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
 
2013-03-21 02:41:54 PM  

MattStafford: I'll do a thorough response in a bit, but the initial diagnosis is a complete inability to think abstractly.


What you do is not thinking 'abstractly', you are whittling down a complex subject to something so small and closed that it no longer resembles the thing you are trying to think abstractly about and then complaining when people point out that the effects of things in your absurdly closed universe do not apply to the real world because of the existence of all the complexities that exist in the real world that you have conveniently removed in a vain attempt to validate the idea that current economic policies may (indeed 'will' in your mind) have negative effects (probably devastatingly so in your mind) "soon" in the future therefore we must self-inflict pain now to save us from that potential future pain.
 
2013-03-21 02:48:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: What you do is not thinking 'abstractly', you are whittling down a complex subject to something so small and closed that it no longer resembles the thing you are trying to think abstractly about and then complaining when people point out that the effects of things in your absurdly closed universe do not apply to the real world because of the existence of all the complexities that exist in the real world that you have conveniently removed in a vain attempt to validate the idea that current economic policies may (indeed 'will' in your mind) have negative effects (probably devastatingly so in your mind) "soon" in the future therefore we must self-inflict pain now to save us from that potential future pain.


No, you are failing to understand that the laws that govern an economy consisting of 200 people are the very same laws that govern an economy of 300 million people.  You claim that by going from 300 million to 200 people, the analogy can no longer work, because it is too simple compared to the real thing.  But that is like saying gravity doesn't work between to people because it is so much smaller than the solar system.  In other words, it is dumb.
 
2013-03-21 03:00:58 PM  
I've got a lo-ve-ly bunch of coconuts (They're lovely!)
There they are a standing in a row.
(One, two, three, four)
Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head
(And bigger)
Give 'em a twist, a flick of the wrist, that's what the showman said.

Now that hoi've got a lo-ve-ly bunch of coconuts.
(La-da-de-da-da)
Hevery ball you throw will make me rich.
(Have a banana)
There stands me wife, the idol of me life,
Singin' roll a-bowl a ball, a penny a pitch!
 
2013-03-21 03:09:49 PM  

MattStafford: Instead of our economy being 300 million people in the United States, it is 200 people in a small town. It functions exactly the same.


ORLY?

Suppose the town produces 10,000 dollars worth of real goods in a day, and they are all consumed that day.

Furthermore, you said

Money only has value relative to what it can buy. You are reducing the amount of goods that can be bought. The fact that they have more paper money does not change this face.

The point you seem to be making is that the 'worse off' part of your little fantasy is that there are no more goods available to buy with the money the town folk got from your spending spree. Am I right? Their money is now worthless because there are no goods available to buy because you being the freeloading non-producer took all the available goods and didn't replace them with anything but these stupid dollars.

For goodness sakes, there is nothing analogous to the US economy about that.

On a side note, it's not quite clear if your problem with the retirees is that they spend money they receive from SS (yea, yea, I know 'financed by debt) or that they don't produce anything that anyone wants.  Because lots of retirees spend 401k, Roth IRA, and pension money that is not financed by debt... is that ok?  And, as far as producing nothing that anyone wants, I'm pretty sure the businesses that sell stuff to retirees find their demand for products to be something that they very much are glad that the retirees produce. It is unfathomable that you might be saying that retirees buying stuff without producing some type of good is somehow bad for our economy.
 
2013-03-21 03:16:29 PM  

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: What you do is not thinking 'abstractly', you are whittling down a complex subject to something so small and closed that it no longer resembles the thing you are trying to think abstractly about and then complaining when people point out that the effects of things in your absurdly closed universe do not apply to the real world because of the existence of all the complexities that exist in the real world that you have conveniently removed in a vain attempt to validate the idea that current economic policies may (indeed 'will' in your mind) have negative effects (probably devastatingly so in your mind) "soon" in the future therefore we must self-inflict pain now to save us from that potential future pain.

No, you are failing to understand that the laws that govern an economy consisting of 200 people are the very same laws that govern an economy of 300 million people.  You claim that by going from 300 million to 200 people, the analogy can no longer work, because it is too simple compared to the real thing.  But that is like saying gravity doesn't work between to people because it is so much smaller than the solar system.  In other words, it is dumb.


The difference is that, as far as gravity is concerned, the only difference between planets and people is their mass. The difference between the US economy and your little fantasy go so much further than mere size. You didn't just reduce the size of the economy, you turned it into some non-existent thing were everything produced in one day is entirely consumed that same day. That is not an economy, that is subsistence living and hasn't really gone on since the invention of agriculture. You entirely fail at abstract thinking.
 
2013-03-21 03:18:59 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: This thread needs to be whacked over the head with something hard. Like a coconut or something.

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.


Repetition is the highest form of comedy. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
 
2013-03-21 03:38:51 PM  

theknuckler_33: The point you seem to be making is that the 'worse off' part of your little fantasy is that there are no more goods available to buy with the money the town folk got from your spending spree. Am I right? Their money is now worthless because there are no goods available to buy because you being the freeloading non-producer took all the available goods and didn't replace them with anything but these stupid dollars.


You're caught up on the 10,000 dollars thing, but that was just to show what I meant by the fact that they are worse off after I've been there and done my thing.

Unless you still actually believe that they aren't worse off?  Please don't tell me you believe that they aren't worse off.  Please.

theknuckler_33: The difference is that, as far as gravity is concerned, the only difference between planets and people is their mass. The difference between the US economy and your little fantasy go so much further than mere size. You didn't just reduce the size of the economy, you turned it into some non-existent thing were everything produced in one day is entirely consumed that same day. That is not an economy, that is subsistence living and hasn't really gone on since the invention of agriculture. You entirely fail at abstract thinking.


Forget about the 10,000 dollar think.  How is the 200 person economy different than the 300 million person economy.  That is the important part of this thought experiment.
 
m00
2013-03-21 03:44:48 PM  

Gulper Eel: Talk about blithely ignoring the reality of what happens to public works projects in the northeast. Do the words Big and Dig not ring a bell?

That's just in Boston. In NYC the World Trade Center replacement project was an epic clusterfark until fairly recently...and it's moving at lightspeed compared to the Tappan Zee replacement bridge (which is in about the most idiotic location you could put a bridge over the Hudson) or the Second Avenue subway, which has been in the works since only 1929.


Yeah sure, government is capable of mismanaging anything. But you can't be like "building public works doesn't improve the economy because the US government is corrupt." That's a different argument. That's saying that the economic theory is sound, but the practice is flawed due to our government being particularly wasteful.
 
2013-03-21 03:45:32 PM  

MattStafford: 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.

B: I am a senior citizen. I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency. I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country. I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants.


The effects of this really depend upon what percentage of the new currency is printed up compared to what is already in existence.  If you double the amount of money available, the effects will be seen quickly through huge inflation.  If you have 1% printed up, the effects will also be felt eventually but it will happen more slowly and some goods and services will be less effected than others.  The goods and services which are not necessary would suffer more.

You also seem to assume every year the bank would print you up more money.  If the bank did this, each year the economy would be worse off very quickly.  If, however, this only happened for two years due to natural disasters or the bank being an idiot for a short time, the local economy would absorb the loss (with some economic pain for bank shareholders/citizens.)  The entire town would feel the pain (some more than others) but the loss would be spread through a large number of people helping to mitigate the effects on anyone person or business.

A: I live outside of a small town. I convince the town government to borrow money from citizens of the town and from neighboring towns and give that money to me. I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things. I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.

B: I am a senior citizen. I convince the government to borrow money from citizens of the US and other governments and give that money to me. I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country. I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.


A difference exists between borrowing money and printing new money which does not replace worn out currency no longer in circulation.  If the government borrows money, it is expected to pay the money back so it is the same money which was already there just in different hands.  If the government borrows money above and beyond what it collects in taxes and does this every year forever, the impact is negative.  However, if the government does this for two years because tax receipts are low (or other expenses are high) for those years, the tax receipts do pick up after those two years and the money is paid back.  During those two years expenses were high because the town was paying for a war (which hopefully won't last forever), the housing market crashed (which caused a ripple affect of unemployment throughout the town), and the town decided to pay to train some unemployed people to do other jobs.  (This is so overly simplistic.)  The taxes were kept artificially low during those two years even though expenses were more than the government was collecting, but the mayor wanted to be reelected.  A new mayor was elected and taxes were also raised to create more money coming into the government.  If the government of the town kept borrowing money every year without either having an increase in revenue or reducing expenses.  The effects would also be negative.


I fail to see how B can be beneficial to a country, whereas A would be harmful. So please explain the difference?

And again, if anyone is bored, this is still unanswered.


Both can be harmful or beneficial.  It is a matter of how long and how much.  The larger the population the less the effects of each of these actions affect each individual in the town.  So, it is a matter of degrees.  There is a tipping point... somewhere.

/Yes, I have a problem with affect and effect.
 
2013-03-21 03:53:10 PM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: This thread needs to be whacked over the head with something hard. Like a coconut or something.

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.

Repetition is the highest form of comedy. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. Shine on, you crazy diamond.


Thank you kind sir. You havent been a raging tard lately, either your meds kicked in or your well deserved vacation mellowed you out. Either way keep it up! Go Joe!
 
2013-03-21 03:56:12 PM  

MattStafford: You're caught up on the 10,000 dollars thing, but that was just to show what I meant by the fact that they are worse off after I've been there and done my thing.

Unless you still actually believe that they aren't worse off?  Please don't tell me you believe that they aren't worse off.  Please.


Sure, in a fantasy world where a town is only able to produce in one day enough stuff for them to live on but are somehow stupid enough to sell all that stuff to one guy riding through town without considering how in the world they'll make up for not having the stuff they need to live for that day.

Forget about the 10,000 dollar think.  How is the 200 person economy different than the 300 million person economy.  That is the important part of this thought experiment.

This is not a thought experiment. It is you repeatedly ignoring how your little fantasy is in no way analogous to the US economy. The US economy produces far more than it can consume in a single day. That is all you need to know. There is never a time when people have dollars with no goods to be able to buy with them. If the town is the US economy, then who are you in the fantasy? China? But that can't be because China produces tons of stuff that the town folk want. If you are a retiree, why aren't you in the town to begin with? The town is the US, so the retirees are already in the town... or are you a European or Chinese retiree?

There is literally nothing that makes your little fantasy analogous to the US economy.
 
2013-03-21 04:28:00 PM  

theknuckler_33: If the town is the US economy, then who are you in the fantasy? China? But that can't be because China produces tons of stuff that the town folk want. If you are a retiree, why aren't you in the town to begin with? The town is the US, so the retirees are already in the town... or are you a European or Chinese retiree?


I'm not sure if you're capable of processing this, but I'll repeat it to you one more time:

I am a person who interacts with the economy only by purchasing goods.  I finance these purchases through either printing money or taking out loans.  I do no work, I produce nothing, I do not pay back my loans.

So I am analogous to any person in the US who interacts with the economy by purchasing goods, financed either by loans or money printing.  A person who also does not work, nor will be paying back those loans.

A retired person.  A farking retired person.  How many farking times do I have to tell you, the analogy is to a retired person.
 
2013-03-21 04:38:21 PM  

theknuckler_33: All your nonsense seems to boil down to the concept that if there is one dollar in the economy and suddenly another dollar is 'printed' that the thing you could have previously bought for a dollar will now cost two dollars. In other words the dollar will have lost half its value. Observable reality proves that this is not how the economy works, so making analogies where such a degradation in the value of money exists is a fallacy.


No, all his nonsense is predicated on the fact that he creates oversimplified analogies and then uses them as if they were representative models of the system or process under discussion, basing all his arguments and making all his points within the framework of the analogy.

 
2013-03-21 04:48:53 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, all his nonsense is predicated on the fact that he creates oversimplified analogies and then uses them as if they were representative models of the system or process under discussion, basing all his arguments and making all his points within the framework of the analogy.


The analogies may be simple, but unless you can explain why they don't apply, the point should stand.  I don't see why that is a difficult concept.

If you institute a policy in a 200 person economy, and an identical policy in a 300 million person economy, the results should be very similar.  If you say that not only won't they be similar, but they would in fact have opposite effects, you sure as shiat better explain yourself.
 
2013-03-21 05:17:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Are you saying that consumables like oil, electricity, and food aren't important enough drivers to the economy to continue to purchase through borrowing if we need to? Why or why not?


I'm saying that borrowing money to pay for consumption makes us poorer in the long-run, not better off. You may be able to maintain your standard of living for another year or so by borrowing enough money to pay for these things, but eventually the loans will have to be repaid, and since you consumed everything you bought with the borrowed money, you're back at square one, only now you have interest payments to make in addition to the money you must spend on gas and food.

Sergeant Grumbles: Long-term, yes, it's a bad idea, but it's not ALWAYS foolish and short-sighted to borrow money to pay for these things.


It's foolish and short-sighted to condemn ourselves and our decedents to a world of hurt in the future in order to spare ourselves a more mild series of discomforts now. I don't understand why people are so unconcerned about the long-term health of the economy. I've heard and I understand the whole "B-b-but recession!" argument, but I don't buy it. Why should we sacrifice our long-term economic wellbeing and the financial security of our posterity in order to maintain the unsustainable standards of living that we've become accustomed to? I bet you wish people in the early 1980s had been thinking long-term when they deregulated the banking sector, and I bet you wish people in 2001 had been thinking long-term when they replaced the recently popped dot-com bubble with the real estate bubble in order to spare themselves any short-term pain. Those people were probably making the same arguments against long-term thinking as you and people in this thread are today.
 
2013-03-21 05:38:10 PM  

Koalacaust: It's foolish and short-sighted to condemn ourselves and our decedents to a world of hurt in the future in order to spare ourselves a more mild series of discomforts now. I don't understand why people are so unconcerned about the long-term health of the economy. I've heard and I understand the whole "B-b-but recession!" argument, but I don't buy it. Why should we sacrifice our long-term economic wellbeing and the financial security of our posterity in order to maintain the unsustainable standards of living that we've become accustomed to? I bet you wish people in the early 1980s had been thinking long-term when they deregulated the banking sector, and I bet you wish people in 2001 had been thinking long-term when they replaced the recently popped dot-com bubble with the real estate bubble in order to spare themselves any short-term pain. Those people were probably making the same arguments against long-term thinking as you and people in this thread are today.


No one's making an argument against long-term thinking.
Borrowing to fund consumption in the short term is not foolish. That money is not instantly gone, as you seem to imply. It has secondary effects beyond the initial consumption that can spur the economy in the short term, setting it up for long term growth.
 
2013-03-21 06:24:44 PM  

MattStafford: you sure as shiat better explain yourself.


Is laughing and ridiculing still an option?
 
2013-03-21 07:04:07 PM  

MattStafford: No, you are failing to understand that the laws that govern an economy consisting of 200 people are the very same laws that govern an economy of 300 million people.


Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you cannot seriously believe this. I mean, wow. Seriously.
 
2013-03-21 07:04:55 PM  

Koalacaust: I'm saying that borrowing money to pay for consumption makes us poorer in the long-run, not better off


What you fail to understand is that the government borrowing money is different from private citizens borrowing money.
 
2013-03-21 07:35:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you cannot seriously believe this. I mean, wow. Seriously.


What makes the two economies fundamentally different?  Not in terms of scale, but in terms of the same policies having completely opposite effects.
 
2013-03-21 08:46:46 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you cannot seriously believe this. I mean, wow. Seriously.

What makes the two economies fundamentally different?  Not in terms of scale, but in terms of the same policies having completely opposite effects.


It's the same as the coconut example. The variables involved are quite different.
 
2013-03-21 09:29:31 PM  

CPennypacker: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

Oh, I get it. You're assuming that people who work for the government don't produce anything, which is a logical fallacy.

I never said any such thing, although most don't. See: straw man.

So then why are you not including public-sector workers in your math? When you include all workers the number is not 1.5, it's 2.3.

I never said that the number NOW is 1.5. I said that it will soon drop below 2 and then drop to 1.5. The government statistics back me up on this (here's the link, again. Be advised that SS projected, in 2009, that the SS fund would go into the red in 2016. It went into the red six months later, in 2010... they aren't very good at projecting and are always ridiculously optimistic). But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing. The majority of military jobs fall into this category. We have nukes; nobody is going to invade and we don't need millions of military personnel backed by millions of civilian support staff. They produce nothing. We could cut half of all government jobs and not deprive one person of anything that he currently consumes (in fact, we could cut taxes and those who produce would see a higher standard of living and our nation would be much more secure; it's a win-win situation).

Holy shiat Matt, I didn't believe it was possible, but you better get in here fast and defend your crown cuz the wind is changing.  I mean, just LOOK at this gem! Finely polished and gleaming!


So, basically, when you can't answer a question, you start name-calling. OK... you win. Oh, and it wasn't me who wasn't counting public workers; that came from the article. Do you really want to include, in the tally of people who are producing goods and services for consumption, those who build habitats for albino squirrels, the federally-subsidized North Dakota symphony (that nobody listens to), and those who study why lesbians are overweight? Really? Are they producing goods and services for others to consume or are they just consuming what others produce while giving nothing in return?
 
2013-03-21 09:42:30 PM  

DrPainMD: Are they producing goods and services for others to consume or are they just consuming what others produce while giving nothing in return?


We fund them purely to make you angry. We know that every albino squirrel habitat equals another tiny blood vessel popping up on your forehead as your teeth grind to the rhythms of the North Dakota Symphony Orchestra and your dick shrivels at the thought of chubby lesbians getting more tail than you do.

Or maybe, just maybe there's more to creating value to society than pumping out consumer goods...
 
2013-03-21 09:46:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing.

[citation needed]


Why would you need a citation for that? Can't you figure out for yourself whether or not a government employee, contractor, or other recipient of government funds is producing goods and services for consumption by the people of this country?
 
2013-03-21 09:46:55 PM  

DrPainMD: Do you really want to include, in the tally of people who are producing goods and services for consumption, those who build habitats for albino squirrels, the federally-subsidized North Dakota symphony (that nobody listens to), and those who study why lesbians are overweight? Really? Are they producing goods and services for others to consume or are they just consuming what others produce while giving nothing in return?


Saying that someone who makes and spends money "giv[es] nothing in return" is the same exact argument that one makes when they say that tax dollars do not count as money spent because it's not spent by a private entity. It's not as if these people never participate in the economy at all.
 
2013-03-21 09:47:38 PM  

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing.

[citation needed]

Why would you need a citation for that? Can't you figure out for yourself whether or not a government employee, contractor, or other recipient of government funds is producing goods and services for consumption by the people of this country?


I need a citation for that because you can't seem to find numbers to back up any of your assertions. Please show me data that proves that a government employee contributes nothing to the economy.
 
2013-03-21 09:47:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: No, you are failing to understand that the laws that govern an economy consisting of 200 people are the very same laws that govern an economy of 300 million people.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you cannot seriously believe this. I mean, wow. Seriously.


Wait... I thought that you were a Keynesian? Even Keynes himself would agree with that statement. There aren't different economic laws for different sized economies.
 
2013-03-21 09:55:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing.

[citation needed]

Why would you need a citation for that? Can't you figure out for yourself whether or not a government employee, contractor, or other recipient of government funds is producing goods and services for consumption by the people of this country?

I need a citation for that because you can't seem to find numbers to back up any of your assertions. Please show me data that proves that a government employee contributes nothing to the economy.


Really? You can't look at what the money is being spent on and figure out for yourself whether or not a good or service is being produced for American consumption? You need data?
 
2013-03-21 10:06:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Do you really want to include, in the tally of people who are producing goods and services for consumption, those who build habitats for albino squirrels, the federally-subsidized North Dakota symphony (that nobody listens to), and those who study why lesbians are overweight? Really? Are they producing goods and services for others to consume or are they just consuming what others produce while giving nothing in return?

Saying that someone who makes and spends money "giv[es] nothing in return" is the same exact argument that one makes when they say that tax dollars do not count as money spent because it's not spent by a private entity. It's not as if these people never participate in the economy at all.


Again, you're making a straw man argument, because I never said that. Tho, it is true that most government employees produce nothing of value for consumption by the American people. Is subsidizing the North Dakota symphony, which plays to an almost-empty house, producing as much value for the economy as it is consuming? How about the $1 million spent on the habitat for albino squirrels (there was a Fark thread about it several months ago)? Did the people who build that add to the quantity of goods and services that will be consumed by the American public? How is it that you can read a job description for a government employee or contractor and not know whether or not that person is producing something for American consumption? That's inconceivable.
 
2013-03-21 10:10:00 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Are they producing goods and services for others to consume or are they just consuming what others produce while giving nothing in return?

We fund them purely to make you angry. We know that every albino squirrel habitat equals another tiny blood vessel popping up on your forehead as your teeth grind to the rhythms of the North Dakota Symphony Orchestra and your dick shrivels at the thought of chubby lesbians getting more tail than you do.

Or maybe, just maybe there's more to creating value to society than pumping out consumer goods...


It's money that is coming OUT OF YOUR POCKET. Wouldn't you rather spend the money on something else? When you buy a chair, wouldn't you rather that all of the money you are exchanging for the chair go to making the chair, or are you happy to pay extra (in the form of the taxes paid by the business and its employees) to know that a study is being done to determine why lesbians are overweight?
 
2013-03-21 10:11:36 PM  

DrPainMD: Again, you're making a straw man argument, because I never said that. Tho, it is true that most government employees produce nothing of value for consumption by the American people.


imageshack.us
 
2013-03-21 10:11:51 PM  

CPennypacker: I've got a lo-ve-ly bunch of coconuts (They're lovely!)
There they are a standing in a row.
(One, two, three, four)
Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head
(And bigger)
Give 'em a twist, a flick of the wrist, that's what the showman said.

Now that hoi've got a lo-ve-ly bunch of coconuts.
(La-da-de-da-da)
Hevery ball you throw will make me rich.
(Have a banana)
There stands me wife, the idol of me life,
Singin' roll a-bowl a ball, a penny a pitch!


Your logic and debate skills, and ability to focus on the subject at hand, are truly impressive.
 
2013-03-21 10:12:55 PM  

DrPainMD: It's money that is coming OUT OF YOUR POCKET. Wouldn't you rather spend the money on something else? When you buy a chair, wouldn't you rather that all of the money you are exchanging for the chair go to making the chair, or are you happy to pay extra (in the form of the taxes paid by the business and its employees) to know that a study is being done to determine why lesbians are overweight?


Sergeant Grumbles: Or maybe, just maybe there's more to creating value to society than pumping out consumer goods...


imageshack.us
 
2013-03-21 11:35:24 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Are they producing goods and services for others to consume or are they just consuming what others produce while giving nothing in return?

We fund them purely to make you angry. We know that every albino squirrel habitat equals another tiny blood vessel popping up on your forehead as your teeth grind to the rhythms of the North Dakota Symphony Orchestra and your dick shrivels at the thought of chubby lesbians getting more tail than you do.

Or maybe, just maybe there's more to creating value to society than pumping out consumer goods...


No, there isn't. Value, by definition, is that which people are willing to trade for a particular good/service.
 
2013-03-21 11:37:03 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Again, you're making a straw man argument, because I never said that. Tho, it is true that most government employees produce nothing of value for consumption by the American people.

[imageshack.us image 660x393]


Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: It's money that is coming OUT OF YOUR POCKET. Wouldn't you rather spend the money on something else? When you buy a chair, wouldn't you rather that all of the money you are exchanging for the chair go to making the chair, or are you happy to pay extra (in the form of the taxes paid by the business and its employees) to know that a study is being done to determine why lesbians are overweight?

Sergeant Grumbles: Or maybe, just maybe there's more to creating value to society than pumping out consumer goods...

[imageshack.us image 599x434]


Let me get this straight: sticking to the topic is derp, and posting stupid "derp" pictures is logical, factual debate. OK... looks like you win.
 
2013-03-21 11:56:13 PM  

DrPainMD: factual debate.


If you'd ever approached this, I wouldn't have had to resort to pictures. At least you understand those.
You can't seem to comprehend "value" has meaning beyond money, so I'm pretty sure you need the visual aids to help you follow along with the discussion.

/hint: Definition #1. Sorry, no pictures.
 
2013-03-22 02:55:37 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: factual debate.

If you'd ever approached this, I wouldn't have had to resort to pictures. At least you understand those.
You can't seem to comprehend "value" has meaning beyond money, so I'm pretty sure you need the visual aids to help you follow along with the discussion.

/hint: Definition #1. Sorry, no pictures.


Value, economically, is always measured by a unit of currency. Always. And, my side of the debate was nothing but facts, backed by links to the actual government figures. So, I guess you win.
 
2013-03-22 08:22:05 AM  

DrPainMD: Value, economically, is always measured by a unit of currency. Always. And, my side of the debate was nothing but facts, backed by links to the actual government figures. So, I guess you win.


I figured words with multiple meanings would be beyond your grasp. How about another picture?

imageshack.us

You had one fact and drew unrelated after unrelated conclusion. Your defense has been reduced to disputing the meaning of words. So yeah, I guess I really do win. That is, unless there's a definition of fact I'm supposed to ignore because it destroys yet more of your argument.
 
2013-03-22 10:24:13 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: No, you are failing to understand that the laws that govern an economy consisting of 200 people are the very same laws that govern an economy of 300 million people.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you cannot seriously believe this. I mean, wow. Seriously.



The bold is exactly why these idiots should NEVER be allowed to run the government. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

among other reasons
 
2013-03-22 01:38:55 PM  

lordjupiter: he bold is exactly why these idiots should NEVER be allowed to run the government. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

among other reasons


Please explain further.  I am of the belief that if you instituted an identical policy, changed only to match the scale changes, it would have a very similar effect.

For example: If you raised taxes on the town of 200, there would be a similar effect if you raised taxes on the 300 million.  It wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would be similar.

However, in this discussion thread (and others) people are making the claim that not only wouldn't those effects be similar, they would be exact opposites.  Certainly a claim of that nature should require some sort of evidence as to why that is.
 
2013-03-22 02:08:20 PM  

MattStafford: lordjupiter: he bold is exactly why these idiots should NEVER be allowed to run the government. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

among other reasons

Please explain further.  I am of the belief that if you instituted an identical policy, changed only to match the scale changes, it would have a very similar effect.

For example: If you raised taxes on the town of 200, there would be a similar effect if you raised taxes on the 300 million.  It wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would be similar.

However, in this discussion thread (and others) people are making the claim that not only wouldn't those effects be similar, they would be exact opposites.  Certainly a claim of that nature should require some sort of evidence as to why that is.


Did you read the link, or are you just trolling to get people to do more homework assignments to answer your neverending, pointless questions?

Families are not countries.  Your entire economic understanding is built on the flawed belief that human groups are 100% scalable, and they are notSmall groups do not have the same dynamics as large groups.  And the larger the group, the more sub-groups and unique eventualities (genetic, social, economic, etc) you get that you wouldn't find in smaller groups.  This can be accounted for in one group size, but not another.

Part of the point of the link (which you obviously didn't read) was to show that it's very likely that BY OUR NATURE, BIOLOGICALLY we are only capable of processing so many relationships.  Beyond that capacity we require more generalized, social policies and laws because the overplus of people and dynamics creates a "society" that isn't in the sphere of those whom we would normally take into consideration (such as, for their needs, which might require a tax burden to be spread over a larger base than those with that specific local need, and different results in smaller or larger groups as a result of changes in policy).

The only reason I even bothered with this is because maybe someone else will find it interesting.  I know you'll blow right past it and continue your career in threadshiatting.
 

If you have any more mindless questions, just google "goatse" and all will be clear.
 
2013-03-22 02:42:17 PM  

lordjupiter: If you have any more mindless questions, just google "goatse" and all will be clear.


If I am following you correctly, you are saying that economic policies will affect a small town differently than a large town because of the nature of the relationships.  In other words, since we are more closely related to the people in a town of 200, we will react to taxes a different way?

There is certainly truth to that statement, and we see it played out throughout the world.  In general, smaller, homogenized societies are far more willing to pay taxes than diverse societies.  It is a far easier pill to swallow (for some people anyway) when you know your taxes are going to someone similar to you than someone you have nothing in common with.

So there, that was actually a good explanation as to why taxes in a small society could have an opposite effect compared to taxes on a large society.

Remember when I said that you had to provide an explanation as to why the purported differences make an analogy fail?  That right there was a great example of one.

So lets move on to another one - the one we have been talking about this entire thread:

The effect of doubling the monetary base in a town of 200 will have similar effects as doubling the monetary base in a country of 300 million.

As far as I can surmise, the homogeneity of the town and country don't have much to do with the economic effects of this action.  Is there a reason why I should assume that doubling the money supply would have a negative effect in the town but a positive effect in the country?
 
2013-03-22 04:39:24 PM  

MattStafford: lordjupiter: If you have any more mindless questions, just google "goatse" and all will be clear.

If I am following you correctly, you are saying that economic policies will affect a small town differently than a large town because of the nature of the relationships.  In other words, since we are more closely related to the people in a town of 200, we will react to taxes a different way?

There is certainly truth to that statement, and we see it played out throughout the world.  In general, smaller, homogenized societies are far more willing to pay taxes than diverse societies.  It is a far easier pill to swallow (for some people anyway) when you know your taxes are going to someone similar to you than someone you have nothing in common with.

So there, that was actually a good explanation as to why taxes in a small society could have an opposite effect compared to taxes on a large society.

Remember when I said that you had to provide an explanation as to why the purported differences make an analogy fail?  That right there was a great example of one.

So lets move on to another one - the one we have been talking about this entire thread:

The effect of doubling the monetary base in a town of 200 will have similar effects as doubling the monetary base in a country of 300 million.

As far as I can surmise, the homogeneity of the town and country don't have much to do with the economic effects of this action.  Is there a reason why I should assume that doubling the money supply would have a negative effect in the town but a positive effect in the country?



You never give up, do you?  Ok, I'm bored.

It could have either effect for the reasons already given.  It's not automatically disastrous in either case.   Have you considered that?

Broader economic effects are based on human psychology and scale.   Scale dictates, per the effect I linked, a diversity of smaller, compartmentalized systems often with "borders" or rules of their own.  Those drill down smaller and smaller from region to state to county to district to personal relationship limits until you get to the nuclear family.  The naturally dictated, and geographically dictated, barriers and gaps between each of those levels will variably buffer or amplify the effect of a policy.  Just like 30 of your friends are all a bit different from each other (some very different) these little groups are all slightly different and dealing with them as a whole is not the same as dealing with the individuals in each of those groups.

You can also trade services and goods with your neighbor more easily than you can with someone 2,000 miles away if currency becomes too devalued due to saturation of it.  You can, in smaller blocks, "get by" within your sphere of relationships even if the people with whom you normally do business with are stuck with inflation devalued money.

The market is based on confidence even more than any "indicator" or report.  Businesses that aren't made or broken by the market still feel the effects of its activities.  You can get away with a lot more when the entire system is depersonalized and selectively reported in the media than if everyone in a small town knows EXACTLY who's spending what, and what the value of every little item is.

Maybe most importantly, larger groups create slower moving, escalating RIPPLES that you don't find in smaller groups.  Cash injections into a very large group of spread out, diverse people suddenly have money to spend on goods and services that have not yet caught up with the devaluation in that area or abroad.  It takes time for the local adjustment, and even more time for the remote adjustments, and by the time one adjustment is made other indicators/reports may have already begun affecting things in a DIFFERENT direction, simply due to the effect of the scale.  Behaviors and beliefs supportive to a positive economic psychology might then be generated despite the extra cash, which can eventually be offset by other corrective measures.

The effect is similar to using the choke on an engine.  You don't leave it on, and the engine does not stay flooded if you back off at the right time.

This is how stimulus works in a large system where it MIGHT not work in a smaller system.
 
2013-03-22 05:47:38 PM  

lordjupiter: The only reason I even bothered with this is because maybe someone else will find it interesting


Correct, and thanks - it's completely new to me

lordjupiter: The effect is similar to using the choke on an engine. You don't leave it on, and the engine does not stay flooded if you back off at the right time.

 
See, kids? That's how you use an analogy.
 
2013-03-22 06:36:25 PM  
So the suggestion is that the key for this monetary stimulus to work is that the people receiving the monetary stimulus are so far removed from the actual process that they don't realize what is happening?

In other words, if Bernanke went on CNBC tomorrow (who am I kidding - TMZ maybe) and announced that they were going to double the money supply via currency injections, the stimulus would be ineffective.  Whereas, if he doubled the money supply in the dark, it would be effective, because people don't realize that the cash they are spending is worth less than what they believe?

In addition, it appears that you are arguing that it would be far more difficult to discover this monetary manipulation in a large economy as opposed to a small economy.  On this, I will agree with you.  If you look at the smallest possible economy - a two person economy - such a plan would immediately destroy the trade relationship.  Whoever tried to double the currency would be immediately caught.  If you expand that economy to ten people, and one person tried to double the money supply, it would most likely last a bit longer, but it would still be caught in a relatively short time.  In a one thousand person economy, it would take far longer, and in a 300 million person economy, it would take longer still.

But in none of those situations can the ruse last forever.  You suggest that you can get away with these actions if the economy is diverse and people aren't entirely aware of the other economic actions taking place.  I disagree.  That certainly allows the ruse to last longer, but it does not make it permanent in any sense of the word.

To get to the bottom of it, it really comes down to this:

If you inject currency into the economy, will that currency be used for successful investment prior to having its value wiped out by inflation.

If you look at the economy of 200 people, it is fairly clear that a large currency injection will be noticed immediately and that inflation will take place extremely quickly.

However, if you look at an economy of 300 million people, it is certainly possible that a recipient of that currency injection will invest that currency successfully, and the added production will counter the effects of inflation and make the economy better off in the long run.

It seems like anyone in favor of currency injection is relying on this second possibility as being a certainty, or at least a likelihood.  Also, people arguing in favor of currency injections never seem to acknowledge this as a necessity for their plan to work - they simply state that buying things and getting money moving will fix the economy.

If you look at our economy right now, I think it would be very difficult to make the argument that this money will find successful investment before inflation kicks in.  We buy far too much stuff from overseas, corporations are hoarding money instead of investing it, etc, etc, etc.

Monetary injections could be successful, but it is relying on something happening that is entirely out of the government's control.  If that money isn't successfully invested prior to inflation taking effect, it negatively impacts the economy in the long run.
 
2013-03-22 06:37:18 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: lordjupiter: The effect is similar to using the choke on an engine. You don't leave it on, and the engine does not stay flooded if you back off at the right time.
 
See, kids? That's how you use an analogy.


A 300 million person economy is more similar to a lawnmower than a 200 person economy.  Got it.
 
2013-03-22 06:58:28 PM  

MattStafford: A 300 million person economy is more similar to a lawnmower than a 200 person economy.


You are really, really bad at analogies. Have you considered not trying to use them?
 
2013-03-22 09:59:31 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: lordjupiter: The effect is similar to using the choke on an engine. You don't leave it on, and the engine does not stay flooded if you back off at the right time.
 
See, kids? That's how you use an analogy.

A 300 million person economy is more similar to a lawnmower than a 200 person economy.  Got it.


No, the effective application of economic stimulus is more similar to using the choke on an engine to get it going rather than just flooding the engine with gas permanently.  That was in clear, legible English text.

But your just being intentionally obtuse again, because you've been forced to admit that you were wrong about economies not being 100% scaleable.  Now it seems the goalposts have been moved to governments relying on dynamics not totally in their control.   Well, that's life, pal.  NO government has total control over what happens with its economy.

Aside from that, everyone knows you shouldn't engage in riskier stimulus strategies unless you have to.  When you're trying to stave off global depression, you pretty much reach that level of desperation.
 
2013-03-22 10:00:55 PM  
Oops, I typed "your" instead of "you're".  I automatically lose the internet and MattStafford is automatically Bubba Gump Coconut King.
 
2013-03-22 11:17:32 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: lordjupiter: The effect is similar to using the choke on an engine. You don't leave it on, and the engine does not stay flooded if you back off at the right time.

See, kids? That's how you use an analogy.

A 300 million person economy is more similar to a lawnmower than a 200 person economy.  Got it.


www.lab1663.net
 
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