|
On January 14 2012 08:29 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Please stop coming into this thread to make dumb blanket statements about Paul, his supporters, and austrian economics. If you want to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, please inform us why Keynesians have essentially no explanation for stagflation. Thought so. Here's some reading: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
The answer to stagflation is expectations? Where did you hear that Keynes doesn't have an answer to stagflation. Expected expansionary monetary policy is built into prices and wages, so there is no effect besides inflation. Where do you get your information from? This is 300 level stuff here, intermediate macro.
|
On January 14 2012 08:29 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Please stop coming into this thread to make dumb blanket statements about Paul, his supporters, and austrian economics. If you want to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, please inform us why Keynesians have essentially no explanation for stagflation. Thought so. Here's some reading: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
Will you stop with this commercial advertisement. Linking also does not contribute anything worthwhile.
|
On January 14 2012 08:31 Velr wrote:
And you mr. Solar could tell my, where i ever, said Keynesians got it right..
Here is a general hint:
Economics are a soft science.. like A R T.
Do you see people advocating to have a solution for ART?
no you don't... Because that would be fucking stupid. Like praising some economic theory.
Funny, 99.9% of your country's prosperity is due to "hands-off capitalism. It's a shame you can't see that.
Also, your comparison of economic theory with art is not relevant and frankly, quite stupid.
|
On January 14 2012 08:31 Velr wrote:
And you mr. Solar could tell my, where i ever, said Keynesians got it right..
Here is a general hint:
Economics are a soft science.. like A R T.
Do you see people advocating to have a solution for ART?
no you don't... Because that would be fucking stupid. Like praising some economic theory.
Art is not a science at all and economics being "soft" science just means it is not "mature" enough, it does not mean it cannot use scientific method at all or that it cannot become "harder" science in the future. Maybe it can't but I see no definitive evidence for that.
|
On January 14 2012 07:46 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:25 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote:The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs) Defense spending? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesYup, looks like that is beating the shit out of inflation as well. FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010. Welfare? *facepalm* Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation. That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling. Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education. EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent. First and foremost, these countries experienced their greatest improvement in prosperity during the 1960's when the production of hydrocarbons from the nearby North Sea took off. This coincided with several social measures being enacted which unjustly took all the credit, when in actuality, it was the capitalistic sale of oil.
Sweden and Finland have no oil or gas deposits. And the public school system in Finland is one of the best there is in the world. By the way there is no "europe welfare system". There all different and some work and some not.
|
I invite you to research the swiss finances, you will be in for a suprise.. Banks are important, but by FAR not our only asset.
And my comparison to Art is obviously stupid... Because elese you wouldn't get how stupid your Austrian/Keneysian/wtfdoicareian theories about economics are. Theoreis don't work for SOFT sciences like economics.. STOP praising them.
Economics is driven by humans. Humans are retarded, irrational monkeys.
Let's base your science on the behaviour of retarded, irrational monkeys.
Good luck.
|
On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying 
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/
Noun:
The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
|
On January 14 2012 08:34 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:29 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On January 14 2012 08:22 Velr wrote:Btw: my country is making profit atm  . Please stop coming into this thread to make dumb blanket statements about Paul, his supporters, and austrian economics. If you want to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, please inform us why Keynesians have essentially no explanation for stagflation. Thought so. Here's some reading: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp The answer to stagflation is expectations? Where did you hear that Keynes doesn't have an answer to stagflation. Expected expansionary monetary policy is built into prices and wages, so there is no effect besides inflation. Where do you get your information from? This is 300 level stuff here, intermediate macro.
I think the answer to your questions where he gets his information from is in the post you quoted
|
On January 14 2012 08:39 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category? cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
And in communism everyone would be happy and sun would shine on everyone of us and we would be free of all oppression. Yes, yes, utopian future based on wishful thinking was advertised before. Also would you stop with your constant advertising ?
|
On January 14 2012 08:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:39 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category? cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
|
On January 14 2012 08:39 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category? cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
Actually the problem with Rothbard is Linear Time: for a more reliable site than mises.org check out http://www.timecube.com/
|
mcc, if you bothered to read works like Man, Economy, and State, then we wouldn't need to keep linking it because you'd already know that the logical arguments it gives for the abolishment of central planning are near infalliable.
Also, I'm sick of income equality being associated with economic success. It's a bullshit idea based on envy (see "On The Tarantulas" from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Gini coefficient as a measure of success is absolute nonsense.
|
On January 14 2012 08:55 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:47 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:39 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category? cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government. Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now.. A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
|
On January 14 2012 08:58 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
mcc, if you bothered to read works like Man, Economy, and State, then we wouldn't need to keep linking it because you'd already know that the logical arguments it gives for the abolishment of central planning are near infalliable.
Also, I'm sick of income equality being associated with economic success. It's a bullshit idea based on envy (see "On The Tarantulas" from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Gini coefficient as a measure of success is absolute nonsense.
Hahaha.Thus Spoke Zarathustra for a lesson on economic success. This thread's getting really good. I bet people upset at the recent science tangent are begging for its return at this point.
|
On January 14 2012 09:00 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:55 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:47 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:39 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category? cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government. Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now.. A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism. Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
|
On January 14 2012 09:03 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:58 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
mcc, if you bothered to read works like Man, Economy, and State, then we wouldn't need to keep linking it because you'd already know that the logical arguments it gives for the abolishment of central planning are near infalliable.
Also, I'm sick of income equality being associated with economic success. It's a bullshit idea based on envy (see "On The Tarantulas" from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Gini coefficient as a measure of success is absolute nonsense.
Hahaha. Thus Spoke Zarathustra for a lesson on economic success. This threads getting really good. I bet people upset at the recent science tangent are begging for its return at this point.
Nobody said it was a lesson on economic success. It's a chapter pointing out the hive-mind, socialistic call for "equality."
|
I can't believe there are people who are actually against the study of economics. How stupid are people in this thread going to get?
|
On January 14 2012 09:03 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 09:00 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:55 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:47 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:39 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental. Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category? cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. In a free society prosperity would flourish, as would a middle class.. maybe you should read some http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government. Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now.. A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism. Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see. You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Krugman points out some of the problems with balancing the budget:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/krugman-america-isnt-a-corporation.html
That is just from TODAY, I could post a half dozen stories similar to that everyday, but it isn't conductive to dialogue. Why should we even bother getting you to 'debunk' these articles? Are you a Nobel prize winning economist, have you written hundreds of articles in the finest economic journals in the world, do you have a column in the best newspaper in the USA? Why is your word more valuable then that of Mr. Krugman
Edit: Here is another Krugman article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html
Have fun with your debunking! 
|
On January 14 2012 09:06 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 09:03 frogrubdown wrote:On January 14 2012 08:58 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
mcc, if you bothered to read works like Man, Economy, and State, then we wouldn't need to keep linking it because you'd already know that the logical arguments it gives for the abolishment of central planning are near infalliable.
Also, I'm sick of income equality being associated with economic success. It's a bullshit idea based on envy (see "On The Tarantulas" from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Gini coefficient as a measure of success is absolute nonsense.
Hahaha. Thus Spoke Zarathustra for a lesson on economic success. This threads getting really good. I bet people upset at the recent science tangent are begging for its return at this point. Nobody said it was a lesson on economic success. It's a chapter pointing out the hive-mind call for "equality."
I'd assumed that's the part you found relevant. Sadly, it doesn't actually contain arguments and will only be found appealing by those who share the extreme moral sentiments of its author.
It's also not particularly relevant to this thread as those decrying income equality now are mostly upset by the fact that some have a lot while others have barely (or not even) enough to survive. This naturally leads many to think that the excess goods of the few should be use to support the survival of the many. It's not necessarily or generally motivated by thinking that equality in and of itself is a virtue.
|
On January 14 2012 08:58 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
mcc, if you bothered to read works like Man, Economy, and State, then we wouldn't need to keep linking it because you'd already know that the logical arguments it gives for the abolishment of central planning are near infalliable.
Also, I'm sick of income equality being associated with economic success. It's a bullshit idea based on envy (see "On The Tarantulas" from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Gini coefficient as a measure of success is absolute nonsense.
I'll start with the income inequality part. Where did I ever in this thread said anything about income equality being associated with success. My post was a reaction to a guy who presents himself as libertarian of sorts, yet argues how bad it is that income inequality in US rises. I just reacted to this strange combination of ideas, by pointing out that evidence disagrees with him.
As for your first point. That is not how debates work. I am not obligated to read a long book that has in most part nothing to do with my specific points. Linking to a book is not an argument. As I said before if you have any arguments , write them then we can discuss them. Incidentally I read quite a lot from Rothbard about his arguments about state(I am not sure if from this book) and I was not convinced about his arguments, quite the opposite. Reading his texts is the waste of time.
To reiterate, linking a book, especially one that needs to be paid for I suppose and without specifying exact pages that are relevant to the argument in question, is bad debating technique. You know what I could do, just link you to 100 economic books and say that answers to your arguments are there and unless you read them all your arguments are invalid. See how easy it is to debate using your style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
