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.

(Reason Magazine)   The economy is just rosy according to President Obama who went on to blame Republicans for it   (reason.com) divider line 339
    More: Strange, President Obama, Republican, White House, Economic sector, American auto industry, Call of Duty 2, economic reports, discouraged worker  
•       •       •

996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2013 at 10:55 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



339 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-17 09:09:29 AM
Well the 1% is doing great and that is all the Republicans care about.
 
2013-09-17 09:11:52 AM
Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.
 
2013-09-17 09:12:03 AM
Tell us more, Koch Magazine.
 
2013-09-17 09:27:58 AM
History's greatest monster is also history's greatest buffoon.
 
2013-09-17 09:31:12 AM
Oh look, it's the "Let's break government and then complain that government doesn't work" meme.
 
2013-09-17 09:33:53 AM
What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
2013-09-17 09:35:57 AM

vernonFL: What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.


And stop abortions.  And kick poor people off welfare.

Oh, and more tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
2013-09-17 09:44:29 AM
Ok, the republicans haven't been trying to fark up the whole country just to spite Obama. It's all just Obama passing the buck.
 
2013-09-17 09:46:40 AM
the bottom line is, the economy is doing OK - despite republicans' efforts to destroy it.
 
2013-09-17 09:55:14 AM

johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.


This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.
 
2013-09-17 10:09:17 AM

unlikely: History's greatest monster is also history's greatest buffoon.


madamepickwickartblog.com


And you thought Republicans were mad when he just put his feet up on the Resolute Desk.
 
2013-09-17 10:28:48 AM
Nice headline.  That was kind of my reaction to the sound bites I saw of his speech.
 
2013-09-17 10:31:54 AM
Wow. Reason Magazine seems exceptionally concerned.

Another steaming pile fresh from Reason's turd-cutter.
 
2013-09-17 10:42:45 AM
I'm as willing as anybody to believe that Republicans are capable of torpedoing a thriving economy, especially if they get a chance to restrict something that might give people pleasure or spend lots of money on shiny new weapons. But the president and his Democrats have tried the spend-happy approach for many years, and what we have are discouraged workers cracking open generic beer on the sofa, families poorer than they were half a decade ago and high-priced business bailouts that are a net loss for American taxpayers. No wonder American have had it with wasteful government spending and ever-soaring debt ceilings.

Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.


Oh snap.
 
2013-09-17 10:52:19 AM
i.imgur.com

President from (D,R) party claims relative success on policy X why chastising Congressional opposition figures from (R,D) for the limitations of that success.

Film @ 11.
 
2013-09-17 10:58:02 AM
American Capitalism a success for the 1%.  The rest of you poors can fark off.
 
2013-09-17 10:59:12 AM
Overall the economy 'is' improving.  It is just improving a helluva lot more for the very wealthy than it is for the rest of the nation.

And what little gains have been made for the bottom 95-99% stand to be snatched away given the continued GOP prescription for economic ails.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 10:59:13 AM

EvilEgg: Well the 1% is doing great and that is all the Republicans care about.


Done in one.


SlothB77: Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.

Oh snap.


In order to have anyone 'actually working with the opposition', they'd have to make an effort, too. From day 1 the only effort they've made is to try and stall him unless he catered to their every whim. And sometimes when he tried to they used that to try and show weakness, then moved the goalposts and attempted to demand more in an effort to 'be bipartisan'. That's a load of shiate.

Oh snap? My ass.
 
2013-09-17 10:59:39 AM

enry: vernonFL: What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

And stop abortions.  And kick poor people off welfare.

Oh, and more tax cuts for the wealthy.


Kick poor minorities off welfare. Poor whites on welfare are ok. That's not real welfare, just an extra hand for bootstr....dddddeeeerrrrrrrppppp
 
2013-09-17 11:00:10 AM
As a member of the 1% who contributes to the 18 trillion dollars held in accounts outside the US, I can say with great certainty that if you give us one more tax cut we will think about bringing some of that money back to the US. Then everyone can benefit from the trickle down effect.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:01:35 AM

Cinaed: Overall the economy 'is' improving.  It is just improving a helluva lot more for the very wealthy than it is for the rest of the nation.

And what little gains have been made for the bottom 95-99% stand to be snatched away given the continued GOP prescription for economic ails.


Ayup. Profits are up, big corps are raking in the dough. And they've seen that their companies can run at a larger profit by 'running lean', so there's no reason to hire. That just cuts into profits with no obvious signs of benefit for them. Never-you-mind that more working means more have disposable income to buy the products/services that the company is selling. "WE NEED THEM TO BELIEVE MORE TRICKLE DOWN WHEN IT HASN'T HAPPENED FOR DECADES NOW, AMIRITE?"
 
2013-09-17 11:02:06 AM
If we lower the US credit rating that will make the economy even better. This is what Reason actually believes.
 
2013-09-17 11:03:04 AM
reason.com/bsabsvr.com
 
2013-09-17 11:03:37 AM

DGS: EvilEgg: Well the 1% is doing great and that is all the Republicans care about.

Done in one.


SlothB77: Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.

Oh snap.

In order to have anyone 'actually working with the opposition', they'd have to make an effort, too. From day 1 the only effort they've made is to try and stall him unless he catered to their every whim. And sometimes when he tried to they used that to try and show weakness, then moved the goalposts and attempted to demand more in an effort to 'be bipartisan'. That's a load of shiate.

Oh snap? My ass.


Yeah, it seems some people forget the overarching goal of the Republican House have been to 1) Make Obama a one-term president, and when that failed to 2) Make Obama the worst president in history and tarnish his legacy.

When your goal is to hurt the president, as opposed to helping the country (and helping is however you see fit), then you've completely lost sight of what your job is in government and you should be removed.
 
2013-09-17 11:03:42 AM
someone should buy bsabsvr.com and just make it foward to reason.com...
 
2013-09-17 11:05:20 AM

kidgenius: When your goal is to hurt the president, as opposed to helping the country (and helping is however you see fit), then you've completely lost sight of what your job is in government and you should be removed.


To be fair, most of the legislators involved were elected on that platform, with their constituents having the gloriously idiotic mindset that seems to border on 'If it can't be the way *I* want it, then it call all burn'.
 
2013-09-17 11:08:25 AM
ftfIGReport: Taxpayers are owed $57.6 billion as of June 30, 2013. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2013, it had realized or written off losses of $29.1 billion that taxpayers will never get back (although taxpayers may profit on other TARP investments), leaving $28.6 billion in TARP funds outstanding. These amounts do not include $8.6 billion in TARP funds spent on housing support programs, which are designed as a Government subsidy, with no repayments to taxpayers expected.

It's funny how Obama begged Bush to release the first half of the TARP funds while he was still in office. Almost as if Obama knew full well this would be a major blunder and wanted to share the blame with Bush.
 
2013-09-17 11:08:46 AM

SlothB77: Oh snap


No snap.

Why would anyone think that the party whose leader in the Senate said "Our goal must be to make Obama a one-term President" would be interested in working with the President to get things done? The idea that it's somehow Obama that is the problem is incredibly stupid.
 
2013-09-17 11:09:32 AM

Aristocles: ftfIGReport: Taxpayers are owed $57.6 billion as of June 30, 2013. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2013, it had realized or written off losses of $29.1 billion that taxpayers will never get back (although taxpayers may profit on other TARP investments), leaving $28.6 billion in TARP funds outstanding. These amounts do not include $8.6 billion in TARP funds spent on housing support programs, which are designed as a Government subsidy, with no repayments to taxpayers expected.

It's funny how Obama begged Bush to release the first half of the TARP funds while he was still in office. Almost as if Obama knew full well this would be a major blunder and wanted to share the blame with Bush.


Major blunder? it saved the economy and only cost $57 billion. Where's the blunder there? You want to save the economy for free? Are you kidding?
 
2013-09-17 11:10:21 AM
Churchill: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Modern GOP: "I have nothing to offer but tax cuts, unspecified spending cuts but not in defense, bootstraps and voluntary deportation."
 
2013-09-17 11:12:22 AM
I liked Reason far better when it wasn't a mouthpiece for the moronic Paultards and wasn't buying into the Limbaugh/Beck/Tea 'tard line of bullshiat.
 
2013-09-17 11:13:38 AM
Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.
 
2013-09-17 11:15:18 AM

MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.


Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.
 
2013-09-17 11:15:18 AM
If I got the feeling the GOP wanted us to undergo a truly shared sacrifice, I would be all for it.

If I got the feeling large chunks of the business elite were like Lord Grantham (yeah fictional character), genuinely torn about having to potentially put thousands of people out of work, I might believe them when they talk about having more STEM graduates, lowering taxes, etc.

But instead I see the business elite sending their wealth to off-shore tax havens, demanding a list of things that must be done, and for what? Not creating jobs?

The Republicans of today offer nothing but pablum we've taken for 30+ years. I'm willing to give the Democrats or even those further left a chance.

This is what angry leftists feel today. I'm sure my Tea Party counterpart is thinking some deficit of character is causing the problems we see today, or that we're going to have be more like China to make it.
 
2013-09-17 11:17:58 AM

MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years. FOREVER


FTFY
Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.
 
2013-09-17 11:20:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.


kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.


Not like this, though.
 
2013-09-17 11:21:44 AM
The economy is doing better in spite of Republican obstructionism and their refusal to do much beyond naming post offices and trying to repeal Obamacare.

Decent bills that had bipartisian support have been scuttled because Boehner doesn't want to piss of the super conservative base by breaking that stupid "Hastert Rule".
 
2013-09-17 11:22:31 AM

stpickrell: If I got the feeling the GOP wanted us to undergo a truly shared sacrifice, I would be all for it.

If I got the feeling large chunks of the business elite were like Lord Grantham (yeah fictional character), genuinely torn about having to potentially put thousands of people out of work, I might believe them when they talk about having more STEM graduates, lowering taxes, etc.

But instead I see the business elite sending their wealth to off-shore tax havens, demanding a list of things that must be done, and for what? Not creating jobs?

The Republicans of today offer nothing but pablum we've taken for 30+ years. I'm willing to give the Democrats or even those further left a chance.

This is what angry leftists feel today. I'm sure my Tea Party counterpart is thinking some deficit of character is causing the problems we see today, or that we're going to have be more like China to make it.


See, this is where you're getting it all wrong. The problem with America's super rich is that they haven't been super rich long enough. Hear me out.

Lord Grantham (fictional though he may be) is a perfect example of the type of landed gentry that can only be molded by generations of responsibility for the villagers/servants/craftsmen in his employ. If we can just stratify a bit more into uber-weatlhy and destitute, then after say, 150 years or so, our wealthy elite will learn to take occasional pity on the poor serf children dying on their doorsteps, hands reaching out in death for a copper or a morsel of day-old bread.

At this point we'll start seeing labor reforms, as the wealthy learn to pity the poor sods around them. Then comes the industrial revolution, WW2 and BAM! Economic equality will take off.
 
2013-09-17 11:23:12 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.


We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.
 
2013-09-17 11:24:21 AM

enry: vernonFL: What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

And stop abortions.  And kick poor people off welfare.

Oh, and more tax cuts for the wealthy.


What I would give to see Obama full on troll the Repubs and call for tax breaks for the wealthy for abortions.
 
2013-09-17 11:25:48 AM

kidgenius: DGS: EvilEgg: Well the 1% is doing great and that is all the Republicans care about.

Done in one.


SlothB77: Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.

Oh snap.

In order to have anyone 'actually working with the opposition', they'd have to make an effort, too. From day 1 the only effort they've made is to try and stall him unless he catered to their every whim. And sometimes when he tried to they used that to try and show weakness, then moved the goalposts and attempted to demand more in an effort to 'be bipartisan'. That's a load of shiate.

Oh snap? My ass.

Yeah, it seems some people forget the overarching goal of the Republican House have been to 1) Make Obama a one-term president, and when that failed to 2) Make Obama the worst president in history and tarnish his legacy.

When your goal is to hurt the president, as opposed to helping the country (and helping is however you see fit), then you've completely lost sight of what your job is in government and you should be removed.


Here's the rub.

They truly believe that by doing what they are doing they are helping the country.  Obstructionism is all that is saving us from total destruction at Obama's hands in some of the rank and file's minds.
 
2013-09-17 11:27:00 AM

Aristocles: ftfIGReport: Taxpayers are owed $57.6 billion as of June 30, 2013. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2013, it had realized or written off losses of $29.1 billion that taxpayers will never get back (although taxpayers may profit on other TARP investments), leaving $28.6 billion in TARP funds outstanding. These amounts do not include $8.6 billion in TARP funds spent on housing support programs, which are designed as a Government subsidy, with no repayments to taxpayers expected.

It's funny how Obama begged Bush to release the first half of the TARP funds while he was still in office. Almost as if Obama knew full well this would be a major blunder and wanted to share the blame with Bush.


Damn Obama and his magical time machine!
 
2013-09-17 11:27:23 AM

raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.


Don't you know, despite having been raised to believe that college was necessary for a fulfilling and not crappy career and well worth the money you were supposed to be inexplicably wiser than everyone around you and not gone to college or something. At least that's what assholes on the internet (especially on Fark) would lead you to believe.
 
2013-09-17 11:28:07 AM
The economy is doing decently. It could be doing better, but the Republican party is holding things back by clinging to a discredited ideology. Trickle-down has never improved the economy; all it does (and was, indeed, designed to do) is suck all the wealth into the pockets of the 1%, at the expense of everyone else. Short-term profits over long-term stability is the "conservative" way.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:49 AM

Mentat: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.

We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.


Silence, heathen. If you look at things like that, instead of just big, scary numbers, you won't get SCARED, and if you aren't scared, Republicans and their toadies can't manipulate your fear.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:58 AM

Somacandra: President from (D,R) party claims relative success on policy X why chastising Congressional opposition figures from (R,D) for the limitations of that success.

Film @ 11.


No, I'm pretty sure this is the first time in history ever that this has happened. Prior to this President the opposition party always worked closely with the President to achieve all of his policy goals and were never obstructionist at all.
 
2013-09-17 11:30:45 AM

Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.


And the economic situation post WWII and today are the exact same, correct?
 
2013-09-17 11:31:29 AM

MattStafford: Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.

And the economic situation post WWII and today are the exact same, correct?


Says the guy who compares us to Greece.
 
2013-09-17 11:31:35 AM
Capitalism: Great in theory, terrible in practice.

/Actually it's shiat in theory too.
 
2013-09-17 11:33:55 AM

MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.


I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.
 
2013-09-17 11:34:41 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.


Wrong. We have been in GREATER debt than this before.
 
2013-09-17 11:36:37 AM

Fart_Machine: Says the guy who compares us to Greece.


We control our currency, and that currency happens to be the reserve currency.  Other than that, we're pretty similar to Greece.  As we will find out, the former doesn't mean much unless you have the latter, and the latter is by no means a permanent situation.
 
2013-09-17 11:37:06 AM

MattStafford: Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.

And the economic situation post WWII and today are the exact same, correct?


You're the one who claimed we've never had debt like this. You are wrong (we have had more debt several times). So, instead of admitting you were wrong, you move the goalposts?

You must be a "conservative". There's an article on this recently posted. When confronted with facts that disprove you, you cling MORE tightly to the lie.

It's okay. You're just not smart enough to deal with it. Science has proven that.
 
2013-09-17 11:37:08 AM

FarkedOver: Capitalism: Great in theory, terrible in practice.

/Actually it's shiat in theory too.


Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).
 
2013-09-17 11:37:37 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.


BS truism?

www.mybudget360.com

Doesn't look like BS to me.
 
2013-09-17 11:38:24 AM

MattStafford: Fart_Machine: Says the guy who compares us to Greece.

We control our currency, and that currency happens to be the reserve currency.  Other than that, we're pretty similar to Greece.  As we will find out, the former doesn't mean much unless you have the latter, and the latter is by no means a permanent situation.


I gave you a "funny" for that one.

/hey, the button doesn't say "intentionally"
 
2013-09-17 11:38:37 AM

FarkedOver: Capitalism: Great in theory, terrible in practice.

/Actually it's shiat in theory too.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-17 11:40:18 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.


How much debt do you think we were in postwar?
 
2013-09-17 11:41:24 AM
In terms of the economy, it's starting to go gangbusters in the construction industry. Just yesterday morning, I heard from out CEO's mouth:

"We can't take any more new projects. The people we have are already overloaded, and we can't find enough architects to hire to meet demand."

For a frame of reference, we design condos, apartments and hotels across 43 states, Canada and Central America. And if you know of any experienced, licensed architects with project manager experience, we're looking for anyone across the US. We have matching 401k, all healthcare costs covered, transit passes, life insurance, gym membership, etc. Being fluent in Spanish is a huge plus. Depending on experience, $50k-90k range.

We're back to hiring people straight out of college to get them, and bringing people over from foreign countries to fill positions.

If you want a job, get into construction. If you want a well paying job, become an architect or engineer - because if we're facing a shortage of domestic talent this early in the game, it's going to be in very high demand in the near future.
 
2013-09-17 11:41:24 AM

MattStafford: Crotchrocket Slim: I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.

BS truism?

[www.mybudget360.com image 600x360]

Doesn't look like BS to me.


Is that adjusted for inflation?
 
2013-09-17 11:42:01 AM

mediablitz: It's okay. You're just not smart enough to deal with it. Science has proven that.


I know - I should just let those eggheads who are smart enough to price control the single most important price in the economy run the show.

Here I am, just concerned for some reason that supporting a massive safety net and military financed on debt might be a problem for some reason.

I'm sure it isn't a big deal that the last time we had this much debt we were making huge sacrifices domestically (rationing, victory gardens, etc) and currently we aren't making any sacrifices and are actually consuming more domestically.  It probably isn't a big deal either that we came out of that debt situation as the unquestioned economically dominant country, and could outproduce every other country in the world in terms of real goods without a problem.  None of that stuff should probably concern me.
 
2013-09-17 11:42:30 AM
Are you retards going to have the same "Matt Stafford" discussion again?  Are you so hard up for an argument that you're willing to settle for anyone?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:42:36 AM

meat0918: kidgenius: DGS: EvilEgg: Well the 1% is doing great and that is all the Republicans care about.

Done in one.


SlothB77: Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.

Oh snap.

In order to have anyone 'actually working with the opposition', they'd have to make an effort, too. From day 1 the only effort they've made is to try and stall him unless he catered to their every whim. And sometimes when he tried to they used that to try and show weakness, then moved the goalposts and attempted to demand more in an effort to 'be bipartisan'. That's a load of shiate.

Oh snap? My ass.

Yeah, it seems some people forget the overarching goal of the Republican House have been to 1) Make Obama a one-term president, and when that failed to 2) Make Obama the worst president in history and tarnish his legacy.

When your goal is to hurt the president, as opposed to helping the country (and helping is however you see fit), then you've completely lost sight of what your job is in government and you should be removed.

Here's the rub.

They truly believe that by doing what they are doing they are helping the country.  Obstructionism is all that is saving us from total destruction at Obama's hands in some of the rank and file's minds.


I wonder where they got that idea. If I had to guess I'd say the ones that stand to benefit most, financially speaking, from keeping the peons fighting over who is to blame for the scraps they're hoping to reach up and grab hold of.
 
2013-09-17 11:42:57 AM

mediablitz: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.

Wrong. We have been in GREATER debt than this before.


Exactly.

Back when Carter was president debt sky rocked and Reagan saved us with tax cuts for the wealthy. The dept plummeted to an all time low. But, then...

Clinton spent and spent and spent and got blow jobs. Once again, a Republican rose to the occasion and cut taxes for the wealthy. Bush single handedly paid off the debt and gave us a surplus that continued until America's biggest failure.

Barack Hussein Obama. Now America is lost. Vote Tea Party. Save America.
 
2013-09-17 11:43:22 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Is that adjusted for inflation?


Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.
 
2013-09-17 11:44:17 AM

Rapmaster2000: Are you retards going to have the same "Matt Stafford" discussion again?  Are you so hard up for an argument that you're willing to settle for anyone?


They have to argue, because I'm making sense.  If I was wrong, they wouldn't care.
 
2013-09-17 11:45:04 AM

MattStafford: Fart_Machine: Says the guy who compares us to Greece.

We control our currency, and that currency happens to be the reserve currency.  Other than that, we're pretty similar to Greece.


No we're not.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:45:09 AM

Granny_Panties: mediablitz: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.

Wrong. We have been in GREATER debt than this before.

Exactly.

Back when Carter was president debt sky rocked and Reagan saved us with tax cuts for the wealthy. The dept plummeted to an all time low. But, then...

Clinton spent and spent and spent and got blow jobs. Once again, a Republican rose to the occasion and cut taxes for the wealthy. Bush single handedly paid off the debt and gave us a surplus that continued until America's biggest failure.

Barack Hussein Obama. Now America is lost. Vote Tea Party. Save America.


Hah! Ok, I laughed.
 
2013-09-17 11:45:28 AM

MattStafford: Crotchrocket Slim: I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.

BS truism?

[www.mybudget360.com image 600x360]

Doesn't look like BS to me.


Hey sparky, that's a Housedhold Debt to GDP. Not government debt.

Or are you now trotting out the government-should-be-run-like-a-household BS truism that USA Today completely debunked a few days ago?
 
2013-09-17 11:47:06 AM

MattStafford: They have to argue, because I'm making sense. If I was wrong, they wouldn't care.


Ok, you've convinced me.

imageshack.us
 
2013-09-17 11:48:19 AM

MattStafford: Rapmaster2000: Are you retards going to have the same "Matt Stafford" discussion again?  Are you so hard up for an argument that you're willing to settle for anyone?

They have to argue, because I'm making sense.  If I was wrong, they wouldn't care.


you might be able to fool some people who have never seen another politics tab thread in their life with that one...
 
2013-09-17 11:48:51 AM
MattStafford:
They have to argue, because I'm making sense.  If I was wrong, they wouldn't care.

Well played.

They only argue with you because you're getting inside their heads.  You're blowing away their whole fiat money world.

FACT:  Did you stupid libs know that every year the dollar is worth slightly less?

FACT:  Did you know that inflation does not include food and fuel?  If only, there were some type of index that could track consumer prices then we might be able to follow that, but I've never heard of such a thing so I can assure you it does not exist.

That's why the stock market is so high.  It's because of Helicopter Ben and his enabler, the Chairman Obamao himself.  I've put all my money in gold and bitcoins.  When the economy collapses, I'll be sitting pretty on my huge pile of bitcoins.  Suck it, Americans.
 
2013-09-17 11:49:30 AM

MattStafford: Rapmaster2000: Are you retards going to have the same "Matt Stafford" discussion again?  Are you so hard up for an argument that you're willing to settle for anyone?

They have to argue, because I'm making sense.  If I was wrong, they wouldn't care.


You clearly have spent exactly zero time on the internet.
 
2013-09-17 11:50:32 AM
I remember when Reason was much more subtle when it shilled for Republicans.
 
2013-09-17 11:50:35 AM

Rapmaster2000: Are you retards going to have the same "Matt Stafford" discussion again?  Are you so hard up for an argument that you're willing to settle for anyone?


I'll say it if no one else will: He's too fat and not athletic enough to be anything more than a slightly better-than-average QB in the NFL.
 
2013-09-17 11:51:01 AM

Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).


You're thinking of serfdom.
 
2013-09-17 11:51:53 AM

sigdiamond2000: Rapmaster2000: Are you retards going to have the same "Matt Stafford" discussion again?  Are you so hard up for an argument that you're willing to settle for anyone?

I'll say it if no one else will: He's too fat and not athletic enough to be anything more than a slightly better-than-average QB in the NFL.


Also he has a bum shoulder. I think that was him. Could've been Bradford I'm thinking of. Maybe both.
 
2013-09-17 11:52:41 AM
It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world
 
2013-09-17 11:53:29 AM

sigdiamond2000: I'll say it if no one else will: He's too fat and not athletic enough to be anything more than a slightly better-than-average QB in the NFL.


Best looking side arm in the league though.
 
2013-09-17 11:53:42 AM

karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world


It's a shame that you think this is actually a smart post to make.
 
2013-09-17 11:55:09 AM
YAY!  SOMEONE GET THE COCONUTS AND ISLANDS!
 
2013-09-17 11:55:26 AM
I mean - you guys can laugh all you want, at the end of the day, you know I'm right.

We've been borrowing gads of money for the past 40 years to build three things:  A FIRE economy which produces nothing, a gigantic MIC which produces a bunch of things only good for destruction (and admittedly a few beneficial things), and a giant welfare system which produces nothing.

Sorry folks - that isn't a strong economy.
 
2013-09-17 11:56:47 AM

kidgenius: Hey sparky, that's a Housedhold Debt to GDP. Not government debt.

Or are you now trotting out the government-should-be-run-like-a-household BS truism that USA Today completely debunked a few days ago?


Household?  It's total credit market debt.  Government + Financial + Household + Corporate.  Our economy is based on debt.  That's a fact.
 
2013-09-17 11:57:04 AM
Wow that was a lot of whining and wilful misinterpretation in the TFA.
 
2013-09-17 11:57:28 AM

MattStafford: They have to argue, because I'm making sense. If I was wrong, they wouldn't care.


Think about this statement for a second. Are you really prepared to say that every person that Fark has argued with was right? Sure, you'll find a good number of people who definitely were correct, but you're also going to find an all-star list of the leading cosmic assholes, morons, and manipulators of our time.
 
2013-09-17 11:57:46 AM
How DARE he call the Republicans out for being obstructionists.... What a revisionist!

/"Revisionist" means 'Telling the literal truth', right?
//For the record, my family IS doing better than we were in 2006, and my wife and I both got laid off. Once for her, twice for me. Neither of us went more than 2 months without a job any of those times.
 
2013-09-17 11:59:11 AM

MattStafford: I mean - you guys can laugh all you want, at the end of the day, you know I'm right.

We've been borrowing gads of money for the past 40 years to build three things:  A FIRE economy which produces nothing, a gigantic MIC which produces a bunch of things only good for destruction (and admittedly a few beneficial things), and a giant welfare system which produces nothing.

Sorry folks - that isn't a strong economy.


Sorry folks, actual Nobel-prize-winning economists disagree with you. You can't just make an assertion and then proclaim yourself right because it feels good. That's not how this works.
 
2013-09-17 11:59:30 AM

MattStafford: I mean - you guys can laugh all you want, at the end of the day, you know I'm right.

We've been borrowing gads of money for the past 40 years to build three things:  A FIRE economy which produces nothing, a gigantic MIC which produces a bunch of things only good for destruction (and admittedly a few beneficial things), and a giant welfare system which produces nothing.

Sorry folks - that isn't a strong economy.


Keep fighting the good fight!

One day, you'll show them.  One day you'll show them all.  Then you'll be the one saying "I told you so."  You'll be the victor.

Any day now.
 
2013-09-17 12:00:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Sorry folks, actual Nobel-prize-winning economists disagree with you. You can't just make an assertion and then proclaim yourself right because it feels good. That's not how this works.


I know you have faith in your MIC/FIRE/Welfare debt based economy - but bad news buddy, it isn't going to last.
 
2013-09-17 12:01:12 PM

Rapmaster2000: Keep fighting the good fight!

One day, you'll show them.  One day you'll show them all.  Then you'll be the one saying "I told you so."  You'll be the victor.

Any day now.


Sure - don't do anything to counter the claim that we have an economy based on FIRE/MIC/Welfare supporting a massive service economy, all supported by debt.
 
2013-09-17 12:01:12 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Sorry folks, actual Nobel-prize-winning economists disagree with you. You can't just make an assertion and then proclaim yourself right because it feels good. That's not how this works.

I know you have faith in your MIC/FIRE/Welfare debt based economy - but bad news buddy, it isn't going to last.


You've been saying that for five years. How much longer do we have to wait? Heck you yourself have said it's lasted for 40 years. Are we all going to be dead when this thing finally comes to fruition?
 
2013-09-17 12:01:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world

It's a shame that you think this is actually a smart post to make.


Not sure if it is smart or not.....but it's accurate.


Duke Sucks.
 
2013-09-17 12:01:58 PM

MattStafford: Rapmaster2000: Keep fighting the good fight!

One day, you'll show them.  One day you'll show them all.  Then you'll be the one saying "I told you so."  You'll be the victor.

Any day now.

Sure - don't do anything to counter the claim that we have an economy based on FIRE/MIC/Welfare supporting a massive service economy, all supported by debt.


AND THAT'S A FACT!
 
2013-09-17 12:02:10 PM

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.


No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.
 
2013-09-17 12:03:41 PM

karnal: cameroncrazy1984: karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world

It's a shame that you think this is actually a smart post to make.

Not sure if it is smart or not.....but it's accurate.


Duke Sucks.


No, it's not accurate. But thanks for trying.
 
2013-09-17 12:03:54 PM

enry: vernonFL: What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

And stop abortions.  And kick poor people off welfare.

Oh, and more tax cuts for the wealthy.


Tax cuts for the wealthy be damned. There should be no taxes on the wealthy at all. And we should re-open debtor's prison. If someone gets into debt, let him work it off during an indentured period of not less than seven years per debt. And no foreigners in the country unless a job creator ships them in to work at a rate he deems reasonable. And those foreigners will have to live in special camps. They won't be allowed in public with decent god-fearing folk. If they have kids, there's none of that 14th Amendment bull. No, those kids belong to the camp.

And there should be no public assistance. None, you hear me! If people are too lazy to work for whatever a rich person wants to pay them, then they should damned well come crawling to the nearest church. Shame is the way to end poverty. Shame is also a great way to stop sluts from getting pregnant. Let's go back to making them wear a red letter and watching their brats starve. And forget universal education - lets get those sniveling brats back into the factories.  A good 15-hour work day is what they need.
 
2013-09-17 12:04:42 PM

Aristocles: No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.


I know you think it is a fair system, but there is inherent submission between the worker and the capitalist.

/I want my hacksaw relief!
 
2013-09-17 12:04:58 PM

Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.


Yeah, still serfdom.
 
2013-09-17 12:06:37 PM

MrSteve007: In terms of the economy, it's starting to go gangbusters in the construction industry. Just yesterday morning, I heard from out CEO's mouth:

"We can't take any more new projects. The people we have are already overloaded, and we can't find enough architects to hire to meet demand."

For a frame of reference, we design condos, apartments and hotels across 43 states, Canada and Central America. And if you know of any experienced, licensed architects with project manager experience, we're looking for anyone across the US. We have matching 401k, all healthcare costs covered, transit passes, life insurance, gym membership, etc. Being fluent in Spanish is a huge plus. Depending on experience, $50k-90k range.

We're back to hiring people straight out of college to get them, and bringing people over from foreign countries to fill positions.

If you want a job, get into construction. If you want a well paying job, become an architect or engineer - because if we're facing a shortage of domestic talent this early in the game, it's going to be in very high demand in the near future.


You might want to hire the 2009 architecture grads, then. 3/4 of the ones I know (who have Master's degrees)  had to go into different careers because of the economic downturn. Architecture firms actually sent representatives to their classrooms in their final semester to tell them to find other work.
 
2013-09-17 12:06:43 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I remember when Reason was much more subtle when it shilled for Republicans.


It wasn't that it was more reasonable. It was more that they hired some socially liberal libertarians who didn't realize it was a Koch-owned rag. Now, everyone knows, and the more reasonable stay away.
 
2013-09-17 12:09:00 PM

SlothB77: I'm as willing as anybody to believe that Republicans are capable of torpedoing a thriving economy, especially if they get a chance to restrict something that might give people pleasure or spend lots of money on shiny new weapons. But the president and his Democrats have tried the spend-happy approach for many years, and what we have are discouraged workers cracking open generic beer on the sofa, families poorer than they were half a decade ago and high-priced business bailouts that are a net loss for American taxpayers. No wonder American have had it with wasteful government spending and ever-soaring debt ceilings.

Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.

Oh snap.


Yeah, that's Obama's main problem. He just doesn't know how to work with the Republicans! Why can't Obama be more conciliatory towards them?
 
2013-09-17 12:09:09 PM

raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.


How about not getting a Doctorate in Russian Art History and complaining that the only job you can get is at the golden arches. No one forced you to get a loan that you can not afford, no one forced you to pursue a degree that has no market value and no one forced you to go to a school that you can not afford.... So why do I, a tax payer of this country, have to bail you out?
 
2013-09-17 12:09:43 PM

dantheman195: raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.

How about not getting a Doctorate in Russian Art History and complaining that the only job you can get is at the golden arches. No one forced you to get a loan that you can not afford, no one forced you to pursue a degree that has no market value and no one forced you to go to a school that you can not afford.... So why do I, a tax payer of this country, have to bail you out?


You realize that there are people with degrees that are useable that have the same problem, right?
 
2013-09-17 12:10:04 PM

johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.


See, the problem is "jobs" exist in the republican mind in a quantum state. Unobserved, "jobs" could mean anything: "anti-abortion", "states rights", "second amendment", "trans-vaginal ultrasound", "traditional marriage", "repeal the ACA", etc. It is not until when the "jobs" is observed that it becomes fixed from one of its quantum states. So really, when Boehner says that they are "going to have a relentless focus on creating jobs" he could really mean any of the above. "We are going to have a relentless focus on creating trans-vaginal ultrasound."

So the problem isn't that the republicans have let slip their focus on "jobs," it is our perception of what "jobs" is.
 
2013-09-17 12:10:05 PM

Aristocles: No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.


And imagine if a capitalist had a duty towards workers in the same manner as a lord had towards his serfs.  Unthinkable!
 
2013-09-17 12:11:25 PM

FarkedOver: Capitalism: Great in theory, terrible in practice.

/Actually it's shiat in theory too.


Well, the theory relied on the rich paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes to mitigate the natural flow of money into the hands of the few, and not conflating the taking of rents with actual capital.

But we've farked that up right good.
 
2013-09-17 12:11:28 PM

MattStafford: I mean - you guys can laugh all you want, at the end of the day, you know I'm right.

We've been borrowing gads of money for the past 40 years to build three things:  A FIRE economy which produces nothing, a gigantic MIC which produces a bunch of things only good for destruction (and admittedly a few beneficial things), and a giant welfare system which produces nothing.

Sorry folks - that isn't a strong economy.


What a gigantic MIC might look like:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-17 12:12:30 PM

karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world


I thought the shooting was a false flag to distract attention away from the massive blunder of not having a war with Syria.
 
2013-09-17 12:12:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.

Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.


The problem with debt is that it's one of the primary functions that makes the rich richer. The creation of debt will always go hand in hand with creating wealth inequality. We've also been bailing ourselves out with debt, instead of fixing some of the intrinsic forces that have been causing it.

Our contemporary economy really only grows when we create more debt. Wages have been stagnant with disproportionate cost of living increases; if you want to create more growth, you could tax the rich more and pay people more in their jobs, or you can create more debt...Which do you think the rich prefer?
 
2013-09-17 12:13:35 PM
Am I the only person here who read tfa? It's main point was was calling bullshiat on Obama's claims on the repayment of the tarp and auto bailout money.
 
2013-09-17 12:13:38 PM

MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.


Yes, this is exactly the time to stop now!  In our moment of triumph!  Whip Inflation Now!  Tax cuts!  More wealth to the wealthy!
 
2013-09-17 12:14:04 PM

EvilEgg: Well the 1% is doing great and that is all the Republicans care about.


Damn that republican policy of quantative easing put in place under Obama!
 
2013-09-17 12:14:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: ftfIGReport: Taxpayers are owed $57.6 billion as of June 30, 2013. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2013, it had realized or written off losses of $29.1 billion that taxpayers will never get back (although taxpayers may profit on other TARP investments), leaving $28.6 billion in TARP funds outstanding. These amounts do not include $8.6 billion in TARP funds spent on housing support programs, which are designed as a Government subsidy, with no repayments to taxpayers expected.

It's funny how Obama begged Bush to release the first half of the TARP funds while he was still in office. Almost as if Obama knew full well this would be a major blunder and wanted to share the blame with Bush.

Major blunder? it saved the economy and only cost $57 billion. Where's the blunder there? You want to save the economy for free? Are you kidding?


Free markets could have washed out the bad debt over time and we would be in a stronger and rapidly improving economy today. It would have been a b**ch don't get me wrong, but a assets would have transferred to new buyers and a new wealth would have taken over. Instead of bailing out the failures that put us in this mess in the first place.
 
2013-09-17 12:14:38 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.

I know you think it is a fair system, but there is inherent submission between the worker and the capitalist.

/I want my hacksaw relief!


I'll concede that there is a certain amount of dues that need to be paid (in most cases).

Question: When a worker/workers accumulate capital, say, for example, a family or group of day laborers save up enough to buy some farm land of their own, if those farmers become too old or injured to continue to work, what's wrong with allowing other laborers to make use of the MoP for the profit of both the owners and the newly hired workers? Do the now old/injured land owners become evil "capitalists" just because they've made arrangements with those who do not own the MoP?
 
2013-09-17 12:16:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.

How about not getting a Doctorate in Russian Art History and complaining that the only job you can get is at the golden arches. No one forced you to get a loan that you can not afford, no one forced you to pursue a degree that has no market value and no one forced you to go to a school that you can not afford.... So why do I, a tax payer of this country, have to bail you out?

You realize that there are people with degrees that are useable that have the same problem, right?


Again, why is this a taxpayer problem? It is not my fault you went to a overpriced university. Just like it is not my fault you bought an overpriced house. But somehow it is......
 
2013-09-17 12:16:44 PM

Aristocles: I'll concede that there is a certain amount of dues that need to be paid (in most cases).

Question: When a worker/workers accumulate capital, say, for example, a family or group of day laborers save up enough to buy some farm land of their own, if those farmers become too old or injured to continue to work, what's wrong with allowing other laborers to make use of the MoP for the profit of both the owners and the newly hired workers? Do the now old/injured land owners become evil "capitalists" just because they've made arrangements with those who do not own the MoP?


Depends.  How is it profiting the laborers? Is it really profiting the labors, or is it actually just really lining the pockets of the owner? Why not all own the land communally? I know radical concept..... Dirty hippy shiat too.
 
2013-09-17 12:17:10 PM

MrSteve007: In terms of the economy, it's starting to go gangbusters in the construction industry. Just yesterday morning, I heard from out CEO's mouth:

"We can't take any more new projects. The people we have are already overloaded, and we can't find enough architects to hire to meet demand."

For a frame of reference, we design condos, apartments and hotels across 43 states, Canada and Central America. And if you know of any experienced, licensed architects with project manager experience, we're looking for anyone across the US. We have matching 401k, all healthcare costs covered, transit passes, life insurance, gym membership, etc. Being fluent in Spanish is a huge plus. Depending on experience, $50k-90k range.

We're back to hiring people straight out of college to get them, and bringing people over from foreign countries to fill positions.

If you want a job, get into construction. If you want a well paying job, become an architect or engineer - because if we're facing a shortage of domestic talent this early in the game, it's going to be in very high demand in the near future.


We do industrial equipment, and we're telling our salesmen we might be able to get new jobs installed  sometime summer or fall of 2014, but if things keep going this way, we'll have probably lose some orders because we'll have to tell them to schedule the installs out to 2015.

I think we're hiring too (in Canada at least, not sure about our US offices besides one position looking for someone with a very specific background).
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 12:17:58 PM

Neighborhood Watch: [i43.tinypic.com image 660x400]

I actually listened to that strange speech.  It wasn't as bizarre as that thing last Tuesday, bit it was awful nonetheless.  After 5 years, he's STILL 'blaming Bush' and he even attacked Mitt Romney for good measure.

What a pitiful little man...


ohyou.jpg
 
2013-09-17 12:18:11 PM

dantheman195: raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.

How about not getting a Doctorate in Russian Art History and complaining that the only job you can get is at the golden arches. No one forced you to get a loan that you can not afford, no one forced you to pursue a degree that has no market value and no one forced you to go to a school that you can not afford.... So why do I, a tax payer of this country, have to bail you out?


Dude, I know folks with advanced degrees in Architecture and Petrochemical Engineering who can't get jobs.
 
2013-09-17 12:18:13 PM

Neighborhood Watch: What a pitiful little man...


Irony.
 
2013-09-17 12:19:12 PM

Neighborhood Watch: [i43.tinypic.com image 660x400]

I actually listened to that strange speech.  It wasn't as bizarre as that thing last Tuesday, bit it was awful nonetheless.  After 5 years, he's STILL 'blaming Bush' and he even attacked Mitt Romney for good measure.

What a pitiful little man...


And yet you were pumping your fist in agreement when Bush blamed Clinton for the deficit.
 
2013-09-17 12:19:19 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Is that adjusted for inflation?

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.


Ignore him. He saw Good Will Hunting and now he thinks he's an unappreciated genius.
Back to your headset.
 
2013-09-17 12:19:41 PM

dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?


Uh, mainly because Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.
 
2013-09-17 12:20:09 PM

Riothamus: dantheman195: raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.

How about not getting a Doctorate in Russian Art History and complaining that the only job you can get is at the golden arches. No one forced you to get a loan that you can not afford, no one forced you to pursue a degree that has no market value and no one forced you to go to a school that you can not afford.... So why do I, a tax payer of this country, have to bail you out?

Dude, I know folks with advanced degrees in Architecture and Petrochemical Engineering who can't get jobs.


Someone with a petromechanical degree can't get a job? Bullshiat. They just refuse to move. See the Dakotas.
 
2013-09-17 12:20:28 PM

Neighborhood Watch: [i43.tinypic.com image 660x400]

I actually listened to that strange speech.  It wasn't as bizarre as that thing last Tuesday, bit it was awful nonetheless.  After 5 years, he's STILL 'blaming Bush' and he even attacked Mitt Romney for good measure.

What a pitiful little man...


Yes you are.
 
2013-09-17 12:20:46 PM

Riothamus: dantheman195: raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.

How about not getting a Doctorate in Russian Art History and complaining that the only job you can get is at the golden arches. No one forced you to get a loan that you can not afford, no one forced you to pursue a degree that has no market value and no one forced you to go to a school that you can not afford.... So why do I, a tax payer of this country, have to bail you out?

Dude, I know folks with advanced degrees in Architecture and Petrochemical Engineering who can't get jobs.


You know, it's going to be painful to see when corporations finally realize they can't keep paying people shiat salaries and expect them to spend it on their stuff.

Business school models my ass.
 
2013-09-17 12:21:18 PM

studs up: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Is that adjusted for inflation?

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.

Ignore him. He saw Good Will Hunting and now he thinks he's an unappreciated genius.
Back to your headset.


Aw, is someone still mad that I don't work in a call center? Sounds like you're trying to make fun of a job you imagine that I do because you hate your job.
 
2013-09-17 12:21:55 PM

Neighborhood Watch: cameroncrazy1984: Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.


Ultimately, that's only true when they're not repaid - which they usually aren't.


[citation needed]
 
2013-09-17 12:22:01 PM

Riothamus: You might want to hire the 2009 architecture grads, then. 3/4 of the ones I know (who have Master's degrees) had to go into different careers because of the economic downturn. Architecture firms actually sent representatives to their classrooms in their final semester to tell them to find other work.


That's the problem. A lot of people got out of the industry, and in doing so, lost a lot of their skills & certifications. We've tried hiring folks who went into different industries during the downturn, but at this point they have almost zero experience in the software we now use, know nothing about modern energy modeling, code changes and haven't kept up with their required continuing education to maintain their professional license.

If we're going to hire someone who's inexperienced, we're getting them straight out of college. They may not have the professional certifications yet, but they're at least up to speed on codes and software. What we are really in need of now are experienced, licensed designers - which by definition, require them to have their professional license.
 
2013-09-17 12:23:04 PM

meat0918: Here's the rub.

They truly believe that by doing what they are doing they are helping the country THEMSELVES.


Fixed for more accuracy. The Republican party doesn't give a shiat about the country as a whole. They really and truly only care about themselves.
 
2013-09-17 12:24:34 PM

JohnnyC: meat0918: Here's the rub.

They truly believe that by doing what they are doing they are helping the country THEMSELVES.

Fixed for more accuracy. The Republican party doesn't give a shiat about the country as a whole. They really and truly only care about themselves.


This is 100% true. If they really cared about the country they'd outlaw lobbying.
 
2013-09-17 12:24:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.

Yeah, still serfdom.


Yes. Opportunity to "use," meaning "come work for me at the conditions I set for money I say is fair or starve."

Heaven save us from such opportunities for use.
 
2013-09-17 12:26:10 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: I'll concede that there is a certain amount of dues that need to be paid (in most cases).

Question: When a worker/workers accumulate capital, say, for example, a family or group of day laborers save up enough to buy some farm land of their own, if those farmers become too old or injured to continue to work, what's wrong with allowing other laborers to make use of the MoP for the profit of both the owners and the newly hired workers? Do the now old/injured land owners become evil "capitalists" just because they've made arrangements with those who do not own the MoP?

Depends.  How is it profiting the laborers? Is it really profiting the labors, or is it actually just really lining the pockets of the owner? Why not all own the land communally? I know radical concept..... Dirty hippy shiat too.


The MoP owners would line their pockets and the laborers would take home a small wage (they're still paying dues). The workers would take home a larger cut as they gain experience and become more productive.

Who would take care and work the community land? Everyone? But then who would perform all the several other tasks we rely upon today (for example, off the top of my head, who would run water treatment facilities?)?
 
2013-09-17 12:27:11 PM

vernonFL: What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.


It really is a strange story.

Support fiscal policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
This results in record numbers of people on "welfare"
Complain that too many people are on "welfare" because the majority of them vote against your party.

Unintended consequences GoP. Google it.
 
2013-09-17 12:27:27 PM

MrSteve007: Riothamus: You might want to hire the 2009 architecture grads, then. 3/4 of the ones I know (who have Master's degrees) had to go into different careers because of the economic downturn. Architecture firms actually sent representatives to their classrooms in their final semester to tell them to find other work.

That's the problem. A lot of people got out of the industry, and in doing so, lost a lot of their skills & certifications. We've tried hiring folks who went into different industries during the downturn, but at this point they have almost zero experience in the software we now use, know nothing about modern energy modeling, code changes and haven't kept up with their required continuing education to maintain their professional license.

If we're going to hire someone who's inexperienced, we're getting them straight out of college. They may not have the professional certifications yet, but they're at least up to speed on codes and software. What we are really in need of now are experienced, licensed designers - which by definition, require them to have their professional license.


Well, if you're as desperate as you say you are, you could just knock the rust off, get these people licensed, and gain some incredibly loyal employees. These people aren't stupid. Train them.

I don't mean to come off as harsh, but two of my best friends graduated with Master's in Architecture in 2009.
 
2013-09-17 12:28:12 PM

Aristocles: Who would take care and work the community land? Everyone? But then who would perform all the several other tasks we rely upon today (for example, off the top of my head, who would run water treatment facilities?)?


You're moving from a micro scenario to a macro scenario.....
 
2013-09-17 12:29:02 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.

Yeah, still serfdom.

Yes. Opportunity to "use," meaning "come work for me at the conditions I set for money I say is fair or starve."

Heaven save us from such opportunities for use.


I would think that with your species advanced intelligence you would know better than to involve yourself with a troll conversation...

/to be clear I am not calling  cameroncrazy1984a troll
 
2013-09-17 12:31:15 PM

Riothamus: MrSteve007: Riothamus: You might want to hire the 2009 architecture grads, then. 3/4 of the ones I know (who have Master's degrees) had to go into different careers because of the economic downturn. Architecture firms actually sent representatives to their classrooms in their final semester to tell them to find other work.

That's the problem. A lot of people got out of the industry, and in doing so, lost a lot of their skills & certifications. We've tried hiring folks who went into different industries during the downturn, but at this point they have almost zero experience in the software we now use, know nothing about modern energy modeling, code changes and haven't kept up with their required continuing education to maintain their professional license.

If we're going to hire someone who's inexperienced, we're getting them straight out of college. They may not have the professional certifications yet, but they're at least up to speed on codes and software. What we are really in need of now are experienced, licensed designers - which by definition, require them to have their professional license.

Well, if you're as desperate as you say you are, you could just knock the rust off, get these people licensed, and gain some incredibly loyal employees. These people aren't stupid. Train them.

I don't mean to come off as harsh, but two of my best friends graduated with Master's in Architecture in 2009.


Slightly related:

You know what field was devastated in 2001? IT.

You know what field couldn't find enough workers ~2004? IT.

We are better off for it, those in it for the money not because they were passionate about it are for the most part gone.
 
2013-09-17 12:33:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?

Uh, mainly because Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.


Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! Now if the government was not involved in handing out 'free' money to anyone who can count to 10 and recite the alphabet we would not have created 'false' demand in the higher education sector. People who were truly smart and could not afford would be able to get private scholarships and grants. People who were 'smart' enough for college could afford the lower tuition through work, savings and parent's savings. And people who have no business going to college, or can not afford to go, could get jobs that do not require a college degree.

But somehow, that would be "wrong'. So we create a program that hands out free money to anyone who can sign the paperwork, college increase tuition because of the 'false demand', build expansive buildings, and increase pay to the college administration. Why? Because they can, the tax payer is guaranteeing this money, so who cares?

That is what happened. Now everyone and their dog has these degrees and the job marked drastically contracted and payments are due on these big giant loans that a majority of the graduates could never afford even if they did find entry level jobs.

Good job government!
 
2013-09-17 12:34:47 PM
Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?
 
2013-09-17 12:35:50 PM

dantheman195: Now if the government was not involved in handing out 'free' money to anyone who can count to 10 and recite the alphabet we would not have created 'false' demand in the higher education sector


Please make a citation for the money being "free" and "to anyone"
 
2013-09-17 12:36:51 PM

jst3p: Riothamus: MrSteve007: Riothamus: You might want to hire the 2009 architecture grads, then. 3/4 of the ones I know (who have Master's degrees) had to go into different careers because of the economic downturn. Architecture firms actually sent representatives to their classrooms in their final semester to tell them to find other work.

That's the problem. A lot of people got out of the industry, and in doing so, lost a lot of their skills & certifications. We've tried hiring folks who went into different industries during the downturn, but at this point they have almost zero experience in the software we now use, know nothing about modern energy modeling, code changes and haven't kept up with their required continuing education to maintain their professional license.

If we're going to hire someone who's inexperienced, we're getting them straight out of college. They may not have the professional certifications yet, but they're at least up to speed on codes and software. What we are really in need of now are experienced, licensed designers - which by definition, require them to have their professional license.

Well, if you're as desperate as you say you are, you could just knock the rust off, get these people licensed, and gain some incredibly loyal employees. These people aren't stupid. Train them.

I don't mean to come off as harsh, but two of my best friends graduated with Master's in Architecture in 2009.

Slightly related:

You know what field was devastated in 2001? IT.

You know what field couldn't find enough workers ~2004? IT.

We are better off for it, those in it for the money not because they were passionate about it are for the most part gone.


I can definitely see what you're saying, but the two fields aren't quite comparable. It's a lot easier for a tech to freelance by building websites for people than it is for a newbie architect to freelance on new buildings when no one is building anything. My friends were reduced to designing farking gazebos in addition to their pay-my-bills day jobs.
 
2013-09-17 12:37:23 PM
Remember when you couldn't say anything wrong about your President?

oi42.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-17 12:38:24 PM
Obama should really try giving the GOP everything they want. That way he can be bashed for the failures AND for being a weak President.
 
2013-09-17 12:38:54 PM

dantheman195: cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?

Uh, mainly because Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! Now if the government was not involved in handing out 'free' money to anyone who can count to 10 and recite the alphabet we would not have created 'false' demand in the higher education sector. People who were truly smart and could not afford would be able to get private scholarships and grants. People who were 'smart' enough for college could afford the lower tuition through work, savings and parent's savings. And people who have no business going to college, or can not afford to go, could get jobs that do not require a college degree.

But somehow, that would be "wrong'. So we create a program that hands out free money to anyone who can sign the paperwork, college increase tuition because of the 'false demand', build expansive buildings, and increase pay to the college administration. Why? Because they can, the tax payer is guaranteeing this money, so who cares?

That is what happened. Now everyone and their dog has these degrees and the job marked drastically contracted and payments are due on these big giant loans that a majority of the graduates could never afford even if they did find entry level jobs.

Good job government!


Part of the reason there was so much government investment in college tuition was to get more STEM graduates, increase the supply of them, then lower the cost of hiring them.

All in all, I think they've been rather successful, based on the pittances I see offered for entry level jobs requiring a  Master's degrees.
 
2013-09-17 12:39:47 PM

jst3p: Obama's Reptiloid Master: cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.

Yeah, still serfdom.

Yes. Opportunity to "use," meaning "come work for me at the conditions I set for money I say is fair or starve."

Heaven save us from such opportunities for use.

I would think that with your species advanced intelligence you would know better than to involve yourself with a troll conversation...

/to be clear I am not calling  cameroncrazy1984a troll


Masturbation is pointless but it can still be stress-relieving.
 
2013-09-17 12:40:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: Now if the government was not involved in handing out 'free' money to anyone who can count to 10 and recite the alphabet we would not have created 'false' demand in the higher education sector

Please make a citation for the money being "free" and "to anyone"


That might be hyperbole, but talk to people who work in higher education. My girlfriend is a Dean and the number of high school grads that need remedial education in math and language arts before they can even qualify for classes that are eligible for college credit are staggering.

Many of these kids shouldn't have a diploma much less artificially low interest rates to go to college that they would otherwise not be able to obtain.
 
2013-09-17 12:40:48 PM

Riothamus: I can definitely see what you're saying, but the two fields aren't quite comparable. It's a lot easier for a tech to freelance by building websites for people than it is for a newbie architect to freelance on new buildings when no one is building anything. My friends were reduced to designing farking gazebos in addition to their pay-my-bills day jobs.


Fair enough. Not my best comparison.
 
2013-09-17 12:41:07 PM

Riothamus: jst3p: Riothamus: MrSteve007: Riothamus: You might want to hire the 2009 architecture grads, then. 3/4 of the ones I know (who have Master's degrees) had to go into different careers because of the economic downturn. Architecture firms actually sent representatives to their classrooms in their final semester to tell them to find other work.

That's the problem. A lot of people got out of the industry, and in doing so, lost a lot of their skills & certifications. We've tried hiring folks who went into different industries during the downturn, but at this point they have almost zero experience in the software we now use, know nothing about modern energy modeling, code changes and haven't kept up with their required continuing education to maintain their professional license.

If we're going to hire someone who's inexperienced, we're getting them straight out of college. They may not have the professional certifications yet, but they're at least up to speed on codes and software. What we are really in need of now are experienced, licensed designers - which by definition, require them to have their professional license.

Well, if you're as desperate as you say you are, you could just knock the rust off, get these people licensed, and gain some incredibly loyal employees. These people aren't stupid. Train them.

I don't mean to come off as harsh, but two of my best friends graduated with Master's in Architecture in 2009.

Slightly related:

You know what field was devastated in 2001? IT.

You know what field couldn't find enough workers ~2004? IT.

We are better off for it, those in it for the money not because they were passionate about it are for the most part gone.

I can definitely see what you're saying, but the two fields aren't quite comparable. It's a lot easier for a tech to freelance by building websites for people than it is for a newbie architect to freelance on new buildings when no one is building anything. My friends were reduced to designing farking gazeb ...


My chicken coop was designed and built by an architect....
 
2013-09-17 12:41:51 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: jst3p: Obama's Reptiloid Master: cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.

Yeah, still serfdom.

Yes. Opportunity to "use," meaning "come work for me at the conditions I set for money I say is fair or starve."

Heaven save us from such opportunities for use.

I would think that with your species advanced intelligence you would know better than to involve yourself with a troll conversation...

/to be clear I am not calling  cameroncrazy1984a troll

Masturbation is pointless but it can still be stress-relieving.


I less than three you so much.
 
2013-09-17 12:43:12 PM
"Bush was president during the financial meltdown, the Obama team has
turned that around pretty well
," [Bill Kristol] explained. "He's got to make it a
referendum on the choice about the next four years, and explain what
Obama would do over the next four years that would be bad for the
country and what he would do would be good for the country."


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/23/bill-kristol-obama-team-turned %2 0-a%20round-bushs-financial-meltdown/
[copy/paste, it's being a biatch]


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-09-17 12:43:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Is that adjusted for inflation?

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.

Ignore him. He saw Good Will Hunting and now he thinks he's an unappreciated genius.
Back to your headset.

Aw, is someone still mad that I don't work in a call center? Sounds like you're trying to make fun of a job you imagine that I do because you hate your job.


I think you missed the important part there precious.
(Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)

Also, my job is awesome. I get to deal in chemistry, electro mechanics, regular ol' mechanics, statistical analysis and get to travel. Get your headset, call your mommy. Dumb Blond owns you now.
 
2013-09-17 12:44:04 PM

meat0918: My chicken coop was designed and built by an architect....



Yep, gotta build that portfolio any way they can.
 
2013-09-17 12:44:49 PM

Riothamus: Dude, I know folks with advanced degrees in Architecture and Petrochemical Engineering who can't get jobs.


Architecture may be the worst field to get an advanced degree in. An architect with a masters degree faces 7.0% unemployment.
 
2013-09-17 12:45:11 PM

meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?


Perhaps.

Suppose I lend you 100 dollars.  I now have 100 dollars less cash, but I can mark down on my books that you owe me 100 dollars.  You now have 100 dollars cash, but have marked down on your books that you owe me 100 dollars.  Now lets say you buy a 100 dollar massage from Frank.  Frank now thinks he has 100 dollars, and has that 100 dollars free and clear.  I still think you owe me 100 dollars.  You don't care anymore.  So both Frank and I expect to be able to buy something with those 100 dollars, but clearly, only one of us can do that.

Now multiply that by a few hundred billion or so and have our entire economy be based on it.
 
2013-09-17 12:45:17 PM
Obama's Reptiloid Master:
Masturbation is pointless but it can still be stress-relieving.

I heart you sooooo hard right now.
 
2013-09-17 12:45:36 PM
The economy is doing well when you're talking about our leadership, it's shiatty when you're talking about those other guys' leadership.

All in all it's just a roundabout way of saying "I'm right, they're wrong" and everyone falls for it hook, link, and sinker.
 
2013-09-17 12:45:52 PM

Riothamus: meat0918: My chicken coop was designed and built by an architect....


Yep, gotta build that portfolio any way they can.


You gotta be careful taking on projects like that. If it turns out poorly it could be the coop de grace to his career.
 
2013-09-17 12:47:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: Now if the government was not involved in handing out 'free' money to anyone who can count to 10 and recite the alphabet we would not have created 'false' demand in the higher education sector

Please make a citation for the money being "free" and "to anyone"


That is why 'free' was in quotes and the government has very few lending requirements. People have bought cars with their student loan monies. You do have to pay back the money after you graduate, and at a discounted interest rate, but when you graduate you were suppose to get a posh executive job with a corner office making 300K a year. So that 200K student load looks like chicken feed..... Well that didn't happen for 99.9 percent of the loan participants and now the want to delay payments because they can not find work. Boo freaking hoo, you knew the terms when you signed on.....
 
2013-09-17 12:47:10 PM

studs up: Also, my job is awesome. I get to deal in chemistry, electro mechanics, regular ol' mechanics, statistical analysis and get to travel. Get your headset, call your mommy. Dumb Blond owns you now.


This is sad.
 
2013-09-17 12:47:41 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Who would take care and work the community land? Everyone? But then who would perform all the several other tasks we rely upon today (for example, off the top of my head, who would run water treatment facilities?)?

You're moving from a micro scenario to a macro scenario.....


How so? Let's say we're talking about a small village, there will still be a need for division of labor. If the land is communal, who would work the land? What about shoes? Would everyone cobble? Would those who work the land have shoes, would those who cobble have veggies?
 
2013-09-17 12:49:56 PM

studs up: Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)


Outed me? She claimed I said I was in a thread years ago...and then couldn't back it up. Look, I'm sorry your job sucks but don't take it out on me.
 
2013-09-17 12:50:59 PM

Aristocles: How so? Let's say we're talking about a small village, there will still be a need for division of labor. If the land is communal, who would work the land? What about shoes? Would everyone cobble? Would those who work the land have shoes, would those who cobble have veggies?


I thought we were just talking about a farm.  Now you go and change it to a village!?
 
2013-09-17 12:51:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)

Outed me? She claimed I said I was in a thread years ago...and then couldn't back it up. Look, I'm sorry your job sucks but don't take it out on me.


Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.
 
2013-09-17 12:52:30 PM

MattStafford: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?

Perhaps.

Suppose I lend you 100 dollars.  I now have 100 dollars less cash, but I can mark down on my books that you owe me 100 dollars.  You now have 100 dollars cash, but have marked down on your books that you owe me 100 dollars.  Now lets say you buy a 100 dollar massage from Frank.   Frank now thinks he has 100 dollars, and has that 100 dollars free and clear.  I still think you owe me 100 dollars.  You don't care anymore.  So both Frank and I expect to be able to buy something with those 100 dollars, but clearly, only one of us can do that.

Now multiply that by a few hundred billion or so and have our entire economy be based on it.


No, that one hundred dollars was exchanged for a service. The recipient is still on the hook for the loan, care or not. The lender has no expectation to use that one hundred dollars until it is paid back.
 
2013-09-17 12:53:25 PM

studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)

Outed me? She claimed I said I was in a thread years ago...and then couldn't back it up. Look, I'm sorry your job sucks but don't take it out on me.

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.


What does that have to do with you bringing up an unfounded assertion that I work in a call center?
 
2013-09-17 12:54:07 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: How so? Let's say we're talking about a small village, there will still be a need for division of labor. If the land is communal, who would work the land? What about shoes? Would everyone cobble? Would those who work the land have shoes, would those who cobble have veggies?

I thought we were just talking about a farm.  Now you go and change it to a village!?


You're still fleshing out this idea of a stateless, moneyless, governmentless world, eh?
 
2013-09-17 12:54:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Neighborhood Watch: cameroncrazy1984: Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.


Ultimately, that's only true when they're not repaid - which they usually aren't.

[citation needed]


Indeed, it looks like they usually are.

www.realestateconsulting.com
 
2013-09-17 12:54:26 PM

MattStafford: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?

Perhaps.

Suppose I lend you 100 dollars.  I now have 100 dollars less cash, but I can mark down on my books that you owe me 100 dollars.  You now have 100 dollars cash, but have marked down on your books that you owe me 100 dollars.  Now lets say you buy a 100 dollar massage from Frank.  Frank now thinks he has 100 dollars, and has that 100 dollars free and clear.  I still think you owe me 100 dollars.  You don't care anymore.  So both Frank and I expect to be able to buy something with those 100 dollars, but clearly, only one of us can do that.

Now multiply that by a few hundred billion or so and have our entire economy be based on it.


How much does Frank charge for a happy ending? Would it be acceptable to pay him in coconuts?
 
2013-09-17 12:54:51 PM

dantheman195: cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: Now if the government was not involved in handing out 'free' money to anyone who can count to 10 and recite the alphabet we would not have created 'false' demand in the higher education sector

Please make a citation for the money being "free" and "to anyone"

That is why 'free' was in quotes and the government has very few lending requirements. People have bought cars with their student loan monies. You do have to pay back the money after you graduate, and at a discounted interest rate, but when you graduate you were suppose to get a posh executive job with a corner office making 300K a year. So that 200K student load looks like chicken feed..... Well that didn't happen for 99.9 percent of the loan participants and now the want to delay payments because they can not find work. Boo freaking hoo, you knew the terms when you signed on.....


B... but how could the student know that their degree in Underwater LGBT Basket Studies won't land them a job? This is clearly a conspiracy of the 1%, making them take on obscenely expensive student loans for unmarketable degrees.
 
2013-09-17 12:55:07 PM

jst3p: cameroncrazy1984: Neighborhood Watch: cameroncrazy1984: Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.


Ultimately, that's only true when they're not repaid - which they usually aren't.

[citation needed]

Indeed, it looks like they usually are.

[www.realestateconsulting.com image 537x386]


Gee, I'm shocked.
 
2013-09-17 12:55:18 PM

Aristocles: You're still fleshing out this idea of a stateless, moneyless, governmentless world, eh?


I don't think full communism will be possible in my lifetime. Socialism sure is though
 
2013-09-17 12:56:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)

Outed me? She claimed I said I was in a thread years ago...and then couldn't back it up. Look, I'm sorry your job sucks but don't take it out on me.

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.

What does that have to do with you bringing up an unfounded assertion that I work in a call center?


Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.
(See how you try to deflect? You are not fooling anyone you know.)
 
2013-09-17 12:56:20 PM

Aristocles: No, that one hundred dollars was exchanged for a service. The recipient is still on the hook for the loan, care or not. The lender has no expectation to use that one hundred dollars until it is paid back.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Do you expect Frank to pay me back the 100 dollars?  Do you expect me to eat the 100 dollar loss?  What is the resolution?
 
2013-09-17 12:57:52 PM

MattStafford: Aristocles: No, that one hundred dollars was exchanged for a service. The recipient is still on the hook for the loan, care or not. The lender has no expectation to use that one hundred dollars until it is paid back.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Do you expect Frank to pay me back the 100 dollars?  Do you expect me to eat the 100 dollar loss?  What is the resolution?


Sell the debt to someone else and have it passed around until it's owned by a shady collections agency.

Watch as the agency takes away his car, house, and vintage playboys.
 
2013-09-17 12:58:08 PM

studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)

Outed me? She claimed I said I was in a thread years ago...and then couldn't back it up. Look, I'm sorry your job sucks but don't take it out on me.

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.

What does that have to do with you bringing up an unfounded assertion that I work in a call center?

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.
(See how you try to deflect? You are not fooling anyone you know.)


No seriously, why are you trying to drop the fact that you brought up a stupid and wrong assertion to try to discredit me?
 
2013-09-17 12:58:52 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.

I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.


Add any use of "Democrat party" or mentioning Al Gore or George Soros to push some right wing talking point.
 
2013-09-17 01:00:03 PM

MattStafford: I mean - you guys can laugh all you want


Okay, but you have to do your part and keep posting.
 
2013-09-17 01:00:25 PM

Aristocles: MattStafford: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?

Perhaps.

Suppose I lend you 100 dollars.  I now have 100 dollars less cash, but I can mark down on my books that you owe me 100 dollars.  You now have 100 dollars cash, but have marked down on your books that you owe me 100 dollars.  Now lets say you buy a 100 dollar massage from Frank.   Frank now thinks he has 100 dollars, and has that 100 dollars free and clear.  I still think you owe me 100 dollars.  You don't care anymore.  So both Frank and I expect to be able to buy something with those 100 dollars, but clearly, only one of us can do that.

Now multiply that by a few hundred billion or so and have our entire economy be based on it.

No, that one hundred dollars was exchanged for a service. The recipient is still on the hook for the loan, care or not. The lender has no expectation to use that one hundred dollars until it is paid back.


Frank?  You had to pick Frank?  Who picks Frank for a Massage Analogy?
i182.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 01:01:17 PM

MattStafford: Aristocles: No, that one hundred dollars was exchanged for a service. The recipient is still on the hook for the loan, care or not. The lender has no expectation to use that one hundred dollars until it is paid back.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Do you expect Frank to pay me back the 100 dollars?  Do you expect me to eat the 100 dollar loss?  What is the resolution?


I'm saying that Frank didn't get the money for free, he earned it and it cost him the performance of a service. The money merely represents the service he provided. The lender is still owed the money and the recipient of the loan had better care about paying off his debt because the lender might have legal recourse. But, to address the "peak money," claim, money does not have value because it is scarce, it's merely a medium for exchanging goods and services.
 
2013-09-17 01:01:56 PM
LOL lefty butthurt
 
2013-09-17 01:02:27 PM

knobmaker: MattStafford: I mean - you guys can laugh all you want

Okay, but you have to do your part and keep posting.


I lost my shiat reading that.

Good Burn.
 
2013-09-17 01:02:33 PM

super_grass: Sell the debt to someone else and have it passed around until it's owned by a shady collections agency.

Watch as the agency takes away his car, house, and vintage playboys.


Unfortunately, the dude doesn't have anything of worth to take from him.  I mean, it's a pretty straightforward scenario.  I lend someone with no assets 100 dollars.  He buys and consumes something from someone else.  How do we resolve that situation?

Now multiply it by a billion and add in huge MNCs and entire nations, and see where we get.
 
2013-09-17 01:03:14 PM

meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?



look, there are only a finite number of coconuts in the known universe
 
2013-09-17 01:03:33 PM

MattStafford: Unfortunately, the dude doesn't have anything of worth to take from him. I mean, it's a pretty straightforward scenario. I lend someone with no assets 100 dollars. He buys and consumes something from someone else. How do we resolve that situation?

Now multiply it by a billion and add in huge MNCs and entire nations, and see where we get.


You gave a dead beat a $100!? You're an idiot!

/Can I borrow $100?
 
2013-09-17 01:03:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: Sounds like someone's mad that Dumb Blond outted him as an intellectual poseur...awwww)

Outed me? She claimed I said I was in a thread years ago...and then couldn't back it up. Look, I'm sorry your job sucks but don't take it out on me.

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.

What does that have to do with you bringing up an unfounded assertion that I work in a call center?

Adjusted for inflation?  It's a percent of GDP.
(See how you try to deflect? You are not fooling anyone you know.)

No seriously, why are you trying to drop the fact that you brought up a stupid and wrong assertion to try to discredit me?


Just keep making my point for me. Everyone can see it but you.
I have to stop proving you potato now. It's too easy and I keep getting Fark time-outs. The good news is that the mods are your friends so they'll keep covering for you.
 
2013-09-17 01:03:43 PM

snowshovel: Remember when you couldn't say anything wrong about your President?

[oi42.tinypic.com image 83x27]


Can you point me to a Reason article from the Bush years saying something like that?
 
2013-09-17 01:04:09 PM

Jackson Herring: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?


look, there are only a finite number of coconuts in the known universe


They're a lovely bunch, you must admit.
 
2013-09-17 01:04:10 PM

someonelse: karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world

I thought the shooting was a false flag to distract attention away from the massive blunder of not having a war with Syria.


Navy yard shooting as false flag? Alex Jones is on it

Conspiracy Theorists Already Suspect Navy Yard Shooting Is a 'False Flag'
 
2013-09-17 01:04:19 PM

FarkedOver: MattStafford: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?

Perhaps.

Suppose I lend you 100 dollars.  I now have 100 dollars less cash, but I can mark down on my books that you owe me 100 dollars.  You now have 100 dollars cash, but have marked down on your books that you owe me 100 dollars.  Now lets say you buy a 100 dollar massage from Frank.  Frank now thinks he has 100 dollars, and has that 100 dollars free and clear.  I still think you owe me 100 dollars.  You don't care anymore.  So both Frank and I expect to be able to buy something with those 100 dollars, but clearly, only one of us can do that.

Now multiply that by a few hundred billion or so and have our entire economy be based on it.

How much does Frank charge for a happy ending? Would it be acceptable to pay him in coconuts?


Frank's massage parlor:

catsnco.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-17 01:05:13 PM

enry: vernonFL: What we need is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

And stop abortions.  And kick poor people off welfare.

Oh, and more tax cuts for the wealthy.


Drug test the poor before they can get food and hand out guns while blindfolded to anyone that wants them.
 
2013-09-17 01:05:21 PM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: You're still fleshing out this idea of a stateless, moneyless, governmentless world, eh?

I don't think full communism will be possible in my lifetime. Socialism sure is though


Oh boy! Is that the flavor of totalitarianism where the will of the people is channeled into one man?

Sign me up!
 
2013-09-17 01:06:06 PM

Aristocles: Oh boy! Is that the flavor of totalitarianism where the will of the people is channeled into one man?

Sign me up!


No?  I'm pretty sure I've never advocated that.
 
2013-09-17 01:06:33 PM
If only there were someone, anyone in this thread who could explain money in terms of coconuts.
 
2013-09-17 01:07:26 PM

Aristocles: FarkedOver: Aristocles: You're still fleshing out this idea of a stateless, moneyless, governmentless world, eh?

I don't think full communism will be possible in my lifetime. Socialism sure is though

Oh boy! Is that the flavor of totalitarianism where the will of the people is channeled into one man?

Sign me up!


Bud duuude, that's not REALtm socialism, man! It doesn't count when it fails!
 
2013-09-17 01:11:13 PM
Pathetic move by Obama giving a speech on the economy, blaming republicans as there was a manhunt going on down the road.
 
2013-09-17 01:12:06 PM

Aristocles: The lender is still owed the money and the recipient of the loan had better care about paying off his debt because the lender might have legal recourse


Yeah, but what if the recipient of the loan can't pay it off.  That is the problem.  What do we do in that situation?
 
2013-09-17 01:12:57 PM

MattStafford: Yeah, but what if the recipient of the loan can't pay it off. That is the problem. What do we do in that situation?


Debtors prison.  Next problem.
 
2013-09-17 01:13:12 PM

MattStafford: Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.

And the economic situation post WWII and today are the exact same, correct?


Oh hey look, it's the guy who slept through his 8:00 am Econ 101 class and pretended he learned something.
 
2013-09-17 01:13:14 PM

FarkedOver: You gave a dead beat a $100!? You're an idiot!

/Can I borrow $100?


Not just me - tons and tons and tons of people gave deadbeats loans.
 
2013-09-17 01:14:41 PM
freak7 2013-09-17 01:11:13 PM
(farky'd as: 7933211 Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post.)

Pathetic move by Obama giving a speech on the economy, blaming republicans as there was a manhunt going on down the road.


I scream you scream we all scream for ice cream!

Except Grover Norquist, amirite?
 
2013-09-17 01:14:59 PM

Russ Feingold's Brass Balls: MattStafford: Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.

And the economic situation post WWII and today are the exact same, correct?

Oh hey look, it's the guy who slept through his 8:00 am Econ 101 class and pretended he learned something.


How dare you, he went to a top 5 school!
 
2013-09-17 01:17:25 PM

FarkedOver: Debtors prison.  Next problem.


You didn't solve the problem!  Do I have to write off the 100 dollars, or do we take the 100 dollars from Frank.  That is the problem, and there isn't an easy answer.  Unfortunately, we need to come up with one for not just Frank and I, but the whole world.
 
2013-09-17 01:18:21 PM

Jackson Herring: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?


look, there are only a finite number of coconuts in the known universe


Well, yes.

I only deal in bananas over here, because as well all know, "The money is in the banana stand".
 
2013-09-17 01:18:24 PM

Russ Feingold's Brass Balls: Oh hey look, it's the guy who slept through his 8:00 am Econ 101 class and pretended he learned something.


jst3p: How dare you, he went to a top 5 school!


The school was so good it actually went negative, top -15 school.
 
2013-09-17 01:18:41 PM

SlothB77: I'm as willing as anybody to believe that Republicans are capable of torpedoing a thriving economy, especially if they get a chance to restrict something that might give people pleasure or spend lots of money on shiny new weapons. But the president and his Democrats have tried the spend-happy approach for many years, and what we have are discouraged workers cracking open generic beer on the sofa, families poorer than they were half a decade ago and high-priced business bailouts that are a net loss for American taxpayers. No wonder American have had it with wasteful government spending and ever-soaring debt ceilings.

Laying the blame for this on Republicans (nevermind that many of them might have done the same themselves if they were in charge) sounds increasingly lame. American media might still be willing to give him a pass, but Germany's MNI called him out for his "slashing comments" that make actually working with the opposition difficult.

Oh snap.


It's a crying shame your serious.
 
2013-09-17 01:19:01 PM

Kittypie070: freak7 2013-09-17 01:11:13 PM
(farky'd as: 7933211 Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post.)

Pathetic move by Obama giving a speech on the economy, blaming republicans as there was a manhunt going on down the road.


I scream you scream we all scream for ice cream!

Except Grover Norquist, amirite?


Go eat some farking ice cream.
 
2013-09-17 01:19:35 PM

studs up: Just keep making my point for me. Everyone can see it but you.
I have to stop proving you potato now. It's too easy and I keep getting Fark time-outs. The good news is that the mods are your friends so they'll keep covering for you.


The mods are my friends because you can't drop a personal attack that is defamatory and untrue. That's not my fault, that's on you.
 
2013-09-17 01:20:41 PM

Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.


Besides, they can spend their scrip at the company store!

(That's what happened when capitalism was unchecked by employment laws....)
 
2013-09-17 01:22:53 PM

MattStafford: FarkedOver: Debtors prison.  Next problem.

You didn't solve the problem!  Do I have to write off the 100 dollars, or do we take the 100 dollars from Frank.  That is the problem, and there isn't an easy answer.  Unfortunately, we need to come up with one for not just Frank and I, but the whole world.


The answer is: you eat your loss and don't make any more stupid loans.
 
2013-09-17 01:24:29 PM

Aristocles: The answer is: you eat your loss and don't make any more stupid loans.


So is that what you are going to tell Germany?  Is that what you are going to tell the Social Security Trust Fund?  Is that what you are going to tell China?
 
2013-09-17 01:25:35 PM

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.

No, because under Capitalism the workers are not forced to do anything. They're given the opportunity to use another's MoP when the other person makes those MoP available.

Besides, they can spend their scrip at the company store!

(That's what happened when capitalism was unchecked by employment laws....)


Those laws were merely the reflection of a changing attitude toward the work place... most aren't necessary as the market would have sorted things out (more efficiently) on its own.
 
2013-09-17 01:26:48 PM

MattStafford: FarkedOver: Debtors prison.  Next problem.

You didn't solve the problem!  Do I have to write off the 100 dollars, or do we take the 100 dollars from Frank.  That is the problem, and there isn't an easy answer.  Unfortunately, we need to come up with one for not just Frank and I, but the whole world.


I think lenders have solved that problem otherwise there would be no lenders.
 
2013-09-17 01:26:58 PM
Ah the resident Internet Economist. Have you met the in-house Dentist?
 
2013-09-17 01:27:10 PM

MattStafford: Aristocles: The answer is: you eat your loss and don't make any more stupid loans.

So is that what you are going to tell Germany?  Is that what you are going to tell the Social Security Trust Fund?  Is that what you are going to tell China?


That's what they should have figured out for themselves.
 
2013-09-17 01:28:43 PM

meat0918: Jackson Herring: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?


look, there are only a finite number of coconuts in the known universe

Well, yes.

I only deal in bananas over here, because as well all know, "The money is in the banana stand".


*looks at the pineapple in my hand and angrily smashes it on the ground and walks away*
 
2013-09-17 01:29:05 PM

theknuckler_33: I think lenders have solved that problem otherwise there would be no lenders.


How have lenders solved that problem?  How has China solved the fact that the US is going to have trouble funding its deficit and repaying its loans?  How has the Social Security Trust Fund solved that problem.  How has Germany solved that problem with regards to Greece?
 
2013-09-17 01:29:12 PM

freak7: Kittypie070: freak7 2013-09-17 01:11:13 PM
(farky'd as: 7933211 Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post.)

Pathetic move by Obama giving a speech on the economy, blaming republicans as there was a manhunt going on down the road.


I scream you scream we all scream for ice cream!

Except Grover Norquist, amirite?


WAAAAH GO 'WAY nasty kitty! My butt is all hurty.


:D
 
2013-09-17 01:29:42 PM

Aristocles: That's what they should have figured out for themselves.


Good answer.  And that is why the system is about to collapse.
 
2013-09-17 01:30:45 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: I think lenders have solved that problem otherwise there would be no lenders.

How have lenders solved that problem?  How has China solved the fact that the US is going to have trouble funding its deficit and repaying its loans?  How has the Social Security Trust Fund solved that problem.  How has Germany solved that problem with regards to Greece?


Oh right. You lending Frank $100 is like countries.

*rolls eyes*

/coconuts!
 
2013-09-17 01:30:51 PM

Aristocles: FarkedOver: Aristocles: Who would take care and work the community land? Everyone? But then who would perform all the several other tasks we rely upon today (for example, off the top of my head, who would run water treatment facilities?)?

You're moving from a micro scenario to a macro scenario.....

How so? Let's say we're talking about a small village, there will still be a need for division of labor. If the land is communal, who would work the land? What about shoes? Would everyone cobble? Would those who work the land have shoes, would those who cobble have veggies?



lol.i.trollyou.com
 
2013-09-17 01:31:00 PM
img.fark.net

Koch brothers' printing press...
 
2013-09-17 01:31:24 PM

MattStafford: Aristocles: That's what they should have figured out for themselves.

Good answer.  And that is why the system is about to collapse.


And yet, for 40 years it hasn't. Even after a credit crunch and a gas crisis. And the deficit has shrunk despite Congress not cutting spending.
 
2013-09-17 01:33:51 PM

trotsky: I liked Reason far better when it wasn't a mouthpiece for the moronic Paultards and wasn't buying into the Limbaugh/Beck/Tea 'tard line of bullshiat.


DeaH: Lionel Mandrake: I remember when Reason was much more subtle when it shilled for Republicans.

It wasn't that it was more reasonable. It was more that they hired some socially liberal libertarians who didn't realize it was a Koch-owned rag. Now, everyone knows, and the more reasonable stay away.


Today I learned Reason wasn't always a Paulbot publication, and the Reason Foundation's board of trustees includes David H. Koch of Koch Industries.
 
2013-09-17 01:34:51 PM

kidgenius: MattStafford: Crotchrocket Slim: I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.

BS truism?

[www.mybudget360.com image 600x360]

Doesn't look like BS to me.

Hey sparky, that's a Housedhold Debt to GDP. Not government debt.

Or are you now trotting out the government-should-be-run-like-a-household BS truism that USA Today completely debunked a few days ago?


Great now when I read through this thread after I get home tonight I'm going to get so blasted I'm going to spend early tomorrow morning wrapped around my toilet.

What did my liver ever do to you MattStafford?
 
2013-09-17 01:37:10 PM

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: FarkedOver: Aristocles: Who would take care and work the community land? Everyone? But then who would perform all the several other tasks we rely upon today (for example, off the top of my head, who would run water treatment facilities?)?

You're moving from a micro scenario to a macro scenario.....

How so? Let's say we're talking about a small village, there will still be a need for division of labor. If the land is communal, who would work the land? What about shoes? Would everyone cobble? Would those who work the land have shoes, would those who cobble have veggies?


[lol.i.trollyou.com image 755x1255]


Actually, no. I have honest discussions with FarkedOver as he or she is honest with his or her beliefs. I was under the impression that he or she was advocating communism, but he or she was merely advocating some sort of socialism-lite, you know, the kind (supposedly) without the repressive totalitarian regime.
 
2013-09-17 01:37:29 PM

Aristocles: Besides, they can spend their scrip at the company store!

(That's what happened when capitalism was unchecked by employment laws....)

Those laws were merely the reflection of a changing attitude toward the work place... most aren't necessary as the market would have sorted things out (more efficiently) on its own.


The free market came up with slavery.
So progressives banned slavery.
So the market came up with scrip and company stores
So progressives banned that.

The history you describe proves only one thing. Without regulation the free market will hurt a lot of people.

Some of us don't want a system that we KNOW will hurt a lot of people.
 
2013-09-17 01:37:45 PM
In other news, a president gave a political speech, not an economic one? Color me shocked.

Yes, the economy is doing better. No, the economy isn't doing great. Yes, there are things Obama could have done better. No, there's nothing he did that made things substantially worse. Yes, the economy went South before Obama took office.

The economy was in a far worse condition than anyone realized, not excluding Obama's own econ team. But NO ONE realized how bad it was going to be. A lot of hay is made out of the graphic "unemployment with stimulus and without" but people seem to pretend that the "without" number was accurate for some reason. If they got everything else wrong, they got that one wrong, too, and that graphic is useless in evaluating what effect stimulus had.

Bah.
 
2013-09-17 01:38:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: Aristocles: That's what they should have figured out for themselves.

Good answer.  And that is why the system is about to collapse.

And yet, for 40 years it hasn't. Even after a credit crunch and a gas crisis. And the deficit has shrunk despite Congress not cutting spending.


The worst we got was the S&P downgrade, which made EVERY OUTSTANDING LOAN the Feds have more expensive.

// fiscal responsibility!
 
2013-09-17 01:39:21 PM

Ricardo Klement: there's nothing he did that made things substantially worse


That's certainly debatable.
 
2013-09-17 01:45:23 PM

Riothamus: Well, if you're as desperate as you say you are, you could just knock the rust off, get these people licensed, and gain some incredibly loyal employees. These people aren't stupid. Train them.I don't mean to come off as harsh, but two of my best friends graduated with Master's in Architecture in 2009.


What we're in need of right now, as I stated above, are experienced project managers. Someone who can take a 6 story, 400 unit hotel all the way from concept to opening day, managing a couple intern-architects (ie. architects who aren't licensed yet).

Inexperienced designers, with masters degrees are a dime a dozen. Why choose someone who graduated in 2009, is rusty on the software and has zero real-world experience, when we could get kids fresh out of grad school and are ready to rock.

We recently did exactly as you suggest and ended up laying off the guy just this last Friday. We paid the time for him to try to get back up on the software and start working a project. Long story short, he farked it up, we canned him, and now are pulling someone off of another project to redo his work and bring the project back up to code. We're paying 2x's the amount of labor to get it done, while taking someone off a profitable project. Paying 3x's to finish what should have been done right the first time is all the reason we need not to hire people who've been out of the industry too long.
 
2013-09-17 01:45:40 PM

theknuckler_33: Oh right. You lending Frank $100 is like countries.

*rolls eyes*

/coconuts!


Sure, just ignore the problem.  That'll fix it.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:32 PM

MattStafford: FarkedOver: Debtors prison.  Next problem.

You didn't solve the problem!  Do I have to write off the 100 dollars, or do we take the 100 dollars from Frank.  That is the problem, and there isn't an easy answer.  Unfortunately, we need to come up with one for not just Frank and I, but the whole world.


Write off the farking $100.  Luckily you made $100 in interest and fees from all the other $100 loans you gave out to joe, mark, keith and penny.  You'll be fine.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:54 PM
No, Subtard, Obama said that the economic situation, which sucks, could be worse, and Republicans aren't really helping make it any better.

Nuance, how does it farking work.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:59 PM

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: there's nothing he did that made things substantially worse

That's certainly debatable.


Not really. If one holds to neo-classical economics, and government intervention can't fix things, one has to look and see if government did anything to make them worse. It would be hard to point to anything that was any worse than adding some administrative overhead, which is a drop in a bucket compared to what the economy has done. The stimulus was largely tax-cuts, which are only supposed to be positive, and the spending was partly on things that needed doing and return >$1, and partly on things that return <$1. Even if that amounts to $300b and we consider it to return a shockingly low $0.90 on the dollar, that means Obama harmed the economy by $30b. In a $16,000b economy, that's really not all that substantial.

(We're talking current economy. Future economy has some effects, too, but we're really judging him based on the now, so I'm keeping it in that context.)
 
2013-09-17 01:48:47 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Oh right. You lending Frank $100 is like countries.

*rolls eyes*

/coconuts!

Sure, just ignore the problem.  That'll fix it.


The solution is end the fed.. then gold standard? Am I right!?
 
2013-09-17 01:49:04 PM

LordJiro: The economy is doing decently. It could be doing better, but the Republican party is holding things back by clinging to a discredited ideology. Trickle-down has never improved the economy; all it does (and was, indeed, designed to do) is suck all the wealth into the pockets of the 1%, at the expense of everyone else. Short-term profits over long-term stability is the "conservative" way.


Funny enough they were talking about trickle down all the way back to the Great Depression. A lot of the same rhetoric from the right then as now. The same hatred of people in need, the same "If you give a man a fish he'll never work again, the lazy bum." Some of the same "Increase production and decrease wages" bs.
 
2013-09-17 01:50:01 PM

jst3p: cameroncrazy1984: Neighborhood Watch: cameroncrazy1984: Federal student loans are...you know...tax dollars.


Ultimately, that's only true when they're not repaid - which they usually aren't.

[citation needed]

Indeed, it looks like they usually are.

[www.realestateconsulting.com image 537x386]


LOL - "usually" is less than 1/10?
 
2013-09-17 01:50:53 PM

PsiChick: No, Subtard, Obama said that the economic situation, which sucks, could be worse, and Republicans aren't really helping make it any better.

Nuance, how does it farking work.


Fark headlines is America's response to the Daily Mail.
 
2013-09-17 01:52:08 PM

Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.


But how can we blame that on Obama? Obviously that's his fault too, right?
 
2013-09-17 01:52:28 PM

johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.


IMPOSSIBLE
the GOP has stated for decades that the government should not and can not create jobs.
the ONLY way to make jobs is tax cuts for the rich and for big corporations
 
2013-09-17 01:52:55 PM
I happened to turn on CNBC while I was flipping the dial and they had Larry Kudlow on talking about how insensitive it was for Obama to make a political speech like that hours after the Navy Yard shooting.

If I didn't know any better, I would've thought he was a shill for Wall Street.
 
2013-09-17 01:53:04 PM

Jormungandr: LordJiro: The economy is doing decently. It could be doing better, but the Republican party is holding things back by clinging to a discredited ideology. Trickle-down has never improved the economy; all it does (and was, indeed, designed to do) is suck all the wealth into the pockets of the 1%, at the expense of everyone else. Short-term profits over long-term stability is the "conservative" way.

Funny enough they were talking about trickle down all the way back to the Great Depression. A lot of the same rhetoric from the right then as now. The same hatred of people in need, the same "If you give a man a fish he'll never work again, the lazy bum." Some of the same "Increase production and decrease wages" bs.


I think they phrased it this way

i457.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 01:53:43 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Oh right. You lending Frank $100 is like countries.

*rolls eyes*

/coconuts!

Sure, just ignore the problem.  That'll fix it.


I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm dismissing your retarded analogies as well as your 'solution' which is basically to tank the economy now in order to pre-empt the collapse you are predicting.
 
2013-09-17 01:53:50 PM

FarkedOver: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Oh right. You lending Frank $100 is like countries.

*rolls eyes*

/coconuts!

Sure, just ignore the problem.  That'll fix it.

The solution is end the fed.. then gold standard? Am I right!?


That, tax cuts, and abolishing all forms of corporate regulation.
 
2013-09-17 01:54:24 PM

DarwiOdrade: FarkedOver: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: Oh right. You lending Frank $100 is like countries.

*rolls eyes*

/coconuts!

Sure, just ignore the problem.  That'll fix it.

The solution is end the fed.. then gold standard? Am I right!?

That, tax cuts, and abolishing all forms of corporate regulation.


....it sounds.... so.... beautiful!
 
2013-09-17 01:54:42 PM

namatad: IMPOSSIBLE
the GOP has stated for decades that the government should not and can not create jobs.


While simultaneously saying that cutting the defense budget would kill jobs.
 
2013-09-17 01:55:30 PM

dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?


These things are RIGHTS damnit! I have a RIGHT to own a house overpriced or not! I have a RIGHT to an expensive higher education even if it's in puppetry and I have a RIGHT to someone else paying for it!
 
2013-09-17 01:55:41 PM

MattStafford: Aristocles: That's what they should have figured out for themselves.

Good answer.  And that is why the system is about to collapse.


About to? Give a time frame please.
 
2013-09-17 01:55:43 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.


everybody would die of alcohol poisoning by 10 AM on any given weekday if we did this...
 
2013-09-17 01:56:30 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?

These things are RIGHTS damnit! I have a RIGHT to own a house overpriced or not! I have a RIGHT to an expensive higher education even if it's in puppetry and I have a RIGHT to someone else paying for it!


I don't think you understand the word "loan"
 
2013-09-17 01:58:10 PM

dantheman195: cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: ftfIGReport: Taxpayers are owed $57.6 billion as of June 30, 2013. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2013, it had realized or written off losses of $29.1 billion that taxpayers will never get back (although taxpayers may profit on other TARP investments), leaving $28.6 billion in TARP funds outstanding. These amounts do not include $8.6 billion in TARP funds spent on housing support programs, which are designed as a Government subsidy, with no repayments to taxpayers expected.

It's funny how Obama begged Bush to release the first half of the TARP funds while he was still in office. Almost as if Obama knew full well this would be a major blunder and wanted to share the blame with Bush.

Major blunder? it saved the economy and only cost $57 billion. Where's the blunder there? You want to save the economy for free? Are you kidding?

Free markets could have washed out the bad debt over time and we would be in a stronger and rapidly improving economy today. It would have been a b**ch don't get me wrong, but a assets would have transferred to new buyers and a new wealth would have taken over. Instead of bailing out the failures that put us in this mess in the first place. kept the country from being in an even worse position than in 1929


Listen, killing someone before they die of cancer cures the cancer, amitrite?
 
2013-09-17 01:58:26 PM
He said he would give you change.    He did,  but it was not envisioned he would change things this badly.

What a train wreck we have going here in 2013 and 2014 probably.

The only economic jargon Obama can throw out there is that 'we need to keep spending'.    It's the bicycle rule.   If you don't pedal, you will tip over.


Geez... Obama turned out to be a real dud.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?

These things are RIGHTS damnit! I have a RIGHT to own a house overpriced or not! I have a RIGHT to an expensive higher education even if it's in puppetry and I have a RIGHT to someone else paying for it!

I don't think you understand the word "loan"


OK, glad I wasn't the only one wondering what they are blathering about.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:48 PM
Good real life scenario:

Actors in Germany, both public and private, have loaned Greece money.  Greece used that money to create its pension and welfare system.  The Greek recipients turned around and spent that money on German goods - buying from separate German actors.  Greece now has no money to pay back the original German actors.

What is the resolution?  Do you stiff the original German actors?  Tax the Germans who sold the Greeks the goods?  Declare war on Greece and take physical property?

And let's complicate matters - suppose the Greek pensioners bought Russian gas with that money.  Do you take the money back from the Russians?  Stiff the Germans?  Declare war on the Greeks?

It is a question that needs to be answered.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:17 PM

netcentric: He said he would give you change.    He did,  but it was not envisioned he would change things this badly.

What a train wreck we have going here in 2013 and 2014 probably.

The only economic jargon Obama can throw out there is that 'we need to keep spending'.    It's the bicycle rule.   If you don't pedal, you will tip over.


Geez... Obama turned out to be a real dud.


You're honestly saying that you were better off in 2008 and 2009 in the middle of the recession than you are now?
 
2013-09-17 02:00:27 PM

MattStafford: Rapmaster2000: Keep fighting the good fight!

One day, you'll show them.  One day you'll show them all.  Then you'll be the one saying "I told you so."  You'll be the victor.

Any day now.

Sure - don't do anything to counter the claim that we have an economy based on FIRE/MIC/Welfare supporting a massive service economy, all supported by debt.


So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?
 
2013-09-17 02:00:30 PM

Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: there's nothing he did that made things substantially worse

That's certainly debatable.

Not really. If one holds to neo-classical economics, and government intervention can't fix things, one has to look and see if government did anything to make them worse. It would be hard to point to anything that was any worse than adding some administrative overhead, which is a drop in a bucket compared to what the economy has done. The stimulus was largely tax-cuts, which are only supposed to be positive, and the spending was partly on things that needed doing and return >$1, and partly on things that return <$1. Even if that amounts to $300b and we consider it to return a shockingly low $0.90 on the dollar, that means Obama harmed the economy by $30b. In a $16,000b economy, that's really not all that substantial.

(We're talking current economy. Future economy has some effects, too, but we're really judging him based on the now, so I'm keeping it in that context.)


I take it you didn't rtfa.

Not only can gov't not fix things, intervention makes things worse as it artificially manipulates a market that is adjusting. So, for all the numbers you cite, there are countless unseen consequences of the Obama Econ Team's trail and error style, "stimulus" and policy bungling.

Also, businesses (save Obama-crony businesses) aren't exactly inspired to expand with Obama in charge, hence the horrendous unemployment numbers throughout Obama's tenure.
 
2013-09-17 02:01:30 PM

hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?


Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.
 
2013-09-17 02:01:53 PM

netcentric: He said he would give you change.    He did,  but it was not envisioned he would change things this badly.

What a train wreck we have going here in 2013 and 2014 probably.

The only economic jargon Obama can throw out there is that 'we need to keep spending'.    It's the bicycle rule.   If you don't pedal, you will tip over.


Geez... Obama turned out to be a real dud.


C'mon. At least put some effort into it. Mailing it in like that doesn't do anyone any good.
 
2013-09-17 02:01:54 PM

Aristocles: Also, businesses (save Obama-crony businesses) aren't exactly inspired to expand with Obama in charge, hence the horrendous unemployment numbers throughout Obama's tenure.


They've been going down genius.
 
2013-09-17 02:03:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you understand the word "loan"


The ones guaranteed by the government in case they default?

Anyway, what the fark do you know about loans? It's not like the Daddy National Bank is going to call your note.
 
2013-09-17 02:05:09 PM

MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.


MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.


Yeah, one of the severe economic consequences of raising taxes on the CEO class is that more money gets reinvested back into companies in the form of upgrades, R&D, and higher wages.

The horror of it all!
 
2013-09-17 02:05:47 PM

MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.


Far less severe than not raising the debt ceiling.
 
2013-09-17 02:06:21 PM

MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.


You realize that we already did both of them and the economy didn't crash, right?
 
2013-09-17 02:06:57 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you understand the word "loan"

The ones guaranteed by the government in case they default?

Anyway, what the fark do you know about loans? It's not like the Daddy National Bank is going to call your note.


Don't they just compensate by printing more notes and take your purchasing power away?
 
2013-09-17 02:07:43 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you understand the word "loan"

The ones guaranteed by the government in case they default?

Anyway, what the fark do you know about loans? It's not like the Daddy National Bank is going to call your note.


Why is it that people always deign to know who I am and what I do? I have about $30k still in student loans to pay off six years after getting out of school. Try again with the ad homs, eh? I'm sure it'll make your argument actually true.
 
2013-09-17 02:08:43 PM

MattStafford: meat0918: Am I reading parts of this thread right, or is someone arguing we've essentially hit "peak money"?

Perhaps.

Suppose I lend you 100 dollarscoconuts. I now have 100 dollarscoconuts less cash, but I can mark down on my books that you owe me 100 dollarscoconuts. You now have 100 dollarscoconuts cash, but have marked down on your books that you owe me 100 dollarscoconuts. Now lets say you buy a 100 dollar massage from Frank. Frank now thinks he has 100 dollarscoconuts, and has that 100 dollarscoconuts free and clear. I still think you owe me 100 dollarscoconuts. You don't care anymore. So both Frank and I expect to be able to buy something with those 100 dollarscoconuts, but clearly, only one of us can do that.

Now multiply that by a few hundred billion or so and have our entire economy be based on it.


Fixed to provide a more accurate representation of the coconut-based economy.
 
2013-09-17 02:09:00 PM

Mrtraveler01: Aristocles: Also, businesses (save Obama-crony businesses) aren't exactly inspired to expand with Obama in charge, hence the horrendous unemployment numbers throughout Obama's tenure.

They've been going down genius.


Oh brother. Another Obamapologist.

How the unemployment number reflect part-time workers who used to have full time jobs? What about those that simply gave up looking for work? Open your eyes, man. Employment is in the shiater under Obama.

Read a book sometime.
 
2013-09-17 02:10:03 PM

Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: Aristocles: Ricardo Klement: there's nothing he did that made things substantially worse

That's certainly debatable.

Not really. If one holds to neo-classical economics, and government intervention can't fix things, one has to look and see if government did anything to make them worse. It would be hard to point to anything that was any worse than adding some administrative overhead, which is a drop in a bucket compared to what the economy has done. The stimulus was largely tax-cuts, which are only supposed to be positive, and the spending was partly on things that needed doing and return >$1, and partly on things that return <$1. Even if that amounts to $300b and we consider it to return a shockingly low $0.90 on the dollar, that means Obama harmed the economy by $30b. In a $16,000b economy, that's really not all that substantial.

(We're talking current economy. Future economy has some effects, too, but we're really judging him based on the now, so I'm keeping it in that context.)

I take it you didn't rtfa.

Not only can gov't not fix things, intervention makes things worse as it artificially manipulates a market that is adjusting. So, for all the numbers you cite, there are countless unseen consequences of the Obama Econ Team's trail and error style, "stimulus" and policy bungling.

Also, businesses (save Obama-crony businesses) aren't exactly inspired to expand with Obama in charge, hence the horrendous unemployment numbers throughout Obama's tenure.


Two things are largely at work here: expectations, and marketing. Expectations certainly matter and affect how people will react in an economy. If they expect taxes to go up, they will behave on those expectations. If down, they will behave differently. Marketing tends to try to shift demand and set expectations. Political marketing is no different. Marketing Obama as a big socialist who will raise taxes certainly had a lot to do with the expectation that he would. But since 2010, there's no reason for any business owner to harbor any such expectation because there's a Republican-controlled House for the foreseeable future. So, really, any reluctance probably has as much to do with Republican Party marketing as Democratic party economic intervention.

Obama's been basically a non-factor on the economy since the passage of Obamacare, whose effects we're not really feeling yet.
 
2013-09-17 02:10:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Try again with the ad homs, eh? I'm sure it'll make your argument actually true.



fuuka.warosu.org
 
2013-09-17 02:10:39 PM
Imagine how much rosier the economy would be if the GOP tried to pass as many jobs bills as they voted to destroy Obamacare. Or tried to pass as many jobs bills as they passed anti-abortion bills.
 
2013-09-17 02:11:21 PM

MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.


What possible severe consequences could happen if the already historical low taxes are raised a little bit more to the 1%?

And it sounds like you are saying the economy will have severe consequences, whether the debt increases or decreases. Interesting...
 
2013-09-17 02:11:38 PM
 

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you understand the word "loan"

The ones guaranteed by the government in case they default?



Yes, the same ones that you generally can't even get rid of in a bankruptcy. A student loan being in 'default' does not mean that the amount loaned is never paid back.
 
2013-09-17 02:11:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You realize that we already did both of them and the economy didn't crash, right?


theknuckler_33: Far less severe than not raising the debt ceiling.


Riothamus: Yeah, one of the severe economic consequences of raising taxes on the CEO class is that more money gets reinvested back into companies in the form of upgrades, R&D, and higher wages.


Just as an FYI, in order to fix out problems, we are going to have to seriously raise taxes and slash military costs.  We have barely even scratched those problems, let alone slash them.
 
2013-09-17 02:14:07 PM
Aristocles:

Read a book sometime.

Is this the new "Study it out"?
 
2013-09-17 02:15:21 PM
please keep in mind when talking about economics with cameroncrazy1984 -- he thinks wealth cannot be created

you can't make this stuff up lol
 
2013-09-17 02:16:05 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: You realize that we already did both of them and the economy didn't crash, right?

theknuckler_33: Far less severe than not raising the debt ceiling.

Riothamus: Yeah, one of the severe economic consequences of raising taxes on the CEO class is that more money gets reinvested back into companies in the form of upgrades, R&D, and higher wages.

Just as an FYI, in order to fix out problems, we are going to have to seriously raise taxes and slash military costs.  We have barely even scratched those problems, let alone slash them.


Umm I don't see any thinking person in this thread actually advocating against raising taxes or cutting military spending...
 
2013-09-17 02:16:45 PM

the_dude_abides: please keep in mind when talking about economics with cameroncrazy1984 -- he thinks wealth cannot be created

you can't make this stuff up lol


Wealth is fossilized labor, labor can be performed.

This is consistent with pretty much every school of thought out there. Are you sure you're not misreading it?
 
2013-09-17 02:16:58 PM

Ricardo Klement: Two things are largely at work here: expectations, and marketing. Expectations certainly matter and affect how people will react in an economy. If they expect taxes to go up, they will behave on those expectations. If down, they will behave differently. Marketing tends to try to shift demand and set expectations. Political marketing is no different. Marketing Obama as a big socialist who will raise taxes certainly had a lot to do with the expectation that he would. But since 2010, there's no reason for any business owner to harbor any such expectation because there's a Republican-controlled House for the foreseeable future. So, really, any reluctance probably has as much to do with Republican Party marketing as Democratic party economic intervention.

Obama's been basically a non-factor on the economy since the passage of Obamacare, whose effects we're not really feeling yet.


I agree with most of this. I still think that business is bracing for Obamacare (expectation). Also, it's fair to say that it's the perception of Obama as a socialist who wants to "spread the money around" is responsible for the uncertainty and reluctance to expand... but Obama gave the repubs plenty of fodder for that marketing campaign (see the aforementioned quote).
 
2013-09-17 02:17:04 PM

Aristocles: What about those that simply gave up looking for work?


people who gave up looking are no longer competing with others for jobs.
they are out of the system

the bigger problem is old people who refuse to stop working.
we need to force them to quit their jobs to open up those positions for younger people.

FFS, sure they lost their retirement money to the crash in 2007, but that is no reason for the rest of us to suffer!!
 
2013-09-17 02:17:10 PM

Mrtraveler01: Aristocles:

Read a book sometime.

Is this the new "Study it out"?


If you "study it out", you wouldn't be asking the "is this the new study it out" question...
 
2013-09-17 02:18:15 PM

Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.


It wasn't a typical recession. On paper the GDP went down, but that was because of demobilization, etc. but unemployment wasn't out of the ordinary. What else was Truman supposed to do? Keep fighting WWII? Besides, the economy took right off within a year or so.
 
2013-09-17 02:18:40 PM

hugram: Mrtraveler01: Aristocles:

Read a book sometime.

Is this the new "Study it out"?

If you "study it out", you wouldn't be asking the "is this the new study it out" question...


Touche.
 
2013-09-17 02:25:08 PM

hugram: Mrtraveler01: Aristocles:

Read a book sometime.

Is this the new "Study it out"?

If you "study it out", you wouldn't be asking the "is this the new study it out" question...


I read that in a book one time.
 
2013-09-17 02:25:59 PM

MattStafford: Good real life scenario:

Actors in Germany, both public and private, have loaned Greece money.  Greece used that money to create its pension and welfare system.  The Greek recipients turned around and spent that money on German goods - buying from separate German actors.  Greece now has no money to pay back the original German actors.

What is the resolution?  Do you stiff the original German actors?  Tax the Germans who sold the Greeks the goods?  Declare war on Greece and take physical property?

And let's complicate matters - suppose the Greek pensioners bought Russian gas with that money.  Do you take the money back from the Russians?  Stiff the Germans?  Declare war on the Greeks?

It is a question that needs to be answered.


Still waiting for someone to tackle the above.
 
2013-09-17 02:30:45 PM

MattStafford: MattStafford: Good real life scenario:

Actors in Germany, both public and private, have loaned Greece money.  Greece used that money to create its pension and welfare system.  The Greek recipients turned around and spent that money on German goods - buying from separate German actors.  Greece now has no money to pay back the original German actors.

What is the resolution?  Do you stiff the original German actors?  Tax the Germans who sold the Greeks the goods?  Declare war on Greece and take physical property?

And let's complicate matters - suppose the Greek pensioners bought Russian gas with that money.  Do you take the money back from the Russians?  Stiff the Germans?  Declare war on the Greeks?

It is a question that needs to be answered.

Still waiting for someone to tackle the above.


It's really quite simple my good man.  What you do first and foremost is cut taxes on the wealthy.  After you have accomplished this you the End the Fed.  Once this step is complete you then switch to the gold standard.  After all this is said and done I think you will find that things fall into place quite nicely.
 
2013-09-17 02:31:21 PM

FarkedOver: It's really quite simple my good man.  What you do first and foremost is cut taxes on the wealthy.  After you have accomplished this you the End the Fed.  Once this step is complete you then switch to the gold standard.  After all this is said and done I think you will find that things fall into place quite nicely.


Wow.
 
2013-09-17 02:31:27 PM

MattStafford: MattStafford: Good real life scenario:

Actors in Germany, both public and private, have loaned Greece money.  Greece used that money to create its pension and welfare system.  The Greek recipients turned around and spent that money on German goods - buying from separate German actors.  Greece now has no money to pay back the original German actors.

What is the resolution?  Do you stiff the original German actors?  Tax the Germans who sold the Greeks the goods?  Declare war on Greece and take physical property?

And let's complicate matters - suppose the Greek pensioners bought Russian gas with that money.  Do you take the money back from the Russians?  Stiff the Germans?  Declare war on the Greeks?

It is a question that needs to be answered.

Still waiting for someone to tackle the above.


Are you somehow confused about the process?
 
2013-09-17 02:33:15 PM

qorkfiend: Are you somehow confused about the process?


Sure - I'm confused about the resolution.  What happens?
 
2013-09-17 02:38:35 PM
Sure gets quiet in here sometimes.
 
2013-09-17 02:40:00 PM

MattStafford: MattStafford: Good real life scenario:

Actors in Germany, both public and private, have loaned Greece money.  Greece used that money to create its pension and welfare system.  The Greek recipients turned around and spent that money on German goods - buying from separate German actors.  Greece now has no money to pay back the original German actors.

What is the resolution?  Do you stiff the original German actors?  Tax the Germans who sold the Greeks the goods?  Declare war on Greece and take physical property?

And let's complicate matters - suppose the Greek pensioners bought Russian gas with that money.  Do you take the money back from the Russians?  Stiff the Germans?  Declare war on the Greeks?

It is a question that needs to be answered.

Still waiting for someone to tackle the above.


This has essentially been playing out in the news for the past 4-5 years. You should read up on it to see how they have been trying to deal with it.
 
2013-09-17 02:40:49 PM

MattStafford: qorkfiend: Are you somehow confused about the process?

Sure - I'm confused about the resolution.  What happens?


Is it a different process than defaulting on any other loan?
 
2013-09-17 02:42:42 PM
What, me worry?
i46.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 02:44:11 PM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: You realize that we already did both of them and the economy didn't crash, right?

theknuckler_33: Far less severe than not raising the debt ceiling.

Riothamus: Yeah, one of the severe economic consequences of raising taxes on the CEO class is that more money gets reinvested back into companies in the form of upgrades, R&D, and higher wages.

Just as an FYI, in order to fix out problems, we are going to have to seriously raise taxes and slash military costs.  We have barely even scratched those problems, let alone slash them.


You're kidding, right? Have you looked at the deficit lately?
 
2013-09-17 02:48:21 PM

raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.


No one made you take out loans, pay them back your farkign self unless you're willing to pay for my mortgage and tax bill, then I'll help you out.
 
2013-09-17 02:51:27 PM

theknuckler_33: This has essentially been playing out in the news for the past 4-5 years. You should read up on it to see how they have been trying to deal with it.


I'm familiar with how Greece is being handled.  And it hasn't been pretty for Greece, and I'm sure a lot of people in here disagree with how it has been handled.  So I'm curious as to how everyone else would want this situation to be handled.  And I'm curious as to how people expect other entities (states, municipalities, individuals) in a similar situation will handle it.

Because this is the major problem throughout the world.  And the answer will decide how the next generation plays out.

qorkfiend: Is it a different process than defaulting on any other loan?


Yeah - the loan is far more massive, and the lending entity just can't "write it off" without severe economic consequences.  In addition, when this entity defaults, it results in massive hardship for a large number of people.
 
2013-09-17 02:52:24 PM

Triaxis: raerae1980: johnryan51: Cmon republicans make a jobs bill. Even a crappy one. Anything. Please start acting like adults.

This.  And do something about the student loans!!!!    That would help my generation out a lot.

No one made you take out loans, pay them back your farkign self unless you're willing to pay for my mortgage and tax bill, then I'll help you out.


You know how I know you don't know what (s)he was talking about?
 
2013-09-17 02:53:57 PM

MattStafford: I'm familiar with how Greece is being handled. And it hasn't been pretty for Greece, and I'm sure a lot of people in here disagree with how it has been handled. So I'm curious as to how everyone else would want this situation to be handled. And I'm curious as to how people expect other entities (states, municipalities, individuals) in a similar situation will handle it.

Because this is the major problem throughout the world. And the answer will decide how the next generation plays out.


In that case, Greece should default on their loans, leave the eurozone and nationalize the commanding heights of their economy and elect leftist leaders.
 
2013-09-17 02:55:24 PM

namatad: Aristocles: What about those that simply gave up looking for work?

people who gave up looking are no longer competing with others for jobs.
they are out of the system

the bigger problem is old people who refuse to stop working.
we need to force them to quit their jobs to open up those positions for younger people.

FFS, sure they lost their retirement money to the crash in 2007, but that is no reason for the rest of us to suffer!!


Even if we hadn't crashed in 2007, most of them didn't have enough to retire on anyways.
 
2013-09-17 02:58:39 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: This has essentially been playing out in the news for the past 4-5 years. You should read up on it to see how they have been trying to deal with it.

I'm familiar with how Greece is being handled.  And it hasn't been pretty for Greece, and I'm sure a lot of people in here disagree with how it has been handled.  So I'm curious as to how everyone else would want this situation to be handled.  And I'm curious as to how people expect other entities (states, municipalities, individuals) in a similar situation will handle it.

Because this is the major problem throughout the world.  And the answer will decide how the next generation plays out.


I'm not sure I've heard a whole lot of chatter here criticizing the handling of the Greek debt crisis. They are going to be in a tough situation for years to come. I hardly see their scenario as being a justification for a lightning quick slash to spending here in the US thereby causing an immediate shock to the economy likely causing another recession when deficits are already coming down and the economy, while not exactly humming along, is expanding at a modest pace and has been for a few years.  I certainly am not willing to shoot ourselves in the foot today because folks like you are predicting an aneurysm at some point in the future.
 
2013-09-17 02:58:48 PM
you guys are arguing with a farker who thinks that the US economy is just like a household budget. just sayin'.
 
2013-09-17 03:00:10 PM

FlashHarry: you guys are arguing with a farker who thinks that the US economy is just like a household budget. just sayin'.


It's very similar.  All entities operate under very similar economic constraints.
 
2013-09-17 03:02:20 PM

MattStafford: qorkfiend: Are you somehow confused about the process?

Sure - I'm confused about the resolution.  What happens?


Here's what happens. Loans don't get re-paid, promises broken, austerity. Lost jobs, belly up businesses, investments dry up. Political unrest, strikes, riots. Riot response, police brutality, martial law. Demagoguery, compliance, dictatorship, perpetual poverty.

Ruination.
 
2013-09-17 03:05:06 PM

Aristocles: Here's what happens. Loans don't get re-paid, promises broken, austerity. Lost jobs, belly up businesses, investments dry up. Political unrest, strikes, riots. Riot response, police brutality, martial law. Demagoguery, compliance, dictatorship, perpetual poverty.

Ruination.


Are you sure?  I thought there weren't negative consequences to living beyond your means.
 
2013-09-17 03:07:42 PM

karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world


From that post, I'd say you wouldn't know the first thing about shame.
 
2013-09-17 03:09:59 PM

MattStafford: Aristocles: Here's what happens. Loans don't get re-paid, promises broken, austerity. Lost jobs, belly up businesses, investments dry up. Political unrest, strikes, riots. Riot response, police brutality, martial law. Demagoguery, compliance, dictatorship, perpetual poverty.

Ruination.

Are you sure?  I thought there weren't negative consequences to living beyond your means.


I can definitely picture the scenario.. but..
Who am I kidding? BAILOUTS for EVERYONE! Whoopee!
 
2013-09-17 03:13:20 PM

theknuckler_33: I'm not sure I've heard a whole lot of chatter here criticizing the handling of the Greek debt crisis. They are going to be in a tough situation for years to come. I hardly see their scenario as being a justification for a lightning quick slash to spending here in the US thereby causing an immediate shock to the economy likely causing another recession when deficits are already coming down and the economy, while not exactly humming along, is expanding at a modest pace and has been for a few years.  I certainly am not willing to shoot ourselves in the foot today because folks like you are predicting an aneurysm at some point in the future.


shiat can hit the fan pretty quick.
 
2013-09-17 03:13:43 PM

MattStafford: Still waiting for someone to tackle the above.


Ed Harrison has a pretty good run down of what is involved:
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/06/greece-ireland-bondholders.h tm l

Barron's also had a decent article on this topic:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111903548904576343340 19 5494116.html

//Those questions have not only been discussed at length by many economist and financial journalist but countries have already implemented their own solutions.
//Heck negotiations with Greek bondholders took place a year ago.
//Cheers
 
2013-09-17 03:17:39 PM

MattStafford: FlashHarry: you guys are arguing with a farker who thinks that the US economy is just like a household budget. just sayin'.

It's very similar.  All entities operate under very similar economic constraints.


This is why you aren't taken seriously.
 
2013-09-17 03:22:34 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: I'm not sure I've heard a whole lot of chatter here criticizing the handling of the Greek debt crisis. They are going to be in a tough situation for years to come. I hardly see their scenario as being a justification for a lightning quick slash to spending here in the US thereby causing an immediate shock to the economy likely causing another recession when deficits are already coming down and the economy, while not exactly humming along, is expanding at a modest pace and has been for a few years.  I certainly am not willing to shoot ourselves in the foot today because folks like you are predicting an aneurysm at some point in the future.

shiat can hit the fan pretty quick.


Just like an aneurysm. Better get my gun.
 
2013-09-17 03:26:14 PM

jst3p: This is why you aren't taken seriously.


Sorry man - countries don't magically escape the laws of economics just because they are countries.
 
2013-09-17 03:28:03 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: dantheman195: cameroncrazy1984: Aristocles: ftfIGReport: Taxpayers are owed $57.6 billion as of June 30, 2013. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2013, it had realized or written off losses of $29.1 billion that taxpayers will never get back (although taxpayers may profit on other TARP investments), leaving $28.6 billion in TARP funds outstanding. These amounts do not include $8.6 billion in TARP funds spent on housing support programs, which are designed as a Government subsidy, with no repayments to taxpayers expected.

It's funny how Obama begged Bush to release the first half of the TARP funds while he was still in office. Almost as if Obama knew full well this would be a major blunder and wanted to share the blame with Bush.

Major blunder? it saved the economy and only cost $57 billion. Where's the blunder there? You want to save the economy for free? Are you kidding?

Free markets could have washed out the bad debt over time and we would be in a stronger and rapidly improving economy today. It would have been a b**ch don't get me wrong, but a assets would have transferred to new buyers and a new wealth would have taken over. Instead of bailing out the failures that put us in this mess in the first place. kept the country from being in an even worse position than in 1929

Listen, killing someone before they die of cancer cures the cancer, amitrite?


We still don't know how this whole economic situation is going to pan out. Some are saying massive inflation will eventually sit it, hey isn't that how the 1% got their big wealth increases? Through inflation? That should be sign something is going to happen.
 
2013-09-17 03:32:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: dantheman195: Again, why is this a taxpayer problem?

These things are RIGHTS damnit! I have a RIGHT to own a house overpriced or not! I have a RIGHT to an expensive higher education even if it's in puppetry and I have a RIGHT to someone else paying for it!

I don't think you understand the word "loan"


That the difference, if banks or private institutions were loaning the money people would take the terms more seriously, understand the consequences and pick degree/career paths that have demands. But once the government gets involved everyone involved looks at it as "free money". Just look at the housing bubble, dumps in the ghetto were selling for 5x what they sold for a couple years ago ,but when anyone can who can fog a mirror can get a loan it creates a false demand and prices sky rocketed.
 
2013-09-17 03:32:37 PM

Mentat: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776. There were probably people back then saying the same thing you are. And yet somehow we've still got enough coconuts to survive.

kidgenius: Sorry, but even the US only paid off the debt once, and was in debt the very next day.

Not like this, though.

We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.  Truman went into hardcore austerity/demobilization mode and it sent the economy into a recession.


Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.
 
2013-09-17 03:37:40 PM

El Morro: karnal: It's a shame that the inconvenience of the Navy Yard shooting got in the way of his campaign speech about how he saved the world

From that post, I'd say you wouldn't know the first thing about shame.


....and you sound like a government worker that knows everything about shame.
 
2013-09-17 03:39:39 PM

Riothamus: MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.

MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.

Yeah, one of the severe economic consequences of raising taxes on the CEO class is that more money gets reinvested back into companies in the form of upgrades, R&D, and higher wages.

The horror of it all!


The problem is the wealthy are very mobile, they will move on a drop of a feather. They will move their businesses where ever they feel they can get a economic advantage. They did this the 80's when they moved their factories from northeast liberal states like NY down to the south where they can pay Jethro 9 bucks an hour without a pesky union involved. In the 90's they realized that they can move that factory south of the boarder into Mexico where they can pay Paco 9 bucks a day. And then in the 2000's they realized they can move that factory to China and pay Chang 9 bucks a week. Take a look at Detroit, what killed it was the wealthy moved out and took their businesses with them. Now the place is a liberal dream.
 
2013-09-17 03:40:31 PM

jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.


What am I missing?  That austerity results in a recession?  Obviously.
 
2013-09-17 03:46:50 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: This is why you aren't taken seriously.

Sorry man - countries don't magically escape the laws of economics just because they are countries.


Countries operate under different laws of economics than your coconut-based fantasies. Mainly due to the fact that money isn't fruit.
 
2013-09-17 03:47:28 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.

What am I missing?  That austerity results in a recession?  Obviously.


And yet somehow you think that austerity is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
2013-09-17 03:57:21 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.

What am I missing?  That austerity results in a recession?  Obviously.


Let me try and be more clear, I will only post the relevant parts:

 cameroncrazy1984: Our government has had debt since 1776.

MattStafford:
 Not like this, though.

  Mentat: We had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after WWII.


We have ALWAYS been in debt, how can you say it isn't sustainable?
 
2013-09-17 03:57:44 PM

dantheman195: Riothamus: MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.

MattStafford: hugram: So you are cool with taxing the 1% a little more to help bring down the debt? Are you cool with cutting military spending? Doing both would help in bringing down the debt. Do you agree or disagree? Anyway, since it seems only now the R's are concern about the debt, shouldn't the House Republicans pass bills to increase taxes and cut military spending?

Sure - totally fine with both of those options.  But there will be economic consequences (severe) to both of those actions.

Yeah, one of the severe economic consequences of raising taxes on the CEO class is that more money gets reinvested back into companies in the form of upgrades, R&D, and higher wages.

The horror of it all!

The problem is the wealthy are very mobile, they will move on a drop of a feather. They will move their businesses where ever they feel they can get a economic advantage. They did this the 80's when they moved their factories from northeast liberal states like NY down to the south where they can pay Jethro 9 bucks an hour without a pesky union involved. In the 90's they realized that they can move that factory south of the boarder into Mexico where they can pay Paco 9 bucks a day. And then in the 2000's they realized they can move that factory to China and pay Chang 9 bucks a week. Take a look at Detroit, what killed it was the wealthy moved out and took their businesses with them. Now the place is a liberal dream.


And you're assuming that the US has to let them get away with it. What happens if we levy punitive taxes upon all overseas income earned by outsourcers? The model of which you speak may be economically feasible, but only because we allow it.

Besides, name another country on the planet with our combination of infrastructure, qualified workers, rule of law, technological sophistication, and easy access to the strongest consumer market. NAME ONE.

Until you can, I suggest you stop sucking Koch and living in fear of what your master might do.
 
2013-09-17 03:58:42 PM

dantheman195: The problem is the wealthy are very mobile, they will move on a drop of a feather.


They are mobile but they still need access to a means of production, customers with money, and raw resources. Access to subsidies, favorable laws/regs, and political influence are also important.

Moving can be problematic not impossible but problematic.

//You should read "Poorly Made in China" by Paul Midler, it is a cautionary tale of moving your production abroad.
 
2013-09-17 04:17:13 PM

Flargan: dantheman195: The problem is the wealthy are very mobile, they will move on a drop of a feather.

They are mobile but they still need access to a means of production, customers with money, and raw resources. Access to subsidies, favorable laws/regs, and political influence are also important.

Moving can be problematic not impossible but problematic.

//You should read "Poorly Made in China" by Paul Midler, it is a cautionary tale of moving your production abroad.


Didn't some of the first companies that outsourced their customer service to India have to create and expand the basic infrastructure like electric service, water, etc. for their buildings just to be able to function.

I thought one or two of them built their own power plants because the local power was just to unreliable.

It's not a simple matter of "Well, taxes went up, time to move my business to Burma"
 
2013-09-17 04:26:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Countries operate under different laws of economics than your coconut-based fantasies. Mainly due to the fact that money isn't fruit.


remember folks, cameroncrazy1984thinks wealth can't be created
 
2013-09-17 04:35:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.

What am I missing?  That austerity results in a recession?  Obviously.

And yet somehow you think that austerity is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


We should destroy the economy now in order to save it.

This is essentially the argument for Austerity.

It should only be considered when a country is in a similar situation to Greece, otherwise you have the UK which also uses it and whose economy is currently in the toilet because of it.
 
2013-09-17 04:37:19 PM

meat0918: Didn't some of the first companies that outsourced their customer service to India have to create and expand the basic infrastructure like electric service, water, etc. for their buildings just to be able to function.

I thought one or two of them built their own power plants because the local power was just to unreliable.

It's not a simple matter of "Well, taxes went up, time to move my business to Burma"


I don't know much about the early days of outsourcing to India but I don't find it hard to believe that under developed infrastructure was a problem.
 
2013-09-17 04:40:48 PM

thurstonxhowell: studs up: Also, my job is awesome. I get to deal in chemistry, electro mechanics, regular ol' mechanics, statistical analysis and get to travel. Get your headset, call your mommy. Dumb Blond owns you now.

This is sad.


Why are you sad?
 
2013-09-17 04:41:52 PM

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Why would you deprive a would-be worker the chance to utilize a Capitalist's means of production? That seems cruel. A Capitalist simple allows the less-well-to-do a chance to feed their families despite their not being able to afford their own means of production (e.g., land, equipment for farming; sophisticated and expensive tools that several industries require now-a-days).

You're thinking of serfdom.


Be fair, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.  If YOU were 12, you might get them confused too.
 
2013-09-17 04:44:27 PM

studs up: thurstonxhowell: studs up: Also, my job is awesome. I get to deal in chemistry, electro mechanics, regular ol' mechanics, statistical analysis and get to travel. Get your headset, call your mommy. Dumb Blond owns you now.

This is sad.

Why are you sad?


Because you aren't married to a Swedish supermodel like me.
 
2013-09-17 04:44:31 PM

the_dude_abides: cameroncrazy1984: Countries operate under different laws of economics than your coconut-based fantasies. Mainly due to the fact that money isn't fruit.

remember folks, cameroncrazy1984thinks wealth can't be created


You're missing the key takeaway.  Coconuts are fruit?

There's a seed in there?  I'll be a sonuvabiatch...  It's a drupe.  Like a nectarine, or a peach.

tmyk.jpg
 
2013-09-17 04:47:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.

What am I missing?  That austerity results in a recession?  Obviously.

And yet somehow you think that austerity is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

We should destroy the economy now in order to save it.

This is essentially the argument for Austerity.

It should only be considered when a country is in a similar situation to Greece, otherwise you have the UK which also uses it and whose economy is currently in the toilet because of it.


Keep in mind, it doesn't solve Greece's problem.  It mitigates the Eurozones problems with Greece, but unless Greece wants to start collecting taxes, their problems won't go away.  It's the best example around of why cutting spending doesn't fix revenue problems.

Then again, I'm told that you simply can't raise revenue by raising taxes cause magic, so I guess we're just stuck spiraling into debty oblivion.  Oh well?
 
2013-09-17 04:50:10 PM

BeesNuts: You're missing the key takeaway.  Coconuts are fruit?

There's a seed in there?  I'll be a sonuvabiatch...  It's a drupe.  Like a nectarine, or a peach.

tmyk.jpg


i wish this guy were still alive so we could nominate him as the fed chairman:
newmusicunited.files.wordpress.com

you put da lime on de coconut...
 
2013-09-17 05:03:15 PM

Mrtraveler01: studs up: thurstonxhowell: studs up: Also, my job is awesome. I get to deal in chemistry, electro mechanics, regular ol' mechanics, statistical analysis and get to travel. Get your headset, call your mommy. Dumb Blond owns you now.

This is sad.

Why are you sad?

Because you aren't married to a Swedish supermodel like me.


Man....now I hate my life. :)
 
2013-09-17 05:08:58 PM

BeesNuts: Then again, I'm told that you simply can't raise revenue by raising taxes cause magic, so I guess we're just stuck spiraling into debty oblivion. Oh well?


Austerity can also lead to increased emigration. (Many sight Latvia as an example of this)
I have read a few articles about an increase in Greek citizens moving to Germany and other EU nations.

//Cheers
 
2013-09-17 05:45:05 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: This is why you aren't taken seriously.

Sorry man - countries don't magically escape the laws of economics just because they are countries.


What's the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics?
 
2013-09-17 08:24:20 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: MattStafford: Our economy has been based on debt for the past 40 years.  Anytime there has been a downturn, the fed lowers rates, spurs some more debt creation, and gets the economy going again.  You can't permanently build an economy on debt, however.

Sorry folks, time to go home - it's over.

I want to make a politics thread drinking game of whenever someone trots out this completely BS rightwing truism or any other ones like "government is best run like a business" we all take a shot of cheap Scotch.


No no. Government CAN be run like a business in that it's best to pursue the best return on investment. Interestingly enough, the ROI on improving food stamps/Medicaid is impressive while the ROI on cutting taxes across the board is pretty weak.

Since our business is clearly running a negative cash flow, it would be most wise to cut things that produce limited results (like intentionally socializing the profits of drug companies by forcing Medicare to pay full retail price) while pouring as much money as possible into positive ROI territory. Stafford isn't a windowlicking retard who fails to grasp the basics of macroeconomics; he's a progressive genius.
 
2013-09-17 08:31:34 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.

What am I missing?  That austerity results in a recession?  Obviously.


I've met Matt Stafford, and you're no Matt Stafford.
In fact, he would kick your ass if he knew what you were saying in his name.
 
2013-09-18 02:29:03 AM

MattStafford: jst3p: Hey coconut, you must have missed this.

/and if you respond with household debt I will laugh even harder.

What am I missing?


An understanding of economics.
 
Displayed 339 of 339 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report