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 Post)   Oh, look, another Rethuglican spouting off at the mouth about Medicare being unsustainable and people getting $3 in services for every dollar they put in and fark it, let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 754
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2705 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 02:35:04 PM

NeverDrunk23: Sounds like someone moved from a GED in law to a GED in economics. Switch the names and the post style match up.


El-oh-el, chip.
 
2013-03-20 02:36:30 PM

maddogdelta: Now, the amount of money available in an economy needs to be roughly equivalent to the agreed upon worth of all the goods and services available in that economy. So, when you rant about "printing money", you clearly don't understand why money gets printed, how much should be printed or what the consequences should be for printing too much or not enough money.


You seem to have such a good understanding of this, but then completely miss the point.  If money acts an intermediary between two dissimilar goods, such as router setup and chickens, then the value of money should reflect the real value of goods.  If, instead of setting up routers, you simply printed that money, it would cause a distortion in the economy.

If I print up money, and have you set up my router, and in return you expect to be able to buy chickens from me - what happens when I didn't farm any chickens?
 
2013-03-20 02:36:56 PM

Lunchlady: I agree completely.

If we want to be financially sustainable we either need to raise taxes or significantly cut services. Since no one wants the latter option (at least not when it comes to a vote, everyone is for it when it doesn't affect them) we need to raise taxes. That would be just fine with me.


Then I apologize, you weren't saying what I thought you were saying.

Unfortunately, no one wants to do the former either because in order to raise them enough to matter, even combined with spending cuts, the tax increases would hit everyone and not just the super rich 99% or whatever that people here like to imagine are the only ones who need to pay more. This is why I think we are in a crisis and don't realize it. Everyone is for cutting services as long as it doesn't affect them and everyone is for raising taxes as long as it's not on them. Everything is a sacred cow.
 
2013-03-20 02:37:36 PM

skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.


Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News
 
2013-03-20 02:38:32 PM

Lunchlady: runin800m: Lunchlady: Government isn't meant to run at a profit. We don't ask the military to pay for itself. We don't put a toll booth up on every bridge we build. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from. Government is a place for people to come together and pool resources to do things that we can't do alone. If some things cost more than others so be it.

Government isn't meant to run a profit but it is meant to pay for itself. We are the government, we have to pay for what we/the government does. We don't put a toll booth on every bridge we build, but I know of several bridges with toll booths (roads as well) because you do in fact have to pay for them somehow. Fortunately, most are paid for with taxes we pay when buying gasoline or other taxes that the federal/state government levy. These are things that every single citizen owns and benefits from but we still have to pay for them. That's the pooling resources part. If some things cost more, that's fine, but not if they cost more than we are pooling together. The fact that the government is doing it doesn't magically make it free.

I agree completely.

If we want to be financially sustainable we either need to raise taxes or significantly cut services. Since no one wants the latter option (at least not when it comes to a vote, everyone is for it when it doesn't affect them) we need to raise taxes. That would be just fine with me.


In that vein though there's a difference between operating at a loss and straight up losing money.

Some things government does is because no one else can do it profitably but the job still needs to get done in a functioning society. I don't want or expect the Post Office to make money and I don't expect Medicare to be 100% self-sufficient. The government has a benefit in that they can pretty much dictate terms because they will always be the largest consumer. The problem comes when we expect it to operate by the same rules as a private company. fark that shiat. If Aetna wanted the same clients as Medicare then they take the same risks the government does. But since they don't we get to use the bully pulpit to dictate terms.

We try to make government please both sides. Either we use the immense power of the government to negotiate rates and keep costs low at the expense of private profits (banks, health insurance, Doctors, colleges, etc) or we raise taxes so it competes on a level playing field. We're too chicken to do either.
 
2013-03-20 02:39:03 PM

skullkrusher: this is a terrible real world example. That's an example of a local economy which is based on government spending. Not one that uses government spending to get its private sector employment growing again.


So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?
 
2013-03-20 02:39:42 PM
You're going to need better facts then those to convenience me old Americans don't deserve assistance from Medicare. Heck, I'm a Millennial and know I won't get any, but I still don't want to cut my grandparents or their friends and neighbors off of it. They've lived a long life, let them rest in peace.
 
2013-03-20 02:40:31 PM

skullkrusher: NateGrey: MattStafford: I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.

Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.

the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.


Oh geez, as if there wasnt enough derp in this thread.

Of course thats not the only flaw. That stood out in each of his scenarios.
 
2013-03-20 02:41:35 PM

NateGrey: Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.


skullkrusher: the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.


Exactly.  You can't simply say - "oh, that doesn't make sense it would never happen" - you need to explain why the analogy doesn't make sense and wouldn't work.  Just saying it would never happen doesn't mean there isn't a point successfully made.
 
2013-03-20 02:41:57 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News


Cmon, we all know WaPo is sliding slowly into the abyss, but I am sure you could think of at least a.... googleplex of sites that are worse.  Here is a start:

NewsMax
NewsBusters
Stormfront
Breitbart
TheDailyCaller
WorldNetDaily
AmericanThinker
Drudge
Free Republic
NRO
TownHall
CSN
TheBlaze
PajamasMedia
Infowars

Hyperbolic comment is hyperbolic.
 
2013-03-20 02:43:04 PM

skilbride: We're not talking about hospitals that choose not to take medicare here.  We're talking about the hospitals that do (for whatever reason) and how medicare works within them.  But keep pointing out the fact that they could choose not to take medicare, which distracts from the point that medicare is necessary in our society and needs to be reformed.

In fact, fine, all hospitals should choose not to take medicare.  Then the government would be forced to build their own.  Problem solved.


It'd be more efficient to just raise the prices Medicare pays.
 
MFK
2013-03-20 02:43:22 PM

netizencain: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

"I don't click any link that's not on my 'approve' list because I certainly don't want to see other opinions or understand the mindset of people that I disagree with."

This is the same narrow-mildness as the assholes that only watch Fox News.  Why not read the article on WaPo then find similar content on another site... then, with a little comprehension make your own judgement?


because Glenn Kessler is a partisan hack who will bend over backwards to skew the "facts" to suit the Republican talking point du jour.
 
2013-03-20 02:44:08 PM

MattStafford: NateGrey: Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.

skullkrusher: the unlikelihood of his scenarios is not what makes his argument flawed.

Exactly.  You can't simply say - "oh, that doesn't make sense it would never happen" - you need to explain why the analogy doesn't make sense and wouldn't work.  Just saying it would never happen doesn't mean there isn't a point successfully made.


Why would you admittedly use bad analogies? Seems trollish.
 
2013-03-20 02:44:30 PM

MattStafford: Care to explain it?


Two things at hand in your example here actually, the little understanding of how money comes into being and then gets circulated into the economy and also microecon and its effects at the macro level.

Here, its pretty lengthy but its a good start. I suspect you won't actually read it but it would go lengths towards putting down those stupid strawmen examples you hoist up.
 
2013-03-20 02:44:36 PM

MattStafford: A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the local central bank to print me up a bunch of currency. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants.


...You don't have a clue how anything works, do you?
 
2013-03-20 02:44:49 PM

Lando Lincoln: Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.

I'd like to find out who the first guy was that decided that the idea "government should be run like a business" was a good one and either cockpunch him or piss on his grave.


No kidding.
 
2013-03-20 02:45:00 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: You're going to need better facts then those to convenience me old Americans don't deserve assistance from Medicare. Heck, I'm a Millennial and know I won't get any, but I still don't want to cut my grandparents or their friends and neighbors off of it. They've lived a long life, let them rest in peace.


I don't think we need to cut them off either but if we think it's that important then we need to be willing to pay what it costs to have it.
 
2013-03-20 02:45:12 PM

NateGrey: MattStafford: I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.

Your analogies are horrendous. You change them to fit your ridiculous views.

WHY would the Federal Reserve print one person a bunch of money? In exchange for goods or services? Your whole thing falls apart.


He had an example before whereby he, as the government, printed money to employ the entire population of MattStaffordLand, but they only made goods that he, the government, could use. So the people had the borrowed money he paid them with, but couldn't buy anything because all they made were government goods. So clothing, food and shelter didn't exist. And he thought this (a) was a valid example and (b) proved some sort of point.

I get why people want to refute what he says (it's often both wrong and ridiculous), but again, I strongly recommend using the Ignore on him. It's definitely increased my thread enjoyment, and resulted in less blunt force trama due to facepalms.
 
2013-03-20 02:45:19 PM
Meanwhile, Fark's profits continue their downward trend.

Yes, surely the solution is to keep posting more headlines like this.
 
2013-03-20 02:46:44 PM

MattStafford: Exactly. You can't simply say - "oh, that doesn't make sense it would never happen" - you need to explain why the analogy doesn't make sense and wouldn't work. Just saying it would never happen doesn't mean there isn't a point successfully made.


lol are you serious? Your schtick is to setup terrible analogies and then get called out, then change the original premise to suit your needs. Rinse and repeat. I posted your famous one up thread. What happened to that? You want it explained why your analogy doesnt make sense? Oh lord.
 
2013-03-20 02:47:27 PM
TheMysticS

If one of the brighter mods is working, your post will probably disappear. See, it's OK for the right-wingers to troll us, but pointing out the hypocrisy is "trolling" him.
 
2013-03-20 02:47:32 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: this is a terrible real world example. That's an example of a local economy which is based on government spending. Not one that uses government spending to get its private sector employment growing again.

So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?


potentially, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about resurrecting a dead town. We're talking about stimulating an under-the-weather national economy.

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.
 
2013-03-20 02:49:10 PM

MattStafford: If I walk into a small town, print up a bunch of the local currency, buy a large quantity of goods, and leave town - is that town better off?


Yes, it certainly could be. Your infusion of dollars would increase inflation, sure, but the resulting economic activity may inspire consumer spending and get money moving around more, getting people to create more products and services, which is what a farking economy is. Economics is a balancing act and inflation and economic growth are on opposite ends of that teetor-totter.

This is basic economic principles here. You should go to school or read a goddamn book once in a while.
 
2013-03-20 02:49:14 PM

theknuckler_33: If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does. This is the positive feedback loop.


You are suggesting that the government hires a ditch digger.  The ditch digger then hires a shoemaker.  Then the ditch digger quits digging, and is hired by the shoemaker.  Where is the demand coming from to keep the shoemaker in business?  And who is paying taxes here?
 
2013-03-20 02:50:13 PM

MattStafford: then the value of money should reflect the real value of goods.


What is this mystical "real value" you speak of?  Can you define it?

And who prints the money?  Are you suggesting a "gold standard" where the only labor/goods considered of real value in an economy is the mining and refining of an almost useless yellow colored metal?
Or should there be some kind of agreement between members of a society...say some kind of representational entity where representatives of the members of that society might hire people who are well versed in these issues could oversee them, and decide based on the amount of goods and services the entire workforce supplies?
 
2013-03-20 02:50:14 PM

NateGrey: Oh geez, as if there wasnt enough derp in this thread.


there wasn't. That's why I am glad you showed up.

NateGrey: Of course thats not the only flaw. That stood out in each of his scenarios.


oftentimes simplification is a tool for explaining an idea. The act of simplification, even to absurd levels, is not the issue. Whether there are millions of people spending the money from the fed or they gave it all to one guy to spend doesn't really make a difference. Why don't you attack his easily assailable arguments rather than going for the cozy feel of joining a pile-on without adding anything of merit?

I have a feeling I know why.
 
2013-03-20 02:52:00 PM

MattStafford: So if there was a down and out town, and the government put a military base there, would you expect that town to grow to the point where removing the military base would not destroy the economy of the town?


See, now thats a better example and incidentally question. Of course the chances are high that it could destroy the town or at least shrink to pre base levels economically unless that is some other cottage industry planted roots while the base was there and established itself in which case the blow would be softend.

But I fail to see what point you are trying to make here, are you comparing social security as a direct comparison to military spending? Because that's just being purposely obtuse on the benefits of not having Grandma eat cat food.
 
2013-03-20 02:53:35 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: Care to explain it?

Two things at hand in your example here actually, the little understanding of how money comes into being and then gets circulated into the economy and also microecon and its effects at the macro level.

Here, its pretty lengthy but its a good start. I suspect you won't actually read it but it would go lengths towards putting down those stupid strawmen examples you hoist up.


So the answer is, no, you can't explain it?

And MMT is bullshiat.  If you would like me to explain, I gladly will.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:07 PM

DamnYankees: skilbride: I particularly like how you take one sentence out of what I said, twist it around to make a point that I already admitted to - twice, in that hospitals can reject federal funding in all forms and choose not to take medicare.  But if you continue harping on the same point instead of having meaningful discourse with me, I'm just going to have to ignore you.  Good day.

You can complain I'm ignoring you, but I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Yes, you mention hospitals don't need to take Medicare. But that undermines your whole point to begin with. So what am I supposed to do with that other than re-pointing that out?


Its amusing he claims that you aren't having meaningful discourse with him when he admitted in his starting thread that he is 'pretty much only here because I think the fark politics threads have become a libtank circle.'

Sometimes the best farky for trolls is them admitting that they aren't here for any honest discussion.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:19 PM

LoneWolf343: MattStafford: A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the local central bank to print me up a bunch of currency. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants.

...You don't have a clue how anything works, do you?


Please explain to me how those two scenarios are different.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:31 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does. This is the positive feedback loop.

You are suggesting that the government hires a ditch digger.  The ditch digger then hires a shoemaker.  Then the ditch digger quits digging, and is hired by the shoemaker.  Where is the demand coming from to keep the shoemaker in business?  And who is paying taxes here?


Are you saying the ditch-digger-turned-shoemaker's-employee no longer needs shoes? How does the demand for shoes disappear because one ditch-digger changes jobs?
 
2013-03-20 02:55:23 PM

NateGrey: lol are you serious? Your schtick is to setup terrible analogies and then get called out, then change the original premise to suit your needs. Rinse and repeat. I posted your famous one up thread. What happened to that? You want it explained why your analogy doesnt make sense? Oh lord.


Sure, actually, if you want to explain how to create a functioning economy between two people without them both producing and trading goods, I would love to hear it.
 
2013-03-20 02:55:27 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: If the government hiring a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches can result in a bunch of other unemployed people getting jobs and earning money, why can't those other people who got jobs and earning money result in still other new jobs becoming available for even other unemployed people or, say, the ditch diggers? The answer, of course, is that it can and does. This is the positive feedback loop.

You are suggesting that the government hires a ditch digger.  The ditch digger then hires a shoemaker.  Then the ditch digger quits digging, and is hired by the shoemaker.  Where is the demand coming from to keep the shoemaker in business?  And who is paying taxes here?


You admitted that the government hiring a bunch of people will have the result of other unemployed people getting jobs to meet the demand of the ditch diggers and now you are saying that those 'other unemployed people' who got jobs to meet the demand of the ditch diggers do not themselves create more demand?

WTF dude?
 
2013-03-20 02:56:09 PM

coeyagi: Ctrl-Alt-Del: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News

Cmon, we all know WaPo is sliding slowly into the abyss, but I am sure you could think of at least a.... googleplex of sites that are worse.  Here is a start:

NewsMax
NewsBusters
Stormfront
Breitbart
TheDailyCaller
WorldNetDaily
AmericanThinker
Drudge
Free Republic
NRO
TownHall
CSN
TheBlaze
PajamasMedia
Infowars

Hyperbolic comment is hyperbolic.


Shush, you. Let me have my moment of teary eyed glory.
 
2013-03-20 02:57:51 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: coeyagi: Ctrl-Alt-Del: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Relative to what? A cocktail party for serial killers?

Jennifer Rubin
Charles Krauthammer
Marc Thiessen
Charles Lane
Jackson Diehl
George Will
 The only place I can think of that employs more neocons and sociopaths is Fox News

Cmon, we all know WaPo is sliding slowly into the abyss, but I am sure you could think of at least a.... googleplex of sites that are worse.  Here is a start:

NewsMax
NewsBusters
Stormfront
Breitbart
TheDailyCaller
WorldNetDaily
AmericanThinker
Drudge
Free Republic
NRO
TownHall
CSN
TheBlaze
PajamasMedia
Infowars

Hyperbolic comment is hyperbolic.

Shush, you. Let me have my moment of teary eyed glory.


WaPo isn't a rag dudes, sorry.
 
2013-03-20 02:59:46 PM

skullkrusher: potentially, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about resurrecting a dead town. We're talking about stimulating an under-the-weather national economy.

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.


This might come as a shock, but we have been resurrecting a dead town for the past thirty years.  Europe recovered from WWII.  East Asia liberalized.  Our position as the dominant economic player was being threatened.  Instead of understanding that, and living within our means, we doubled down and massively increased our spending.  Instead of watching that gold town disappear, we replaced it with Wall Street.  We replaced it with the Military Industrial Complex.  We replaced it with Real Estate.  We aren't fixing an under the weather national economy, we are (will be) experiencing the death throes of an artificial economy kept alive for far too long.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:17 PM

MattStafford: MyKingdomForYourHorse: MattStafford: Care to explain it?

Two things at hand in your example here actually, the little understanding of how money comes into being and then gets circulated into the economy and also microecon and its effects at the macro level.

Here, its pretty lengthy but its a good start. I suspect you won't actually read it but it would go lengths towards putting down those stupid strawmen examples you hoist up.

So the answer is, no, you can't explain it?

And MMT is bullshiat.  If you would like me to explain, I gladly will.


It's true, he can. He has a great analogy that makes it really easy to understand, too.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:19 PM
skullkrusher:

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.

Some of 'em upped and died (OK, a lot of them upped and died) but others successfully transitioned to other forms of economy.  See Telluride Colorado as the textbook example of this.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:58 PM

MattStafford: skullkrusher: potentially, but that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about resurrecting a dead town. We're talking about stimulating an under-the-weather national economy.

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.

This might come as a shock, but we have been resurrecting a dead town for the past thirty years.  Europe recovered from WWII.  East Asia liberalized.  Our position as the dominant economic player was being threatened.  Instead of understanding that, and living within our means, we doubled down and massively increased our spending.  Instead of watching that gold town disappear, we replaced it with Wall Street.  We replaced it with the Military Industrial Complex.  We replaced it with Real Estate.  We aren't fixing an under the weather national economy, we are (will be) experiencing the death throes of an artificial economy kept alive for far too long.


nothing you said here has anything to do with your apparent need to misunderstand the stimulative effects of deficit spending
 
2013-03-20 03:01:11 PM
They're "getting" $3 in services for the $1 they put in, but left unexamined is how much of the services are either unnecessary or just plain fraudulent.

Medicare never would have gotten off the ground if Congress hadn't agreed to wink and nod when providers padded their bills a bit. Which was sort-of tolerable for the budget for the first couple of decades when most of the money went to large-scale providers like hospitals, but now a lot of what used to be handled by hospitals is done by smaller outfits...and so any crook who knows how to bill his bullshiat with the correct codes can rent a storefront for a few months, bill Medicare for whatever they can get away with, and then bail before the heat comes.
 
2013-03-20 03:01:26 PM

Lando Lincoln: Yes, it certainly could be. Your infusion of dollars would increase inflation, sure, but the resulting economic activity may inspire consumer spending and get money moving around more, getting people to create more products and services, which is what a farking economy is. Economics is a balancing act and inflation and economic growth are on opposite ends of that teetor-totter.

This is basic economic principles here. You should go to school or read a goddamn book once in a while.


Maybe you should stop reading books and going to school, and start thinking for yourself once in a while.
 
2013-03-20 03:01:33 PM

NateGrey: lol are you serious? Your schtick is to setup terrible analogies and then get called out, then change the original premise to suit your needs. Rinse and repeat. I posted your famous one up thread. What happened to that? You want it explained why your analogy doesnt make sense? Oh lord.


I know why it makes sense, I think I figured this guy out

cf.badassdigest.com
 
2013-03-20 03:02:15 PM

Rent Party: skullkrusher:

It's like gold mining towns - the sprung up and thrived but then when the gold was gone, they died. Those towns relied on the gold mine as the primary employer and source of revenue.

Some of 'em upped and died (OK, a lot of them upped and died) but others successfully transitioned to other forms of economy.  See Telluride Colorado as the textbook example of this.


right - I couldn't think of an example that kept on but that works. If your economy is based on a single employer or source of revenues and that employer or revenue goes away, of course the economy will crumble. Spending a few hundred billion or several trillion to stimulate the economy in the short term is in no way analogous to that.
 
2013-03-20 03:02:35 PM

CPennypacker: It's true, he can. He has a great analogy that makes it really easy to understand, too.


Now that's comedy.
 
2013-03-20 03:03:20 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: See, now thats a better example and incidentally question. Of course the chances are high that it could destroy the town or at least shrink to pre base levels economically unless that is some other cottage industry planted roots while the base was there and established itself in which case the blow would be softend.

But I fail to see what point you are trying to make here, are you comparing social security as a direct comparison to military spending? Because that's just being purposely obtuse on the benefits of not having Grandma eat cat food.


Does it matter if we put a military base there or a retirement home there?  No, the economic affect will be the same.  The only difference will be who benefits (and I agree, it should be the elderly), but that does not change the economic smarts of the program or the long term sustainability of it.
 
2013-03-20 03:04:34 PM

MattStafford: Maybe you should stop reading books and going to school, and start thinking for yourself once in a while.


Okay, fine, I've been trolled. It hasn't been the first time and it won't be the last. I don't really care.
 
2013-03-20 03:04:59 PM

DarwiOdrade: Are you saying the ditch-digger-turned-shoemaker's-employee no longer needs shoes? How does the demand for shoes disappear because one ditch-digger changes jobs?


You are suggesting that the shoemaker is going to employ the ditch digger, when the only consumer for those very same shoes is his employee?

I am going to hire you to build a car, and then I'm going to sell you that car? What do I get out of the deal?
 
2013-03-20 03:05:51 PM

MattStafford: And MMT is bullshiat. If you would like me to explain, I gladly will.


I'm all ears on this one, this outta be rich
 
2013-03-20 03:05:55 PM

CPennypacker: It's true, he can. He has a great analogy that makes it really easy to understand, too.


Until someone explains to me why it's wrong, I'll keep using it.  And, actually, it does make MMT's failings rather straightforward.
 
2013-03-20 03:08:21 PM

MattStafford: Does it matter if we put a military base there or a retirement home there? No, the economic affect will be the same. The only difference will be who benefits (and I agree, it should be the elderly), but that does not change the economic smarts of the program or the long term sustainability of it.


Of course it changes the economic effect. You are being willfully blind of how money circulates in an economy and instead seem to think that once it gets spent on Grandma or GI Joe, that it magically vanishes into thin air and has zero effect on demand within Grandma and Joe's microecon bubble.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report