Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Examiner)   Wages fall for the only the 5th time in 33 years. Don't worry, Obamacare will make up the difference   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 191
    More: Interesting, obamacare  
•       •       •

1444 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2012 at 7:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-03 11:52:14 AM  

X-boxershorts: jltthorson: AirForceVet:
[0.tqn.com image 359x119]

The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%. The death of half a million Americans and the destruction of everyone else's industrial base makes for a robust postwar domestic economy with good employment. Now if we can get the Japanese to attack again Obama might have a hope. Nobody would use such a bumper sticker except a clueless farker.

Gee, what was the unemployment rate in 1932? Oh my, 25% you say? And it dropped to, what...10% by 1937? Then jumped again to 20%? You would think that conservative pressure to pull back on public sector investment programs had a negative impact? No way!!!



It must suck the be so sensitive to criticism as to constantly attempt to rewrite history to fit one's life narrative.


It is sad that New Deal supporters and Keynesians alike see this graph and say that it all "worked."
 
2012-07-03 11:58:57 AM  

Deftoons: X-boxershorts: jltthorson: AirForceVet:
[0.tqn.com image 359x119]

The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%. The death of half a million Americans and the destruction of everyone else's industrial base makes for a robust postwar domestic economy with good employment. Now if we can get the Japanese to attack again Obama might have a hope. Nobody would use such a bumper sticker except a clueless farker.

Gee, what was the unemployment rate in 1932? Oh my, 25% you say? And it dropped to, what...10% by 1937? Then jumped again to 20%? You would think that conservative pressure to pull back on public sector investment programs had a negative impact? No way!!!



It must suck the be so sensitive to criticism as to constantly attempt to rewrite history to fit one's life narrative.

It is sad that New Deal supporters and Keynesians alike see this graph and say that it all "worked."


It prevented Milton Friedman from being raped by hobos do there's that.
 
2012-07-03 12:15:41 PM  

MyRandomName: fringedmyotis: So, if I understand the situation correctly:

1. The Job Creators (all blessings be upon Them) are enjoying the lowest tax rates in 80 years
2. Jobs are being created (from TFA), but wages are dropping

Therefore, the Job Creators must be keeping our f*cking money, right?

"our money?". What did you do to deserve the money of others? Money is not collective.


Except when that money is *collected* through taxation and then applied through legislation by our *elected* representatives and senators.

And except when labor is the group that is actually, you know, making shiat that earns money. Then too.

So basically, yeah, money IS collective. It's a collectively agreed upon measurement of the value of our labor. Money is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. That's us, by the way. We the people and all that.

So unless you already have that money in your hands, then it's not yours. And when it's sitting in corporate coffers, it's not yours. And when it's in a bank, it's not yours. Because, again, money IS collective.

Or you know, you can go galt on us and show us just how much money you can grab for yourself without a collective around you to help make, market and move your magical super-engine.
 
2012-07-03 12:27:58 PM  

skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher: Your Average Witty Fark User: So, if this is news, what would subtard say when Republicans gut the minimum wage, thus causing wages to plummet like a rock?

/subtard is a farking retard, or a troll
//probably both

huh?

Ignore it. YAW-FU isn't paging you.

/But it's "nice" to know that you answer promptly when called.

again... huh?


YAW-FU was calling subby an idiot and a troll because the headline implies that Obamacare, which is the hotbutton topic du jure, has some kind of impact on the historical data regarding wage stagnation in this country. A topic that has been at the forefront of progressivism for at least 2 decades, in particular during any and all debates between conservatives and liberals re: minimum wage. Whereas the GOP has been of the opinion (on and off) that the minimum wages STIFLES JOB CREATION (!) and therefore suppresses your earning potential, the Democrats argue that wage demands don't alter any sort of labor needs in the market. In fact, most progressives would argue that demand drives job creation by creating a more robust market for goods and services, thereby increasing demand for labor to make those goods and provide those services. So as an added dig, YAW-FU chose to flail a bit at the GOP for their periodic stance on the matter of minimum wages, as long as we're already talking about it. Bonus: It's more relevant than Obamacare?

Hey-Lamed-Lamed, on the other hand, is being a dick to you for some reason.

Hope that helps sk. Hate to see you confused like that :p
 
2012-07-03 12:29:53 PM  

beta_plus: Sock Ruh Tease: [i.imgur.com image 480x373]

HOPE

[voiceofdetroit.net image 420x263]

CHANGE

[theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com image 504x347]


You know, sometimes a little context can help drive your fevered narrative home. I mean, if you're going to be ridiculous, make me feel like you BELIEVE it.
 
2012-07-03 01:27:19 PM  
hey dickhead, REAL wages have only increased 1 to 2 percent in the last 30 years. still think its the "greatest country on earth"???


where the hell have you been in the last 30 years???
 
2012-07-03 01:27:27 PM  

Deftoons: Empty Matchbook: Deftoons: Empty Matchbook: Yeah, there's no way making health insurance more accessible or affordable could possibly help when people aren't making as much.

/yeah, the two things are unrelated
//it's just funny that it works even if they weren't

You actually think Obamacare is going to make health insurance more affordable? You are going to be in for a rude awakening. But I'm sure the left will continue to think it's the Republicans fault in more partisan bickering and blame gaming.

/no, don't vote Republican
//don't vote Democrat either

How will it hurt? Answer without using the phases "If you can't be bothered to..."; "Liberal media/bias"; and your argument must contain cold, hard facts, not speculation, not blue-skying, and nothing intentionally misleading.

It's going to run into the same problems Massachusetts has - while everybody will have health insurance, the insurance itself will become more expensive; because people will start gaming the system.

People will look at the numbers and decide to drop their health insurance, pay the tax, wait until they get sick/injured, open up a policy, get expensive treatment, then drop their policy when they get better. And because of the new policies put in place, insurers will have to accept them, and in order to prevent them from losing money from these types of people, they will then pass the expenses onto everyone else's premiums. It will become a gradual problem.

Since plans in the new exchanges have to cover a government-approved list of "minimum essential benefits," not only will Americans have to pay for benefits they don't want, but sure that list will subject to intense lobbying. Alongside of subsidizing insurance, just like anything else that is government subsidized, the cost goes up. If you were given a clothes subsidy, would you spend the same amount on clothes as you did before, or splurge from time to time? The laws of economics don't magically go away when you buy health insura ...


What you're describing sounded an AWFUL lot like the original bill. The one that got shot down as "Commufascism" by the "Liberal MSM Lamestream" media and almost every Republican in the House (not putting that on you, since you earlier derided the Repubs) and the sad truth is that this country, for whatever reason, isn't ready for what you're describing. It'll probably happen within the next decade, though, and this is a good, necessary first step. And sure people will game the system, but at least there's SOMEthing in place to discourage it. And hopping on and off insurance is NOT as easy as you're making it sound, especially not to do habitually. At least not GOOD insurance.
 
2012-07-03 02:17:13 PM  

Deftoons: X-boxershorts: jltthorson: AirForceVet:
[0.tqn.com image 359x119]

The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%. The death of half a million Americans and the destruction of everyone else's industrial base makes for a robust postwar domestic economy with good employment. Now if we can get the Japanese to attack again Obama might have a hope. Nobody would use such a bumper sticker except a clueless farker.

Gee, what was the unemployment rate in 1932? Oh my, 25% you say? And it dropped to, what...10% by 1937? Then jumped again to 20%? You would think that conservative pressure to pull back on public sector investment programs had a negative impact? No way!!!



It must suck the be so sensitive to criticism as to constantly attempt to rewrite history to fit one's life narrative.

It is sad that New Deal supporters and Keynesians alike see this graph and say that it all "worked."


It's even worse when deniers such as yourself try to imply it made things worse.

Lender of last resort. Brought to you by the bank of England since 1660

Learn your history without a filter.
 
2012-07-03 03:45:33 PM  

lennavan: Mugato: submittertroll seems to score a lot of greenlights lately.

Who's to say subby's headline wasn't a commentary on how Obama used all of his political capital on fixing the health care system when instead Obama should have first used his political capital to raise the minimum wage because while corporate profits are at record levels, for some reason (greed) corporations are not trickling the money down, so government has to intervene.

Why are you all looking at me like that?


Because trickle down economics isnt about accounting money flowing down, its about how economic wealth is spread to the lower segments of society. You know the refridgerators, x-boxes, cell phones, medicine, cars, computers and all the other goods that are now available to lower segment of society.
 
2012-07-03 04:25:26 PM  

derpdeederp:
Because trickle down economics isnt about accounting money flowing down, its about how economic wealth is spread to the lower segments of society. You know the refridgerators, x-boxes, cell phones, medicine, cars, computers and all the other goods that are now available to lower segment of society.


I've had to recalibrate my personal sarcasm meter several times because of you. Mag-farking-nificently w/dry, that was.
 
2012-07-03 04:41:21 PM  

X-boxershorts: Kibbler: jltthorson: AirForceVet:
[0.tqn.com image 359x119]

The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%. The death of half a million Americans and the destruction of everyone else's industrial base makes for a robust postwar domestic economy with good employment. Now if we can get the Japanese to attack again Obama might have a hope. Nobody would use such a bumper sticker except a clueless farker.

Because FDR ignored the GOP and insisted on a policy of total head-in-the-sand apathy. So many times we heard him say that Mr. Hitler was a man we could work with, and besides, Europe was none of our business. The GOP and corporate America valiantly tried to point out the danger, but no, Mr. Libby Lib insisted that we just close our eyes and wish the problem away. In 1940, they had to drag him kicking and screaming to help Britain. If not for them, Britain would have gone under, and then the GOP would have been able to say, now we have to face Germany entirely alone, Mr. Libby Lib. And don't even get me started on how the GOP insisted that we rush aid to the USSR, even if it was our ideological enemy, while FDR said, "NO! Let them sink! Let the Nazis run over them! Better Nazi than Commie! Better dead than either!" Only the strength and will of the GOP ensured that all those trucks and planes and tanks and loads of fuel and food got to Russia in time to help them fend off the Germans.

IBM bravely cut off all business with Germany in the 1930's, and then after the war started, when they had the opportunity to work secretly with the Nazi regime through a Swiss subsidiary to set up a system that they knew was being used to catalog occupied Europe's Jews, they recoiled in moral horror and refused to make a quick buck by helping. No! was the courageous answer. Never! We will never sully ourselves that way! Fight the Nazi menace! Hew to the moral course! This was why, after the war, they didn't have to use threats of lawsuits to suppress the story of how the ...


Then we invaded Germany, and found out that the Nazi Party was actually in Britain. We found out that it was English troops occupying Europe. And Mr. Libby Lib then said, "Well...the GOP voted for the war resolution! They're equally to blame! And...and...besides, we built all those schools in Germany! Now German women can vote! Which has totally been a GOP priority all along! Libby libs hate women! And...Churchill was a very bad man! The world is better off! We prevented the Nazis from invading Germany from Britain! The surge worked! Churchill planned Pearl Harbor! Scotland is building an atomic bomb as we speak! Stop Rumania before it's too late!"

Then Mr. Libby Lib posed on an aircraft carrier in January 1942 and declared that the war was over. Boy was he wrong! That's a libby lib for you.

Then he built the most enormous embassy/fortress the world had ever seen, and sent tens of thousands of private mercenaries to Germany, to make it look like we were "out of" Germany. But it was all a libby lib plan to assert military and diploamatic control over Europe. Then we finally got a Republican in the White House, and the libby libs made it sound like that whole mess was all the GOP's fault!

Oooh! Libby libs!
 
2012-07-03 05:33:28 PM  

X-boxershorts: Deftoons: X-boxershorts: jltthorson: AirForceVet:
[0.tqn.com image 359x119]

The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%. The death of half a million Americans and the destruction of everyone else's industrial base makes for a robust postwar domestic economy with good employment. Now if we can get the Japanese to attack again Obama might have a hope. Nobody would use such a bumper sticker except a clueless farker.

Gee, what was the unemployment rate in 1932? Oh my, 25% you say? And it dropped to, what...10% by 1937? Then jumped again to 20%? You would think that conservative pressure to pull back on public sector investment programs had a negative impact? No way!!!



It must suck the be so sensitive to criticism as to constantly attempt to rewrite history to fit one's life narrative.

It is sad that New Deal supporters and Keynesians alike see this graph and say that it all "worked."

It's even worse when deniers such as yourself try to imply it made things worse.

Lender of last resort. Brought to you by the bank of England since 1660

Learn your history without a filter.


You mean the lender of last resort - the Federal Reserve - that brought about the credit bubble of the 20's which later created the crash of '29, then with a raise in taxes plus prohibiting international trade and spending on public projects that gave little return which later then brought about the Great Depression, then New Deal policies enabled dependency instead of actual true economic recovery?

You can spare the "I'm more edumacated than you" bullshiat. I know history well enough to have a proper perspective on the whole picture so I understand the correct resolutions of today can be learned from the mistakes of yesterday.

It's sad that you don't, and there are enough people like you who thinks the same way, thus history repeats itself.

I've read history. Maybe you should learn basic economics.
 
2012-07-03 05:56:21 PM  

Deftoons:
I've read history. Maybe you should learn basic economics.


And Voodoo.
 
2012-07-03 06:00:47 PM  

Deftoons:
I've read history.


No, you farking haven't. The Fed had no open market role until Glass-Steagall.
"1929-1933: The Market Crash and the Great Depression
During the 1920s, Virginia Representative Carter Glass warned that stock market speculation would lead to dire consequences. In October 1929, his predictions seemed to be realized when the stock market crashed, and the nation fell into the worst depression in its history. From 1930 to 1933, nearly 10,000 banks failed, and by March 1933, newly inaugurated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared a bank holiday, while government officials grappled with ways to remedy the nation's economic woes. Many people blamed the Fed for failing to stem speculative lending that led to the crash, and some also argued that inadequate understanding of monetary economics kept the Fed from pursuing policies that could have lessened the depth of the Depression.

1933: The Depression Aftermath
In reaction to the Great Depression, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1933, better known as the Glass-Steagall Act, calling for the separation of commercial and investment banking and requiring use of government securities as collateral for Federal Reserve notes. The Act also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), placed open market operations under the Fed and required bank holding companies to be examined by the Fed, a practice that was to have profound future implications, as holding companies became a prevalent structure for banks over time. Also, as part of the massive reforms taking place, Roosevelt recalled all gold and silver certificates, effectively ending the gold and any other metallic standard."

Maybe you should learn basic economics.

I see that you're today's pot-calling-the-bathtub-black on fark. Who's on deck in the libertardian alt-ation?

Recent history and Keynsian economics have a well-known empirically-verifiable basis in reality. And reality does have a well-known liberal bias.
 
2012-07-03 06:29:13 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Recent history and Keynsian economics have a well-known empirically-verifiable basis in reality. And reality does have a well-known liberal bias.


Now don't get me wrong. I am not arguing for the retarded politics of Deftoons or any of his ilk, (His ilk are retards.)

There are basically three schools of economics: Post Keynsian, Mainstream and Austrian.

All three schools are wrong because human culture and technology have changed since their "theories" were proposed. Furthermore, many of these "theories" are partially right -meaning that somethings are still right and others are wrong. Since TFA is about wages -I propose wage theory as an example.

First off, the term "theory" is false. Scientifically, these are hypothesis and as human behavior goes -have never really predicted wages.

The theories really rest on outdated models that don't reflect a modern workforce competing in a global economy probably better answered by psychology and luck. Not only do the economic
models get the answers wrong -they don't even get the questions right.

You and both know that the reason that wages are falling is because of global outsourcing. There was not one economic model 20 years ago that predicted this. So what use are their models?
 
2012-07-03 06:33:42 PM  

BeesNuts:
Hey-Lamed-Lamed, on the other hand, is being a dick to you for some reason.


It might have something to do with his calling me "an imbecilic dishonest coont" when I pointed out that his versions of history and economics don't remotely correspond with reality and backing it up with hard data.

/Which earned him sk: (Favorite: Not playing dumb.)
//TMYK
 
2012-07-03 07:17:22 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid:
You and both know that the reason that wages are falling is because of global outsourcing. There was not one economic model 20 years ago that predicted this. So what use are their models?


O'RLLY?
And Mill's 1848 equality of exchange, which was given its algebraic expression by Irving Fisher in 1911 as the identity MV = PQ is not a basic identity in macroeconomic models and has not been applied to international economics?
I have a textbook from the seventies where Mordechai Kreinin (International Economics) discusses the effects on income and employment when prices are inflexible and a government pursues stupid policies.

For another discussion of wage impacts of international trade,

Trade Unions, Wages and Unemployment: What Can Simple Models Tell Us
Andrew J. Oswald
Oxford Economic Papers
New Series, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Nov., 1982), pp. 526-545
Published by: Oxford University Press

I also seem to recall a certain short, jug-eared proto-teabagger who warned of a "giant sucking sound" as a result of free trade agreements more than 20 years ago.

/Mordechai still owes me six Shabbat stories.
//You're welcome.
 
2012-07-03 08:53:43 PM  

MyRandomName:
The year 2006 was doing fine. The crash was 08ish when dems controlled Congress.


Oh look... another f*cking moron that doesn't know how the legislative process actually works.

Here's some homework for you... google the word "filibuster", then explain how 51% (a "majority") can pass a bill when 60% of the people voting on it need to approve it.

Somehow in your world of stupid 51% = 60%, or even 66%. Anything under those numbers in actual confirmed votes = sh*t. And even that assumes that democrats regularly vote with the hive mind like republicans do, instead of voting either their conscience or their constituents. "Control" assumes they can do what they want, and you're too stupid to see that this was not so. Ever. So cut with the dumb assed talking point and learn something.
 
2012-07-03 09:12:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH:
No, you farking haven't. The Fed had no open market role until Glass-Steagall.
"1929-1933: The Market Crash and the Great Depression
During the 1920s, Virginia Representative Carter Glass warned that stock market speculation would lead to dire consequences. In October 1929, his predictions seemed to be realized when the stock market crashed, and the nation fell into the worst depression in its history. From 1930 to 1933, nearly 10,000 banks failed, and by March 1933, newly inaugurated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared a bank holiday, while government officials grappled with ways to remedy the nation's economic woes. Many people blamed the Fed for failing to stem speculative lending that led to the crash, and some also argued that inadequate understanding of monetary economics kept the Fed from pursuing policies that could have lessened the depth of the Depression.


Yes, I have read history. The ironic thing here a New Deal supporter here writes "read without a filter" yet it seems like both that farker and you are just yelling at themselves for doing the same thing.

Even Bernanke himself admitted to the Federal Reserve's failure in monetary policy. You can continue to insult me if you would like, put your hands over your eyes and ears and find some way to say it was only the Republican's fault for not expanding tax and spend programs enough. When you snap back to reality, let me know.

In the mid 1920s, the Federal Reserve used its power to set interest rates at a really low level. This caused an investment boom in the market, but politically-connected insiders knew that this wasn't going to last. At the start of the boom, many of these people loaded up on debt and bought assets before inflation set in. With artificially low interest rates, it made sense to borrow and buy assets. If interest rates are 2% and inflation is 10%, then borrowing to invest is sensible. Many farmers and small business owners were forced to borrow to expand, to keep up with their competition.

In 1929, the Federal Reserve insiders, to curb inflation, spiked up interest rates worldwide. Some connected in Washington knew what was coming. They stopped issuing loans and converted all their holding to cash. People put the stops on investment and lending, and the stock market ground to a halt; thus causing a huge wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

Then Hoover in his Presidency raised income taxes, increased tarriffs, and spent money on large public projects. This contributed towards the Great Depression (stunted all recovery), and many economists agree this was the groundwork laid for the New Deal (essentially extending Hoover's ideas to even larger levels).

demaL-demaL-yeH: I see that you're today's pot-calling-the-bathtub-black on fark. Who's on deck in the libertardian alt-ation?


You know how I can tell you can't make a logical argument? The playground is over there where you can keep your wonderful dizzying display of intellect. They will relate to your level there, at least.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Recent history and Keynsian economics have a well-known empirically-verifiable basis in reality. And reality does have a well-known liberal bias.


i2.kym-cdn.com

Yes, a nation with trillions in debt, believes in the broken window fallacy, thinks war is a huge economic stimulator, and advocating a central banking cartel is so very realistic. The Keynesians believe America is the new Rome; if we continue Keynesian thinking, we'll be falling even harder than Rome did.

Seriously dude, digest some actual supply and demand economics. Your mouth is simply regurgitating the debt that came out of Krugman's arsehole the day before.
 
2012-07-03 09:26:40 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: You and both know that the reason that wages are falling is because of global outsourcing. There was not one economic model 20 years ago that predicted this. So what use are their models?


Two responses to this:

a.) You need to cite why wage decreases are mainly tied to global outsourcing only. I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion here (despite you actually calling me a retard - you're a real class act, btw, and your reaction here will determine whether you are just a troll just wanting be a dick on the internet, or if you are a grown-up and perhaps show some maturity by apologizing).

b.) The Austrian approach to economics know full well that economists are not oracles. That's one big trait that separates them from other economic schools like Chicago School and Keynesianism. Austrians know that the economy should be left up to the people through a decentralized system of exchanges of goods and services; giving a small group of people the power to control the economy is what the Austrian school feels is an ultimately futile practice if not vehemently oppressive. Economics is a social science because humans are irrational and therefore cannot be boiled down to numerical equations; there is no magical equation that creates a utopia.
 
2012-07-03 09:28:48 PM  

Deftoons: The Keynesians believe America is the new Rome;


Even theorists of the Austrian school would think you're an idiot. Citation needed.


demaL-demaL-yeH: And Mill's 1848 equality of exchange, which was given its algebraic expression by Irving Fisher in 1911 as the identity MV = PQ is not a basic identity in macroeconomic models and has not been applied to international economics?


Sure that is Monetary theory. Wages fail because of asymmetrical information. Example: The workers don't know that people on the next farm over are getting paid more because everyone else speak another language. Nobody tells them that they can earn more... (The examples are boundless and rather new to economics).



demaL-demaL-yeH:
I also seem to recall a certain short, jug-eared proto-teabagger who warned of a "giant sucking sound" as a result of free trade agreements more than 20 years ago.


Others predicted it too but the reasons for which -that we predicted -were wrong. I'm not blaming NAFTA per se but more likely Chindia which has certain industries subsidized.
 
2012-07-03 09:35:53 PM  

Deftoons: Because People in power are Stupid: You and both know that the reason that wages are falling is because of global outsourcing. There was not one economic model 20 years ago that predicted this. So what use are their models?

Two responses to this:

a.) You need to cite why wage decreases are mainly tied to global outsourcing only. I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion here (despite you actually calling me a retard - you're a real class act, btw, and your reaction here will determine whether you are just a troll just wanting be a dick on the internet, or if you are a grown-up and perhaps show some maturity by apologizing).

b.) The Austrian approach to economics know full well that economists are not oracles. That's one big trait that separates them from other economic schools like Chicago School and Keynesianism. Austrians know that the economy should be left up to the people through a decentralized system of exchanges of goods and services; giving a small group of people the power to control the economy is what the Austrian school feels is an ultimately futile practice if not vehemently oppressive. Economics is a social science because humans are irrational and therefore cannot be boiled down to numerical equations; there is no magical equation that creates a utopia.


Dude, the reason that I don't talk to you is that you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, you want to talk troll - look in the mirror.
 
2012-07-03 09:44:54 PM  
Don't ask me why (probably because I'm getting drunk) but

A) Evidence is all over the place here's one.

B) You don't know what you are talking about. My (Graduate level) economics professor was a neo-Austrian... so bullshiat me again.
 
2012-07-03 09:45:07 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Even theorists of the Austrian school would think you're an idiot. Citation needed..


Citation provided.

Do continue that Austrians are retards and idiots. It makes you look SOOOOOO smart.
 
2012-07-03 09:47:09 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Dude, the reason that I don't talk to you is that you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, you want to talk troll - look in the mirror.


Yeah, and that's why you constantly reply to my posts, with nothing but insults and little logic to show for it.

Yep, you're definitely a troll. We're also done here.
 
2012-07-03 10:00:12 PM  

Deftoons: Because People in power are Stupid: Even theorists of the Austrian school would think you're an idiot. Citation needed..

Citation provided.

Do continue that Austrians are retards and idiots. It makes you look SOOOOOO smart.


First of all idiot. I didn't say Austrians are retards. I said You and your Ilk are retards.

Did I make you kwhy? Are you sad?

Deftoons: Yeah, and that's why you constantly reply to my posts, with nothing but insults and little logic to show for it.


Dud, I insult you because you bullshiat people. You pretend to know more than you do -and you don't. You insist on being taken seriously but you are only serious about bullshiatting to further some half-literate political objective.

Get over yourself. Either a) learn the shiat that you pretend to be an expert on or b) quit bullshiatting.
 
2012-07-03 11:17:54 PM  

Deftoons: /---constipated "reasoning" and revisionist history substituted for fact ---/


Want to know how I know you don't know what the fark you're talking about with respect to both history and economics?

Hoover's failures should sound extremely familiar to Farkers.
Hoover was a firm believer in trickle-down economics.
He was firmly against actually helping the people who were homeless, unemployed and starving
- he claimed that churches and charities would take care of it.
His Weenerss to the crash were to
pull out of the stock market
and cut taxes.
Because he was more concerned with balancing the budget than creating a Keynsian economic stimulus
(which he'd claimed to support in the 1920s), he jacked tax rates up again in 1932.
Raising tariffs shut down international trade.
Forcing business owners to maintain wages rather than jobs greatly exacerbated the growth in unemployment.

The programs that worked best were the CCC and WPA - programs that didn't compete with private industry and got people working again, combined with direct aid to the poor and unemployed, reform of the banking system, and deficit-funded public works investments. (In other words, the New Deal.)

You are also obviously ignorant of the long history of the Hecksher-Ohlin (1924 - Nobel Prize stuff, that) and Stolper-Samuelson (1941) frameworks on labor and international trade, both of which address and make predictions on what happens when production capital moves to lower-wage countries.

/PS You're not scoring any points by repeating what I quoted earlier - that the Fed didn't have a grip on monetary economics.
//And it doesn't contradict the fact that the Fed had no open market role.
 
2012-07-03 11:20:37 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:
His Weenerss to the crash were to
pull out of the stock market
and cut taxes.

Damned Fark filterpwnage.
His two initial acts were to
pull out of the stock market
and cut taxes. (to stimulate investment)
 
2012-07-03 11:43:45 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Hoover was a firm believer in trickle-down economics.


Hoover's policies were neither trickle-down economics and even if it was it would be a bad road to take.

demaL-demaL-yeH: He was firmly against actually helping the people who were homeless, unemployed and starving


Hence him raising taxes and tarriffs.

demaL-demaL-yeH: he claimed that churches and charities would take care of it.


While taking far more money away from churches and charities.

demaL-demaL-yeH: His Weenerss to the crash were to
pull out of the stock market
and cut taxes.


He cut taxes temporarily, but as the economy deflated from the credit bubble that burst, his reaction was to raise taxes instead of lower them to match the contracting economy. It was the exact wrong thing to do.

demaL-demaL-yeH: The programs that worked best were the CCC and WPA - programs that didn't compete with private industry and got people working again, combined with direct aid to the poor and unemployed, reform of the banking system, and deficit-funded public works investments. (In other words, the New Deal.)


When you spike taxes, cut off trade and keep the budget higher than the norm, it makes the economy harder to compete with ANYTHING. Hoover's policies gave the economy no choice but to be dependent on government, saying the government worked where the market couldn't is being ignorant to the big picture. You are saying "Hoover broke the country's kneecaps, then gave them a crutch and said 'If I wasn't there, you would be a goner."

demaL-demaL-yeH: You are also obviously ignorant of the long history of the Hecksher-Ohlin (1924 - Nobel Prize stuff, that) and Stolper-Samuelson (1941) frameworks on labor and international trade, both of which address and make predictions on what happens when production capital moves to lower-wage countries.


And you are ignorant on how the Dreat War's effect on monetary policy created a global depression alongside America, which delve the countries into war:

By 1914, most developed countries had adopted the gold standard with a fixed exchange rate between the national currency and gold-and therefore between national currencies. In World War I, European nations went off the gold standard to print money, and the resulting price inflation drove large amounts of the world's gold to banks in the United States. The United States remained on the gold standard without altering the gold value of the dollar. Investors and others who held gold sent their gold to the United States, where gold maintained its value as a safe and sound investment. At the end of World War I, a few countries, most notably the United States, continued on the gold standard while others temporarily adopted floating exchange rates. The world's international finance center had shifted from London to New York City, and the British were anxious to regain their old status. Some countries pledged to return to the gold standard with devalued currencies, while others followed the British lead and aimed to return to gold at prewar exchange rates.

This was not possible, however. Too much money had been created during the war to allow a return to the gold standard without either large currency devaluations or price deflations. In addition, the U.S. gold stock had doubled to about 40 percent of the world's monetary gold. There simply was not enough monetary gold in the rest of the world to support the countries' currencies at the existing exchange rates.


Keep in mind, I'm not advocating a gold standard - but this reality about monetary policy, of countries leaving a policy once-based on hard physical currencies to favor a debt-driven government - shows just how such Keynesian-like thinking has lead so many global countries into poverty, with the worst case scenario being creating dictators like Germany, Russia and Italy.
 
2012-07-03 11:53:41 PM  

Deftoons: Citation provided.


And dipshiat -it says nowhere in that link that "America is the new Rome"

What did you do -google America and Rome?

The insulting thing isn't that you are stupid enough to believe this shiat. The insulting thing is that you expect me to believe it.
 
2012-07-04 12:18:49 AM  

Deftoons: demaL-demaL-yeH: Hoover was a firm believer in trickle-down economics.

Hoover's policies were neither trickle-down economics and even if it was it would be a bad road to take.


The term "trickle down economics" is pejorative. This discussion of whether Hoover ascribed to this "theory" is like asking if he ascribed to the theory that his mother took it in the ass.
 
2012-07-04 12:40:19 AM  

jltthorson: AirForceVet:
[0.tqn.com image 359x119]

The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%. The death of half a million Americans and the destruction of everyone else's industrial base makes for a robust postwar domestic economy with good employment. Now if we can get the Japanese to attack again Obama might have a hope. Nobody would use such a bumper sticker except a clueless farker.


We don't need to get Japan to attack us. If Japan attacks China, and the Europeans attack each other, we could just stand back and watch. We would be much better off in WW2 if we had done that.
 
2012-07-04 01:44:10 AM  

Deftoons: Dreat War's effect on monetary policy created a global depression


Did I not tell you to stop with the ilbertardian economic nonsense?
Dreck economics and revisionist history do not constitute a sound and empirically verifiable rebuttal, randroid.

Because People in power are Stupid: The term "trickle down economics" is pejorative. This discussion of whether Hoover ascribed to this "theory" is like asking if he ascribed to the theory that his mother took it in the ass.


The term may very well be pejorative - it damned well should be. It also happens to accurately describe Hoover's economic model. Hoover's policies turned a stock market crash into the Great Depression.

jltthorson: The unemployment rate on Dec 7th 1941 was 17%.


No it farking wasn't. Unemployment in December 1941 was 9.6%. It was 17% in 1939.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70.
 
2012-07-04 11:13:49 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I not tell you to stop with the ilbertardian economic nonsense?
Dreck economics and revisionist history do not constitute a sound and empirically verifiable rebuttal, randroid.


With a rebuttal like this, at this point I wonder if you are actually taking this debate seriously. Randroid? You realize that you just made yourself the equivalent of a Republican calling a non-Republican a communist, right? Not to mention the complete non-answer regarding the rest of your drivel.
 
2012-07-04 11:58:21 AM  

Deftoons: demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I not tell you to stop with the ilbertardian economic nonsense?
Dreck economics and revisionist history do not constitute a sound and empirically verifiable rebuttal, randroid.

With a rebuttal like this, at this point I wonder if you are actually taking this debate seriously. Randroid? You realize that you just made yourself the equivalent of a Republican calling a non-Republican a communist, right? Not to mention the complete non-answer regarding the rest of your drivel.


No, he won your little debate. You make up facts and don't read others response -or only what you wish to.
 
2012-07-04 08:34:16 PM  

Deftoons: demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I not tell you to stop with the ilbertardian economic nonsense?
Dreck economics and revisionist history do not constitute a sound and empirically verifiable rebuttal, randroid.

With a rebuttal like this, at this point I wonder if you are actually taking this debate seriously. Randroid? You realize that you just made yourself the equivalent of a Republican calling a non-Republican a communist, right? Not to mention the complete non-answer regarding the rest of your drivel.


Gene Smiley is a libertarian - a martherfarking randroid. You cited an unsubstantiated randroid rewrite of both the economics and history of the Great Depression to support your nonsense, which, by the way, is a point-by-point randroid argument. So, yes, you are a randroid.

You falsely claimed that there were no models twenty years ago that would predict that wages in developed economies would fall when capital was internationally mobile. I pointed to a macroeconomic identity from the 1800s that explicitly states this, a 1924 Nobel Prize winning economic model, a supplementary 1941 economic model, a discussion of wage pressure in a 1970s textbook on international economics based on the macroeconomics identity from the 1800s, and academic papers from the early 90s stating the same damned thing.

Your comments on Hoover and the Fed were spin, at best. The history of the Great Depression you presented was utter fabrication. Stop trying to rewrite reality to fit your model: It's your model that's wrong.
 
2012-07-04 08:57:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You falsely claimed that there were no models twenty years ago that would predict that wages in developed economies would fall when capital was internationally mobile. I pointed to a macroeconomic identity from the 1800s that explicitly states this, a 1924 Nobel Prize winning economic model, a supplementary 1941 economic model, a discussion of wage pressure in a 1970s textbook on international economics based on the macroeconomics identity from the 1800s, and academic papers from the early 90s stating the same damned thing.


That is something that I claimed. His (false) claim was that those of the Austrian Economic School don't create predictive models.

My claim further was that even if there was a model that predicted the wage drop in the US -that it was for the wrong reasons. If your model predicts something but gets the causation wrong -then it is not a correct model. The problem with traditional Economic models is with information asymmetry.

I know this problem (asymmetric information) is true -because that was the little voice in my head for a semester when I studied macro-economics from all three points of view. This is further re-enforced by Taleb's book "The Black Swan" Located here.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Your comments on Hoover and the Fed were spin, at best. The history of the Great Depression you presented was utter fabrication. Stop trying to rewrite reality to fit your model: It's your model that's wrong


Lying about Hoover and the Fed is not indicative of having a false model. It's shows that you are arguing against an idiot. I gave up on all economic models because I think that economics is a false science. However, if I were to argue against the Austrian school -it would be their beliefs -not some individual's (stupid) misconception about history.

Unfortunately you are sharpening your skills on weaklings.
 
2012-07-04 09:16:17 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Gene Smiley is a libertarian - a martherfarking randroid. You cited an unsubstantiated randroid rewrite of both the economics and history of the Great Depression to support your nonsense, which, by the way, is a point-by-point randroid argument. So, yes, you are a randroid.


You mean that emeritus professor at Marquette University? Let's see here, who would have a more substantiated education on economics here, you (who blindly name-calls out of fear and not out of logic, on a Fark political thread), or an economics professor at an accomplished university?

Keep digging that hole, Hey Lamed Lamed. You're doing your argument such wondrous favors.

demaL-demaL-yeH: You falsely claimed that there were no models twenty years ago that would predict that wages in developed economies would fall when capital was internationally mobile


If you bothered to read my posts (which you didn't), I said I didn't necessarily disagree with the theory that wages decreased here because of international outsourcing. The problem with your models that you cited is there needs to be a certain, specific set of conditions put in place in order for such effect to occur. Those same models were no more accurate predicting any other recession in the world, nor the housing bubble, nor the housing credit burst (which, by the way, the Austrian business cycle was spot on seeing flaws in expanding credit like the Federal Reserve did, though the banksters and the Fed tried to ignore such criticisms for obvious profitable reasons).

demaL-demaL-yeH: Your comments on Hoover and the Fed were spin, at best. The history of the Great Depression you presented was utter fabrication. Stop trying to rewrite reality to fit your model: It's your model that's wrong.


Oh this is amusing. Okay, Lamed Lamed.

Show me that Hoover never raised taxes in his Presidency. Show me he didn't raise tariffs. Show me that Hoover Dam never happened. Show me that the Federal Reserve had no role in the Great Depression.

Oh wait, you can't. You are about as ridiculously delusional as a typical tinfoil hatter.
 
2012-07-05 12:10:06 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: My claim further was that even if there was a model that predicted the wage drop in the US -that it was for the wrong reasons. If your model predicts something but gets the causation wrong -then it is not a correct model. The problem with traditional Economic models is with information asymmetry.

I know this problem (asymmetric information) is true -because that was the little voice in my head for a semester when I studied macro-economics from all three points of view. This is further re-enforced by Taleb's book "The Black Swan"


Predictive models are about making predictions, not causality. I'll agree that there are tons of manure spread throughout economics. That doesn't make economics useless, nor does it make the predictions from models any less useful. Construct validity is far more easily obtained than causality.
Information asymmetry explains... what, exactly? We already know that markets are not rational.
I don't know what to make of the voices in your head. As long as they're not telling you to harm yourself or others, I guess I'm guardedly OK with them.

From my perspective, the main questions with respect to economic theories are:
Do they describe observable phenomena?
Does available empirical data support the models?
Do the models make usefully accurate predictions?
Does the framework involved make sense?
Is the BS content below the hold-my-nose or I'll hork for distance level?

Keep it utilitarian - you'll sleep better.
 
2012-07-05 01:29:29 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Predictive models are about making predictions, not causality.


So the weatherman predicted the weather correctly but he did so based on astrology... so you will agree with his prediction tomorrow?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Information asymmetry explains... what, exactly? We already know that markets are not rational.


Information asymmetry which some economists won the Nobel prize for (previously linked) describes a problem in traditional economics where information does not flow equally between parties. I.e. The seller knows the price of a good that he's selling whereas the buyer does not or vice-versa.

The theory that you referenced (Mill's economic theory I believe) has assumptions about information in that it flows equally between parties when in fact it does not. Often, one party is wise, both parties are wise (Mill's assumption) or neither party is wise. These situations affectLink the economics of the given situation, the outcome often violates the assumptions that an economic model makes, simply challenge assumptions and you will realize what has been going on in markets for years.

I feel like I am bullshiatting you for brevities sake. It's nice to wrap things up in neat little packages like: economics is a false science. I can't (and won't) offer this in the neat little space provided here. Instead I can say that science remains skeptical and if your science (which appears to be economics) is a science then you must remain skeptical. Merely challenge the assumptions when someone offers you a model when one parameter or another is assumed to be static (and they are many)... if you are not studying economics then I suggest you not take them as true as you would like...

happy 4th.
 
2012-07-05 12:16:12 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid:
So the weatherman predicted the weather correctly but he did so based on astrology... so you will agree with his prediction tomorrow?


I don't need to agree with the method of prediction as long as the weather consistently does.
I don't care if the local weatherfolk roll sheep knuckles if their forecasts are accurate.

Information asymmetry which some economists won the Nobel prize for (previously linked) describes a problem in traditional economics where information does not flow equally between parties. I.e. The seller knows the price of a good that he's selling whereas the buyer does not or vice-versa.

The theory that you referenced (Mill's economic theory I believe) has assumptions about information in that it flows equally between parties when in fact it does not. Often, one party is wise, both parties are wise (Mill's assumption) or neither party is wise. These situations affectLink the economics of the given situation, the outcome often violates the assumptions that an economic model makes, simply challenge assumptions and you will realize what has been going on in markets for years


And if you actually read, oh, Vernon Smith's (to name one of my economics professors) work on information asymmetry, you'll find that the markets still reach efficient equilibria - just as those old macroeconomic identities predict. Even a cursory reading of his Nobel Prize lecture would tell you that.
 
Displayed 41 of 191 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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