, as I've been trying to point out to you for a while now, a severely flawed premise, not supported by history and plays into the hands of the powers that drive Flyover Country Conservartards.


You sure are tarring Midwestern Conservatives with a broad brush there :)
 
2012-05-12 10:39:33 AM  

erveek: X-boxershorts: Did nothing about it? As I said previously, you have a flawed perspective on your own nation's history

I predicted earlier in this thread that you would try to give the Baby Boomers credit for the Civil Rights movement, and now you have.

Who has a lousy grasp of history here? The Baby Boom started in 1946. The oldest Boomers weren't even old enough to vote until 1964. Some political force they were. Dr. King was born in 1929. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act just as the first of the Boomers were becoming old enough to vote.

Oh wait. That was before the 26th Amendment too. So most states had the voting age above 18. Well, hey.

Clearly it was a snap decision on his part, responding to political pressure from the soon to be voting-aged Baby Boomers. The previous decade had nothing do do with it. And they made sure to thank him for it. Baby Boomers are known for their reverence for Lyndon Johnson.

So that leaves ending Vietnam. Which they did for themselves. I'll even give you lowering the voting age so they could end Vietnam sooner.

Now, what about the things that the Baby Boomers didn't do anything about? You know, the ones you ignored, opting instead to give Boomers credit for something they saw on tv?

Boomers served themselves. They let us down.


There existed, cross generational efforts in fighting for civil rights. The fight did not end with the signing of that 1964 legislation, either.
The boomers were part of that, especially those along the coasts. To insist they were not is to ignore your own history.

Civil Rights Movement

Again, it's why I continue to insist that your painting a single generation as responsible for today's corruption is flawed.
 
2012-05-12 10:52:07 AM  

X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: Did nothing about it? As I said previously, you have a flawed perspective on your own nation's history

I predicted earlier in this thread that you would try to give the Baby Boomers credit for the Civil Rights movement, and now you have.

Who has a lousy grasp of history here? The Baby Boom started in 1946. The oldest Boomers weren't even old enough to vote until 1964. Some political force they were. Dr. King was born in 1929. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act just as the first of the Boomers were becoming old enough to vote.

Oh wait. That was before the 26th Amendment too. So most states had the voting age above 18. Well, hey.

Clearly it was a snap decision on his part, responding to political pressure from the soon to be voting-aged Baby Boomers. The previous decade had nothing do do with it. And they made sure to thank him for it. Baby Boomers are known for their reverence for Lyndon Johnson.

So that leaves ending Vietnam. Which they did for themselves. I'll even give you lowering the voting age so they could end Vietnam sooner.

Now, what about the things that the Baby Boomers didn't do anything about? You know, the ones you ignored, opting instead to give Boomers credit for something they saw on tv?

Boomers served themselves. They let us down.

There existed, cross generational efforts in fighting for civil rights. The fight did not end with the signing of that 1964 legislation, either.
The boomers were part of that, especially those along the coasts. To insist they were not is to ignore your own history.

Civil Rights Movement

Again, it's why I continue to insist that your painting a single generation as responsible for today's corruption is flawed.


They were in charge. They let it happen. They were influential and had the means to prevent it. They did not. And they won't fix it, despite being the most influential voting bloc.

Congratulations for all the accomplishments of the entire civil rights movement. I know! You can take credit for the space program next. JFK was totally a Baby Boomer.
 
2012-05-12 10:54:32 AM  

Ishkur: f we move back to the Gold Standard, all that will happen is nations will hoard gold


A country cant run itself on gold - it needs commodities and will find itself willing to trade an ounce of gold for a dozen barrels of oil. China, India and the Saudis have already begun trading their commodities in Gold. The original intent behind gold is to give durability to perishable goods so there's no reason to hoard it.

Gold has remained a desired currency for thousands of years because it increases in supply about 1-2% each year, consistent with world population increase and world population GDP. It is expensive to mine but can become worthwhile to do so as market forces create demand for it.

Ishkur: Austrian Economics consists entirely of ideological catchphrases, talking points and flowing rhetoric deliberately left open to interpretation


When you cant understand something, just calling it it a "talking point" doesn't destroy the argument behind it.
 
2012-05-12 10:57:04 AM  

erveek: X-boxershorts: erveek: X-boxershorts: Did nothing about it? As I said previously, you have a flawed perspective on your own nation's history

I predicted earlier in this thread that you would try to give the Baby Boomers credit for the Civil Rights movement, and now you have.

Who has a lousy grasp of history here? The Baby Boom started in 1946. The oldest Boomers weren't even old enough to vote until 1964. Some political force they were. Dr. King was born in 1929. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act just as the first of the Boomers were becoming old enough to vote.

Oh wait. That was before the 26th Amendment too. So most states had the voting age above 18. Well, hey.

Clearly it was a snap decision on his part, responding to political pressure from the soon to be voting-aged Baby Boomers. The previous decade had nothing do do with it. And they made sure to thank him for it. Baby Boomers are known for their reverence for Lyndon Johnson.

So that leaves ending Vietnam. Which they did for themselves. I'll even give you lowering the voting age so they could end Vietnam sooner.

Now, what about the things that the Baby Boomers didn't do anything about? You know, the ones you ignored, opting instead to give Boomers credit for something they saw on tv?

Boomers served themselves. They let us down.

There existed, cross generational efforts in fighting for civil rights. The fight did not end with the signing of that 1964 legislation, either.
The boomers were part of that, especially those along the coasts. To insist they were not is to ignore your own history.

Civil Rights Movement

Again, it's why I continue to insist that your painting a single generation as responsible for today's corruption is flawed.

They were in charge. They let it happen. They were influential and had the means to prevent it. They did not. And they won't fix it, despite being the most influential voting bloc.

Congratulations for all the accomplishments of the entire civil rights moveme ...


You're a master at conflation and misdirection. A troll or an idiot or both.

fark if I know how to explain to you what a foolish person you are. But hey, stick to your preconceived notions coupled with a willingness to extrapolate false premises from things never implied added onto a willingness to point fingers everywhere except one's self....yup. Boomers are a collection of 55 million totally self centered assbaggers who are solely responsible for farking you over.

Truth is, you're merely jealous.
 
2012-05-12 11:18:35 AM  

X-boxershorts: There existed, cross generational efforts in fighting for civil rights. The fight did not end with the signing of that 1964 legislation, either.
The boomers were part of that, especially those along the coasts. To insist they were not is to ignore your own history.


He seems to be an advocate of V.O. Key's American State Politics: An Introduction (1956). The idea that there are generational turning points in politics in the US seems too binary, too apocalyptic. Since 1994 the most obvious divisions in the US are not generational (erveek's Baby Boomers vs other generations) but the "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democratic) blocs and that's based on education, religion and race.
 
2012-05-12 11:24:40 AM  

X-boxershorts: You're a master at conflation and misdirection. A troll or an idiot or both.

fark if I know how to explain to you what a foolish person you are. But hey, stick to your preconceived notions coupled with a willingness to extrapolate false premises from things never implied added onto a willingness to point fingers everywhere except one's self....yup. Boomers are a collection of 55 million totally self centered assbaggers who are solely responsible for farking you over.

Truth is, you're merely jealous.


Nope, they're the most noble generation. They founded this great nation, defeated Hitler and reunified the nation after the Civil War. In that order.

Now seriously, how about you answer the question you've been ignoring for most of this thread:

Who was in charge?

Congratulations, you can end a war and take credit for the work of others.

But who was in charge when corruption took hold? Who ignored Ike? Who let the Military Industrial Complex he warned of do what he warned they'd do?

You accuse me of misdirection.

I keep asking very simple questions. You keep pretending I'm not asking them.
 
2012-05-12 11:31:58 AM  

X-boxershorts: erveek:


If you'd like to hear the opinion of an actual Boomer...you're both right.

I can tell you that it gives me an odd feeling to read comments here - and I read them all the time - in which the writer gleefully awaits my passing from the face of the Earth. On the other hand, it's the way the world has always worked. Every generation eagerly awaits the day when their fathers get out of their way and let them fulfill their birthright. Back in the 70s, there was a saying: "Every day, more of us are born and more of them die."

More substantively, though, the Boomer generation (like every human generation before them) did much good and much evil. It's also true that a lot of the good that was done resulted from people pursuing selfish interests - the anti-war movement being an excellent example. It's also true that the Boomers left a lot undone, omissions which, in hindsight, appear inexcusable. For instance, women weren't necessarily treated with particular dignity. It wasn't unusual for women to be employed as human shields at anti-war rallies when protesters anticipated trouble with the cops (the rallying cry was "chicks up front!"). And, of course, gay rights were completely off the radar.

In the end, the Boomer generation was a lot like every other - no more or less morally pure than any other. The only things that were extraordinary about us were that we came of age during a remarkable period in history characterized by the Cold War, the post-WWII economic boom, and the everpresent threat of nuclear annihilation. That, and there were a whole lot of us.
 
2012-05-12 11:42:06 AM  

erveek: X-boxershorts: You're a master at conflation and misdirection. A troll or an idiot or both.

fark if I know how to explain to you what a foolish person you are. But hey, stick to your preconceived notions coupled with a willingness to extrapolate false premises from things never implied added onto a willingness to point fingers everywhere except one's self....yup. Boomers are a collection of 55 million totally self centered assbaggers who are solely responsible for farking you over.

Truth is, you're merely jealous.


Nope, they're the most noble generation. They founded this great nation, defeated Hitler and reunified the nation after the Civil War. In that order.

Now seriously, how about you answer the question you've been ignoring for most of this thread:

Who was in charge?

Congratulations, you can end a war and take credit for the work of others.

But who was in charge when corruption took hold? Who ignored Ike? Who let the Military Industrial Complex he warned of do what he warned they'd do?

You accuse me of misdirection.

I keep asking very simple questions. You keep pretending I'm not asking them.


Boomers would not have come to power, politically, until the late 80's.

But to say that Boomers, as a whole, were no more nor less politically divided than any other generation is intellectually lazy finger pointing.

As far as who was in charge when corruption took hold in Washington DC? ...I'd hazard a guess at Washington.
 
2012-05-12 11:44:17 AM  

BMulligan: In the end, the Boomer generation was a lot like every other - no more or less morally pure than any other. The only things that were extraordinary about us were that we came of age during a remarkable period in history characterized by the Cold War, the post-WWII economic boom, and the everpresent threat of nuclear annihilation. That, and there were a whole lot of us.


As a Boomer, I must say I liked the music.

The Realignment Theory makes no sense to me, but there seems to be quite a number of believers such as erveek.
 
2012-05-12 11:44:58 AM  
Also, I have been answering your questions consistently, including citations and summary explanations.

You just reject those as not filling your need to blame someone....anyone...for the ills you see afflicting our nation. Even is that someone is a generation of 55 million individuals.

To accept the answers I have offered, you will be required to reject your preconceived notions of generational warfare.
 
2012-05-12 12:04:41 PM  

Delay: I must say I liked the music.


The one thing about which there can be no reasonable argument - the one thing we got objectively right.
 
2012-05-12 01:21:30 PM  

cybrwzrd: I work in purchasing for a subsidiary of a world wide automobile manufacturer.

My job is to source business to the lowest bidder and thus I am a true "Job creator". The decisions I make on a daily basis can make or break tier 2 and three suppliers, the lifeblood of the US economy. The problem is that the places that submit the lowest bids do not pay their employees enough to purchase my end products.

Without buyers for my products, I have to find ways to make them cheaper. As I make them cheaper, less people can buy the products we sell.

Why do the dipshiats in charge not grasp the bigger picture here? Source items that are a little higher cost for the benefit of having customers? Is this such a difficult concept?


You always have to find ways to make them cheaper and wages generally rise. The problem is that the wages in the U.S. are higher than China, India, etc.

The way to get higher paying workers is to use quality as a metric of overall cost. If the cheapest product has a quality problem, it may be employee turnover, etc. That figures into the bottom line of your company as a cost hidden in the contract. Henry Ford paid higher wages because it was inefficient to hire 3 workers knowing that 2 would leave after they were trained to a different company. But if that's not happening then it's silly to lament that you use the cheapest parts and don't have customers even though the cheapest parts are the same as more expensive parts. You are either making a product that no one wants or something that's just not ready for the mass market. Also remember that the cost of your product determines the profit, not the price they sell at it. Intel Coproration sells their products at a significant multiple of the product cost. The price is set by the market. Their performance/price points are for the exact same manufactured product (i.e. the cost to make their different speed versions is identical) the price is much higher because of the market demand.
 
2012-05-12 01:35:51 PM  

Hydra: 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


I never said you shouldn't be skeptical of statistical evidence. The difference is that the Austrian School disregards it entirely when it comes to their economic theories, probably because they can't justify it using the empirical model.

In reply to your reference, what I said was that I trusted the Fact Check article more because it used statistical elements in addition to what was provided by the Fair Tax advocacy group. Nobody has been able to validate the Fair Tax claims other than other paid Fair Tax advocates. It's like the Cold Fusion of taxation theories; nobody outside of their circle can recreate the experiment. But if you want to dismiss all outside sources as having a conspiracy against the Fair Tax then go right ahead. Their end verdict was pretty generous IMO.

Hydra: 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.


Since Glass-Steagall was put in effect back in 1933 to prevent the sort of asshattery that caused the toxicity to spread throughout the entire market, it wasn't due to lack of foresight, just greed.



But I see that you're skeptical of the data from Fair Tax advocates too so we do agree on something.
 
2012-05-12 01:37:55 PM  

Ishkur: 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 Depre ...


Banks create the principle of a loan out of nothing (blah blah reserve ratios, but its all bullshiat). The money of the principle is created, by fiat, from nothing. They do not create the interest, it must come from the overall economy.

Why happens when their is not enough actual growth in the overall economy to service existing debt? Sure, you can borrow money, but that just kicks the problem "down the road" and make it worse. We been doing this for decades.

Eventually, it all will come crashing down.
 
2012-05-12 01:43:49 PM  

dosboot: Enough with the Krugman fanboy crap. I recall that he as very optimistic about housing before the bubble burst


Um, he was predicting the bubble back in 2005.
 
2012-05-12 01:46:01 PM  

Ishkur: Chimperror2: /also,don't trust the socialist or marxist ones in capitalist society.

To be fair, you shouldn't trust the capitalist ones in a capitalist society, either.


Like I said, you don't trust the wrong ones. Like Krugman. Trusting capitalist economists that are right is called "Smart". Those economists are the ones OWS protests.

/Kinda weird that the stupid economists that failed are praised and given bailouts while the correct ones are called greedy and protested.
 
2012-05-12 02:08:49 PM  

Chimperror2: Ishkur: Chimperror2: /also,don't trust the socialist or marxist ones in capitalist society.

To be fair, you shouldn't trust the capitalist ones in a capitalist society, either.

Like I said, you don't trust the wrong ones. Like Krugman. Trusting capitalist economists that are right is called "Smart". Those economists are the ones OWS protests.

/Kinda weird that the stupid economists that failed are praised and given bailouts while the correct ones are called greedy and protested.


Nouriel Roubini has been right. All along. So too was calculated risk. Krugman's been in line with Roubini's models for more than a few years now, even though he missed the housing/mortgage bubble by a year or so. And a LOT of the stupid economists that failed are the current preachers of runaway inflation, moral hazard, bond market confidence and austerity. They tend to work for the Hoover Institute, American Enterprise Institute and Reason

And I think you're mistaken about OWS protesting just the 'capitalists". The protest is, generally speaking, for the one's who supported bailing out Wall St while ignoring main st.
 
2012-05-12 02:12:13 PM  

Fart_Machine: Since Glass-Steagall was put in effect back in 1933 to prevent the sort of asshattery that caused the toxicity to spread throughout the entire market, it wasn't due to lack of foresight, just greed.


Glass-Stegall could have been repealed without consequence. And, in my opinion it was a good idea that GS was repealed because it was out of date.

What was expected next after GS was repealed? There would be an update of the regulations that would reflect the changing nature of banking since 1933. As I said, GS was out of date.

How do I know GS was out of date? I saw depository institutions on every street corner in my backwater town that did not meet the definition of a GS bank. I personally had deposits at that time in money market funds held by a brokerage with check writing privileges, still do. Not covered by GS. Shadow banking. Not covered by GS. The list goes on.

Why was there no update of regulations? Politics. Up to 2008 lots of Republicans claimed that the improved financial environment had been caused by Reagan deregulation. They still do. They are liars. Why? The improved financial environment never happened, only the wealthy got richer.
 
2012-05-12 02:21:06 PM  

Delay: Fart_Machine: Since Glass-Steagall was put in effect back in 1933 to prevent the sort of asshattery that caused the toxicity to spread throughout the entire market, it wasn't due to lack of foresight, just greed.

Glass-Stegall could have been repealed without consequence. And, in my opinion it was a good idea that GS was repealed because it was out of date.

What was expected next after GS was repealed? There would be an update of the regulations that would reflect the changing nature of banking since 1933. As I said, GS was out of date.

How do I know GS was out of date? I saw depository institutions on every street corner in my backwater town that did not meet the definition of a GS bank. I personally had deposits at that time in money market funds held by a brokerage with check writing privileges, still do. Not covered by GS. Shadow banking. Not covered by GS. The list goes on.

Why was there no update of regulations? Politics. Up to 2008 lots of Republicans claimed that the improved financial environment had been caused by Reagan deregulation. They still do. They are liars. Why? The improved financial environment never happened, only the wealthy got richer.


Glass-Steagall's modifications did increase the exposure of insured deposits to FDIC bailout a bit, but you're right, it was generally not significant in the overall picture. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act that internationlized derivatives trading while removing all oversight is what allowed these MBS and MBS based synthetic derivatives to get way out of hand. The real damage was not done by bad loans, that was only a few percentage points of the overall global losses. The real damage was the loss of faith in the derivatives based upon those bad loans that dwarfed in value those mortgages by a factor of 20 or more.

In other words, it was a run on the unregulated shadow banking system, which was not affected by Glass-Steagall at all, which crashed the global economy.

And the derivatives market remains unregulated. See Jamie Dimon....
 
2012-05-12 02:43:22 PM  

BMulligan: Delay: I must say I liked the music.

The one thing about which there can be no reasonable argument - the one thing we got objectively right.


No argument here.

Pity it keeps being used in commercials.
 
2012-05-12 03:09:08 PM  

erveek: BMulligan: Delay: I must say I liked the music.

The one thing about which there can be no reasonable argument - the one thing we got objectively right.

No argument here.

Pity it keeps being used in commercials.


And elevators now too.
 
2012-05-12 04:28:44 PM  

Fart_Machine: dosboot: Enough with the Krugman fanboy crap. I recall that he as very optimistic about housing before the bubble burst

Um, he was predicting the bubble back in 2005.


So were Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, only Krugman's solution to get out of it is to push the same policies which got us in the mess.
 
2012-05-12 04:39:37 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: dosboot: Enough with the Krugman fanboy crap. I recall that he as very optimistic about housing before the bubble burst

Um, he was predicting the bubble back in 2005.

So were Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, only Krugman's solution to get out of it is to push the same policies which got us in the mess.


I see you're not directly familiar with Krugman's writings.
 
2012-05-12 04:50:46 PM  

X-boxershorts: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: dosboot: Enough with the Krugman fanboy crap. I recall that he as very optimistic about housing before the bubble burst

Um, he was predicting the bubble back in 2005.

So were Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, only Krugman's solution to get out of it is to push the same policies which got us in the mess.

I see you're not directly familiar with Krugman's writings.


I read his columns pretty regularly. His general sentiment is that the reason the stimulus package failed is because it should have been 3-4x larger than it was. It is a typical Keynesian argument that the policy works until it doesn't and then the answer to the critics is that the stimulus or bailout wasn't big enough.

Wake me when a country gets out of recession with stimulus.
 
2012-05-12 05:01:17 PM  
Reminds me of the old joke "If you lined up all the economists end to end they'd point in all directions".

/got nothing.
 
2012-05-12 05:14:01 PM  

o5iiawah: X-boxershorts: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: dosboot: Enough with the Krugman fanboy crap. I recall that he as very optimistic about housing before the bubble burst

Um, he was predicting the bubble back in 2005.

So were Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, only Krugman's solution to get out of it is to push the same policies which got us in the mess.

I see you're not directly familiar with Krugman's writings.

I read his columns pretty regularly. His general sentiment is that the reason the stimulus package failed is because it should have been 3-4x larger than it was. It is a typical Keynesian argument that the policy works until it doesn't and then the answer to the critics is that the stimulus or bailout wasn't big enough.

Wake me when a country gets out of recession with stimulus.


Dude, read your own nation's history and get back to me when you wake up.
 
2012-05-12 05:22:15 PM  

fusillade762: aaronx: Happily, these people have long histories of trying to explain the current economy. All you have to do to compare two economists is to check who was correct more often.

Krugman was one of the few who saw the housing crisis coming, iirc. The bulk of economists (including those in the Fed) seemed to think property values would continue to increase indefinitely.


He is also the one who called for the housing bubble to be created
 
2012-05-12 05:22:23 PM  
Oh yeah, the music was great!

Aaaah, one of the finest albums of my ute

The smoker you drink the player you get
 
2012-05-12 05:23:05 PM  

roddack: fusillade762: aaronx: Happily, these people have long histories of trying to explain the current economy. All you have to do to compare two economists is to check who was correct more often.

Krugman was one of the few who saw the housing crisis coming, iirc. The bulk of economists (including those in the Fed) seemed to think property values would continue to increase indefinitely.

He is also the one who called for the housing bubble to be created


I thought Bernanke did that....I call bullshiat
 
2012-05-12 05:56:43 PM  
More great Boomer music....Allman Bro's live at the Fillmore March 1971

Full Album
 
2012-05-12 06:34:37 PM  

X-boxershorts: roddack: fusillade762: aaronx: Happily, these people have long histories of trying to explain the current economy. All you have to do to compare two economists is to check who was correct more often.

Krugman was one of the few who saw the housing crisis coming, iirc. The bulk of economists (including those in the Fed) seemed to think property values would continue to increase indefinitely.

He is also the one who called for the housing bubble to be created

I thought Bernanke did that....I call bullshiat


I stand corrected, he supported the call for the action to be taken

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

 To fight this recession the Fed
needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
 
2012-05-12 06:39:58 PM  

roddack: X-boxershorts: roddack: fusillade762: aaronx: Happily, these people have long histories of trying to explain the current economy. All you have to do to compare two economists is to check who was correct more often.

Krugman was one of the few who saw the housing crisis coming, iirc. The bulk of economists (including those in the Fed) seemed to think property values would continue to increase indefinitely.

He is also the one who called for the housing bubble to be created

I thought Bernanke did that....I call bullshiat

I stand corrected, he supported the call for the action to be taken

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

 To fight this recession the Fed
needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.


Yah, the fed kept interest rates artificially low too long. Not sure if the Shrill One was critical of that at the time.
But Nouriel Roubini and Calculated Risk both called the Fed out for that years before the bubble burst.

BYW...Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate and well known Keynsian also saw it coming.

And at both places, there was great criticism for bailing out Wall St while ignoring Main St and the demand side of ALL economics equations

Krugman's certainly not the be all to end all, but the modelling he's using in re Japan's lost decade has translated pretty accurately to our current situation.
 
2012-05-12 06:57:16 PM  
As a discipline, economics is lacking. It's based on modelling assumptions about human behavior and is open to ideological crusading. The veneer of statistics doesn't make it science.
 
2012-05-12 07:06:24 PM  

Bucky Katt: As a discipline, economics is lacking. It's based on modelling assumptions about human behavior and is open to ideological crusading. The veneer of statistics doesn't make it science.


Yes, yes it is. One need only watch "Inside Job" to see the pathetically blatant pandering and prostituting of America's elite teaching economists to see where the conflict of interest arises.

In Case you haven't seen Inside Job yet

But if you're so closed minded to believe (without any evidence) that the Heritage Foundation or the Von Mises institute or the American Enterprise institute have all the answers, then you'll merely dismiss "Inside Job" as more leftist propaganda. When in reality, it lays some very heavy accusations on conventional wisdom and Wall St and the academic theorists who enabled these farkers.
 
2012-05-12 07:37:04 PM  
Off to watch Hockey....cya later!
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report