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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 04:53:27 PM

meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.


Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.
 
2013-03-20 04:54:08 PM

whidbey: Let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him

[FREEPER-ALERT.JPG]


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 (sic) the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?
 
2013-03-20 04:56:07 PM

whidbey: meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.

Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.


I know, I just couldn't help myself.
 
2013-03-20 04:59:04 PM

MattStafford: Government hires a ditch digger. Ditch digger hires a barber. Barber buys a video game from EA. EA adds some money to an account. Ditch digger gets fired. Barber gets fired. EA eventually (maybe) pays some more in taxes.


I yank the pull cord on my lawnmower to get the thing up and running, and (assuming everything is in decent order) the mower will run self-sustainably without me having to constantly yank the pull cord.
 
2013-03-20 05:02:49 PM

whidbey: meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.

Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.


Dude.

Seriously.

You, of all people? You know how this game works.
 
2013-03-20 05:15:29 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?


Why would I click on a link to a site with a well-trod history of half-truths, flat-out lies and completely biased reporting? Or to put it another way:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-20 05:15:51 PM
That's the entire point of the need for health care overhaul, geniuses.
 
2013-03-20 05:25:45 PM
Because profitability is the only metric of success for welfare programs.
 
2013-03-20 05:31:50 PM
I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.
 
2013-03-20 05:35:06 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: meat0918: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: More people working = more tax receipts. No need to raise taxes.

Umm, that doesn't make a lot sense.

WTF?

I mean seriously, WTF?

You have to be screwing with us farkers.

Dude this is Fark.  I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.

Dude.

Seriously.

You, of all people? You know how this game works.


Hey, now. This is a touchy subject here.
You need to take into account some Farkers' feelings-
we want to include all points of view here.
With lib-u-lardos you have to approach it carefully...
or you might skook 'em
 
2013-03-20 05:36:25 PM

MattStafford: Lando Lincoln: See: New Deal - Roosevelt, Franklin Delano

Yeah, the New Deal really fixed the economy.  It had nothing to do with WWII and the destruction of the rest of the world.

When the New Deal was scaled back in the mid 30s, what happened?  Was there self sustaining growth?  Did the economy take off?  No, of course the fark not.  You know why?  Because we spent all of our time and money digging ditches and filling them back in (and the TVA/Hoover Dam, which I agree with).  So once we stopped digging ditches and filling them back in, our economy slumped.

But you're going to suggest that our problem wasn't that we were digging ditches and filling them back up, but that we weren't digging enough ditches and filling them back up.


So what you're saying that it wasn't the government spending of the New Deal that got us out of the depression but the EVEN GREATER government spending on WW2 and its after effects that got us out???  Which is exactly what the people pushing for the New Deal said we should do.  FDR caving in to right-wing demands for deficit cuts which caused that slump you mentioned.  So congratulations, you agree with Keynesian economics and what everyone here is saying.  Discussion over.

BTW, we don't need make-work ditch digging jobs.  There are plenty of ditches out there that need to be dug and we could have a use for.  And by ditches I mean our crumbling infrastructure which if we let continue to decay, might as well be tossed into a ditch for all the good it will be.  Cry all you want but eventually some things have to be taken care of.
 
2013-03-20 05:44:43 PM

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.

We should.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x295]


A lot of those costs are Medical Providers increasing costs to cover Medicaid (which in Illinois is between and 3 months and 2 years behind on payments) which often doesn't even cover the costs of a procedure or transport( as a paramedic in management I am acutely aware of costs). There are also ideas out there including community paramedicine which could lower costs and prevent ER abuse. Community Paramedicine (basically Paramedics trained to higher levels of care and working with doctors to handle patients needs at home. This leads to less unnecessary ER trips. But getting Medicare to allow EMS to bill as providers instead of as transportation is the problem.
 
2013-03-20 05:46:42 PM

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


Bwahahaha!  Or it could be that you are "not even wrong." I think you've been told this before.
 
2013-03-20 05:46:45 PM

I Like Bread: Because profitability is the only metric of success for welfare programs.


the only metric that really matters is can we sustain it or not. Anything else is ego wanking BS.
 
2013-03-20 05:48:46 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


MattStafford is not stupid, he is actually a top performing member of his astroturf agency.

Always on topic, always with the same talking points, no wasted effort on irrelevant topics.  MattStafford once again receives an "Exceeds Expectations" rating on his quarterly review.
 
2013-03-20 05:53:48 PM

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly. You're questions literally have no bearing on what is happening in the real world. You admit that government hiring workers creates demand that will result in increased demand leading to the hiring of more unemployed people to meet that demand, yet somehow think that those other newly employed people will not also create further demand of their own that also must be met by the hiring of additional new workers without explaining how or why demand leads to new jobs in one case, but not the other. You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the idea of a phased end of stimulative measures to minimize the negative impact of removing government stimulus to ensure that the economy is self-sustaining.  In addition, you said that more people working leading to more tax receipts doesn't make much sense. For goodness sakes, that is basic mathematics. You deserve every bit of mocking you have received and more.

/coconuts
 
2013-03-20 06:03:29 PM

Glicky: MattStafford is not stupid, he is actually a top performing member of his astroturf agency.


I wonder if the astroturf industry cares about the quality of counter-arguments made to their fake green carpet and if the responses of their operatives are graded.
 
2013-03-20 06:04:10 PM

burning_bridge: So what you're saying that it wasn't the government spending of the New Deal that got us out of the depression but the EVEN GREATER government spending on WW2 and its after effects that got us out???  Which is exactly what the people pushing for the New Deal said we should do.  FDR caving in to right-wing demands for deficit cuts which caused that slump you mentioned.  So congratulations, you agree with Keynesian economics and what everyone here is saying.  Discussion over.


Are you suggesting that war is an excellent stimulative program?  If we were to quadruple our troop presence overseas, are you suggesting we would improve the economy?

I can't believe people still believe in military Keynesianism.  Christ, it has to be the most obvious failing of Keynesianism.

/going into debt and spending our money and resources actively destroying things will improve our economy via magic.
 
MFK
2013-03-20 06:05:02 PM
when did we get to the point where we have to give every stupid troll's stupid ideas any sort of merit or we're "intolerant"?

I've been noticing this a lot in recent days, between this MattStafford idiot (and that word is waaaaay too kind) and that GoSlash27 nimrod (again, waaaaay too kind).

YOUR IGNORANCE IS NOT AS VALID AS ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.
 
2013-03-20 06:09:37 PM

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


Then why don't you get so many responses agreeing with you?

I've been enjoying this thread a lot, so I'll give it a shot. Using your ditch digger analogy, yes, you can boost the economy. The ditch digger digs a ditch, hires a barber, etc. who pays for an apple, the apple farmer now has more money to hire another unemployed person to help on the farm, with this he gets increased yield that he can sell to people outside the town, with this new revenue he buys things from the local drug store, the owner can now afford a part time man to help sweep up. When the ditch digger stops digging, the increased industry from the farm means that the new farm hand can afford a haircut, so now he goes to the barber, closing the loop without need for a ditch digger. When the guy who hired the ditch digger comes back to town, the revenues from the improved farm let's the town pay the man back with a little something extra as a thank you.
 
2013-03-20 06:11:26 PM

Mercutio74: Glicky: MattStafford is not stupid, he is actually a top performing member of his astroturf agency.

I wonder if the astroturf industry cares about the quality of counter-arguments made to their fake green carpet and if the responses of their operatives are graded.


I pretty sure it is a quantity metric.  There may be additional subjective evaluations made regarding how well discussion was derailed.
 
2013-03-20 06:14:31 PM

theknuckler_33: When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly.


The laws of economics do not change based on the size of the population.  The effects of a certain policy may be easier to hide, or even completely unnoticeable, but they do not change.  If you believe they change, explain why they change and where in particular do they change.

For example - Suppose you have a small town using a currency.  I print up a bunch of currency and buy a ton of goods, and then skip town.  Surely this hurts that small towns currency, and it will be very painful.

Suppose you do the same thing, but with a larger town.  It would still hurt the economy, however the effects would be less noticeable.

Suppose you do the same thing, but with a very large economy.  I would argue, based on the fact that a similar policy above hurt their economies, that this would also hurt this large economy.  You, however, appear to argue just the opposite, that this policy would, in fact, be good for the economy.

So am I incorrect in assuming the counterfeiting and skipping town in the town examples is bad for those town's economies?  Or do you believe that there is something fundamentally different between the towns and the large economy?  And what specifically makes it different?  Is it simply the number of actors present in the economy?  Why does the number of actors somehow make the policy better?  Is there a cut off point, where above this population currency printing is good and below currency printing is bad?

I'm honestly curious.  I create a lot of these analogies, and then extrapolate them to reality.  I am then told that these analogies don't apply in the real world, but I'm never told why.  It is as though there is some fundamental difference between a large economy and a small economy, but no one ever articulates what that difference is, or why that difference would cause an identical policy to have opposite effects.

Perhaps you could help me answer those questions.
 
2013-03-20 06:16:11 PM

skullkrusher: NateGrey: Why aren't you addressing his issues instead of pushing him off?

because I've addressed it a number of times, directly to him, in this very thread. From now on, when you're about to say something thinking it's cutting and witty you should probably just avoid saying it because it's probably neither.


I think Matt outsmarted you and now you are embarrassed. I'll try but we cant all be funny and clever like you. When you said you stuck a toy up your rectum I thought it was hilarious.

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.


I think thats what it is, your ideas are just too brilliant. Have you thought about working at Heritage or the Cato Institute?
 
2013-03-20 06:17:54 PM

MattStafford: Surely this hurts that small towns currency, and it will be very painful.


Not necessarily. It depends on way more factors that really can be covered here, but if the place has both raw materials and the means to produce a variety of finished products from those materials without requiring getting other materials from outside the town, they'll be fine. If they happen to have the good fortune to be able to produce finished products that have high value ie high prices, then they'll turn out fairly quickly.
 
2013-03-20 06:26:12 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: When you attempt to equivocate a multi-trillion dollar national economy of a population of over 300 million people with a purely fictional 'economy' involving 2 or 3 people and 2 or 3 products, you deserve to be mocked mercilessly.

The laws of economics do not change based on the size of the population.  The effects of a certain policy may be easier to hide, or even completely unnoticeable, but they do not change.  If you believe they change, explain why they change and where in particular do they change.

For example - Suppose you have a small town using a currency.  I print up a bunch of currency and buy a ton of goods, and then skip town.  Surely this hurts that small towns currency, and it will be very painful.


I'm done with your asinine analogies. If the government hires a lot of workers, that will increase demand that leads to new jobs... you have admitted that fact in this very thread. Do you believe that those other new jobs will themselves lead to increased demand that will also lead to new jobs? Yes or no.
 
2013-03-20 06:27:42 PM

nmrsnr: with this he gets increased yield that he can sell to people outside the town


If that demand was already present, why wouldn't he already be meeting it?

If the problem was lack of infrastructure or help that the farmer couldn't afford, couldn't we have just started with "the apple farmer borrows money to invest in his farm" and go from there?  What was the point of the ditch digger?

Also, you are operating under the assumption that the money will be invested by the apple farmer.  Perhaps instead of investing it, the apple farmer just buys something else.  And that person buys something else.  And when the person who originally hired the ditch digger comes back to town, you'll have to raise taxes and stop the cycle, resetting the economy.

And even more so, you are relying on the assumption that the ditch digger's money successfully makes it to the apple farmer.  The ditch digger could have bought an iPod instead, and the money goes to Apple, and that local economy receives no boost.

It is possible for a ditch digging program to successfully lead to investment, but that is completely relying on hoping that an eventual recipient of that money will invest in.  Based on the fact that the money was initially spent in the ditch digging industry, if it is invested, it will most likely be invested in a field or area related to the ditch digging industry, which would be a wasted investment.
 
2013-03-20 06:29:07 PM

WhyteRaven74: Not necessarily. It depends on way more factors that really can be covered here, but if the place has both raw materials and the means to produce a variety of finished products from those materials without requiring getting other materials from outside the town, they'll be fine. If they happen to have the good fortune to be able to produce finished products that have high value ie high prices, then they'll turn out fairly quickly.


Well, yeah.  If they're a strong economy, they'll do fine.  But all things equal, they are worse off after my counterfeiting foray than they were before.
 
2013-03-20 06:30:18 PM

NateGrey: I think Matt outsmarted you and now you are embarrassed. I'll try but we cant all be funny and clever like you. When you said you stuck a toy up your rectum I thought it was hilarious.


you're right. Like, for example, repeating incessantly a joke I made a few years back isn't funny. It isn't clever. No one is laughing with you. Maybe to freshen it up a bit you can start linking to this thread where I joked that pennypacker gave me butt herpes. Ya know, just for a change of pace.
 
2013-03-20 06:30:33 PM

MattStafford: So am I incorrect in assuming the counterfeiting and skipping town in the town examples is bad for those town's economies?

...

I create a lot of these analogies, and then extrapolate them to reality.


...

Perhaps you could help me answer those questions.

The government's monetary policies are not equivalent to counterfeiting.
 
2013-03-20 06:32:58 PM

theknuckler_33: I'm done with your asinine analogies. If the government hires a lot of workers, that will increase demand that leads to new jobs... you have admitted that fact in this very thread. Do you believe that those other new jobs will themselves lead to increased demand that will also lead to new jobs? Yes or no.


Yes I do, but the story isn't finished there.  You need to take it to its conclusion:  Do you believe that the taxes that eventually have to pay to cover the debt accrued to hire those workers will lead to less jobs?  Yes or no?

Do you believe that having your economy based around government jobs that will not be there forever is a good thing?  Yes or no?
 
2013-03-20 06:34:46 PM

theknuckler_33: The government's monetary policies are not equivalent to counterfeiting.


These are the things that you need to explain: if the government prints up a 100 dollar bill and spends it, it is good, but if I print up a hundred dollar bill and spend it, it is bad?

What is different about the two situations?
 
2013-03-20 06:42:51 PM

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: Why aren't you addressing his issues instead of pushing him off?

because I've addressed it a number of times, directly to him, in this very thread. From now on, when you're about to say something thinking it's cutting and witty you should probably just avoid saying it because it's probably neither.

I think Matt outsmarted you and now you are embarrassed. I'll try but we cant all be funny and clever like you. When you said you stuck a toy up your rectum I thought it was hilarious.

MattStafford: I get so many responses because I'm right. You can also tell by the fact that the vast majority of posts are simply making fun of me as opposed to actually answering the questions I'm bringing up.

I think thats what it is, your ideas are just too brilliant. Have you thought about working at Heritage or the Cato Institute?


Well doesn't it look like somebody wishes he could run with the big dogs...
 
2013-03-20 06:50:30 PM

whidbey: Well doesn't it look like somebody wishes he could run with the big dogs...


Mr skooks himself. How have you been? I liked your line:

whidbey: I can't believe sock-puppets still evoke this kind of response, even amongst long-term Farkers.


Dont want any one infringing on your thing.
 
2013-03-20 06:53:50 PM

NateGrey: I think thats what it is, your ideas are just too brilliant. Have you thought about working at Heritage or the Cato Institute?


You do realize that I'm very liberal, right?  I am in favor of wealth redistribution and safety nets and ensuring that everyone has access to health care and education.  I'm in favor of government research and development.  I just understand that the government has to pay for those things via tax revenue, and shouldn't pay for them (most of them anyway) via borrowing.
 
2013-03-20 06:54:46 PM

NateGrey: Dont want any one infringing on your thing.


Come on dude, you either are or used to be somebody here who rustled a few jimmies.  Give us a clue.
 
2013-03-20 06:55:50 PM
Interesting interview on The Situation Room with Paul Ryan. Mentioned reforming Medicare, backed away from calling it a voucher program. He mentioned it was bipartisan, when pressed for which Democrat supports his Medicare idea he just rambled. Probably will replay it later.
 
2013-03-20 07:20:14 PM
How does this guy even fire off all these posts??
 
2013-03-20 07:24:41 PM

MattStafford: You do realize that I'm very liberal, right?


Oh wait, you're serious....
 
2013-03-20 07:28:25 PM

MattStafford: nmrsnr: with this he gets increased yield that he can sell to people outside the town

If that demand was already present, why wouldn't he already be meeting it?


Because he didn't have the supply in quantities enough to make it viable to bring to the farmer's market in the next town.

If the problem was lack of infrastructure or help that the farmer couldn't afford, couldn't we have just started with "the apple farmer borrows money to invest in his farm" and go from there?  What was the point of the ditch digger?

Yes, but now replace "employ ditch digger" with "keep grandma alive" and you realize why we might want to start with spending on a product which (for the sake of argument) produces no economic value.

Also, you are operating under the assumption that the money will be invested by the apple farmer.  Perhaps instead of investing it, the apple farmer just buys something else.  And that person buys something else.  And when the person who originally hired the ditch digger comes back to town, you'll have to raise taxes and stop the cycle, resetting the economy.

And even more so, you are relying on the assumption that the ditch digger's money successfully makes it to the apple farmer.  The ditch digger could have bought an iPod instead, and the money goes to Apple, and that local economy receives no boost.


And you're assuming it won't. I can dream up a thousand ways any economic system could fail. What if everyone stopped believing in fiat money tomorrow and demanded to barter? Just because I can make those assumptions doesn't make my scenario any more dispositive of your argument that Keynsian stimulus can't work. I've demonstrated it can.

It is possible for a ditch digging program to successfully lead to investment

This is more than you've been willing to admit earlier in the thread:
MattStafford:
People still think borrowing money for Social Security and Medicare is a good idea?  Jesus, how dense are you guys?

Please explain to me how keeping millions of people, who by definition do not produce things or provide services, alive financed via a massive amount of debt is somehow going to make our country stronger?  Who cares if we provide massive amounts of jobs to doctor's providing them services?  Those jobs disappear once we can no longer borrow money to fund the scheme!

but that is completely relying on hoping that an eventual recipient of that money will invest in.  Based on the fact that the money was initially spent in the ditch digging industry, if it is invested, it will most likely be invested in a field or area related to the ditch digging industry, which would be a wasted investment.


There is absolutely no way to either prove or disprove such a useless assumption about a fake industry in a fake town with fake employees that you made up, why would I try and argue this point?

Also notice how you moved the goalposts dramatically from your initial statements:

MattStafford: Buying shiat does not help the economy!  Christ, how difficult is that to understand?

If a bank loaned me two trillion dollars, and I bought and consumed two trillion dollars worth of goods, would that help the economy?


YES. I've shown you how, and you have agreed in principle. Now you have changed to argue human nature and other assumptions on how the stimulative money will be spent. That is an entirely different question from the ones you have began this thread asking. That is the definition of moving goalposts and a hallmark of someone who has been proven wrong but cannot admit it.
 
2013-03-20 07:35:18 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: I'm done with your asinine analogies. If the government hires a lot of workers, that will increase demand that leads to new jobs... you have admitted that fact in this very thread. Do you believe that those other new jobs will themselves lead to increased demand that will also lead to new jobs? Yes or no.

Yes I do, but the story isn't finished there.  You need to take it to its conclusion:  Do you believe that the taxes that eventually have to pay to cover the debt accrued to hire those workers will lead to less jobs?  Yes or no?


Less than what? Than there were before the stimulus efforts? No. Removing the stimulus will have put downward pressure on the economy, but if it is done when the economy is growing on its own and at a responsible pace (no reason it has to be all or nothing... remove the stimulus policies in phases). And there is no precedent for 'covering the debt'.  If the economy grows and the budget is balanced, then we are not increasing our debt anymore while our GDP grows. If our debt to GDP ratio gets back to more historical levels, it is basically irrelevant what the dollar figure of our debt is.

Do you believe that having your economy based around government jobs that will not be there forever is a good thing?  Yes or no?

Another strawman. Our economy is not in any sense 'based around government jobs that will not be there forever'
 
2013-03-20 07:37:43 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: The government's monetary policies are not equivalent to counterfeiting.

These are the things that you need to explain: if the government prints up a 100 dollar bill and spends it, it is good, but if I print up a hundred dollar bill and spend it, it is bad?

What is different about the two situations?


One is legal tender, the other is not. What the hell is wrong with you?
 
2013-03-20 07:51:58 PM

theknuckler_33: One is legal tender, the other is not. What the hell is wrong with you?


So are you suggesting that if the government printed up a 100 dollar bill and gave it to me, it would be economically beneficial, but if I printed up a 100% identical replica, and no one could possibly tell the difference, it would be economically harmful?

Wow, you have a lot of faith in the government.  Does it tell you to breathe too?
 
2013-03-20 07:52:56 PM
Who wakes up in the morning and says "I'm going to be an economics troll."?
 
2013-03-20 07:55:23 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: One is legal tender, the other is not. What the hell is wrong with you?

So are you suggesting that if the government printed up a 100 dollar bill and gave it to me, it would be economically beneficial, but if I printed up a 100% identical replica, and no one could possibly tell the difference, it would be economically harmful?

Wow, you have a lot of faith in the government.  Does it tell you to breathe too?


You cannot be seriously arguing this. I think you just broke Poe's Law.
 
2013-03-20 08:01:42 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: One is legal tender, the other is not. What the hell is wrong with you?

So are you suggesting that if the government printed up a 100 dollar bill and gave it to me, it would be economically beneficial, but if I printed up a 100% identical replica, and no one could possibly tell the difference, it would be economically harmful?

Wow, you have a lot of faith in the government.  Does it tell you to breathe too?


What would be harmful is making counterfeit money and getting away with buying goods with it only for the merchant to, say, be informed by his/her bank that the money is counterfeit... because basically you robbed them. Inventing a scenario where you create some perfect counterfeit 100 dollar bill that will never be detected by anyone ever, then it is no different than having a real 100 dollar bill.
 
2013-03-20 08:03:04 PM

MattStafford: So are you suggesting that if the government printed up a 100 dollar bill and gave it to me, it would be economically beneficial, but if I printed up a 100% identical replica, and no one could possibly tell the difference, it would be economically harmful?


I'm normally on your side but have to weigh in here.  The government does have a legitimate interest in controlling the money supply.  It's one of the very few things that even I concede is a federal responsibility.

They're doing a pretty shiatty job of it at the moment, but that's another debate.
 
2013-03-20 08:03:51 PM

theknuckler_33: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: One is legal tender, the other is not. What the hell is wrong with you?

So are you suggesting that if the government printed up a 100 dollar bill and gave it to me, it would be economically beneficial, but if I printed up a 100% identical replica, and no one could possibly tell the difference, it would be economically harmful?

Wow, you have a lot of faith in the government.  Does it tell you to breathe too?

What would be harmful is making counterfeit money and getting away with buying goods with it only for the merchant to, say, be informed by his/her bank that the money is counterfeit... because basically you robbed them. Inventing a scenario where you create some perfect counterfeit 100 dollar bill that will never be detected by anyone ever, then it is no different than having a real 100 dollar bill.


Basically this. Creating a literally perfect counterfeit would not really be that bad for the economy in the isolate. If this was a known thing and everyone did it, it obviously would be a disaster.
 
2013-03-20 08:07:06 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: I Like Bread: Because profitability is the only metric of success for welfare programs.

the only metric that really matters is can we sustain it or not. Anything else is ego wanking BS.


Yes, every immigrant father who worked himself into an early grave for the sake of his children's future was just wanking his ego. He should've just bought a boat, put his feet up and let his children starve.

"Sustainable" is the wrong word to use. Health care is an expenditure. We don't sit around pondering which cable service is "sustainable".
 
2013-03-20 08:13:22 PM
img89.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-20 08:37:29 PM

Sergeant Grumbles:


I know funny and that's funny.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report