On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote: That video is unbearably bad...
But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation.
I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke.
This really is a terrible video... How can anyone be satisfied by putting the words of Krugman just this much out of context, or rather showing only snippets of a clip to fit an anti government agenda?
And about the presentation... how you reach the goal is not as important as long as you reach it, right? Even if it's intellectually dishonest and highly manipulative - in other words, dumb.
On June 25 2012 13:05 Epocalypse wrote: I've mentioned this before "The Broken Window Fallacy" which Obama and Krugman are known to commit on a regular basis. But despite it's simple nature, many people still fail to grasp it. Here is a brief video, although kind shitty, still accurate and highlights the key points. If you can sit through 3.5 minutes of it then you may see what is wrong with Obamanomics. If not, and you agree with Obamanomics, then you can thank the radical islamists for destroying the world trade centers and spurring economic activity. Maybe even ask them to come back and blow up some more stuff. In fact, might as well just do it yourself by burning down your house.
On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote: That video is unbearably bad...
But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation.
I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke.
Yeah, I lost it at that point as well. The really scary idea is that it may be an accurate presentation of the level of sophistication found in the thought processes of the people who distribute these things.
On June 25 2012 00:56 xDaunt wrote: Is everyone ready for Obama to have yet another bad week? The Obamacare decision is coming either tomorrow or Thursday.
Yep. I'm expecting the individual mandate getting nixed with rest intact (What's that leave us with? 750 pages? 600 pages?) from Supreme Court, and maybe some additional swing towards a prevailing opinion that he will lose in November. Some news stories call it his signature legislation, though the Stimulus package remains more fixed in my mind. Whatever the case, I await the ruling with baited breadth and cheer for the "other guy" more than cheering for Romney in the meantime.
On June 25 2012 13:05 Epocalypse wrote: I've mentioned this before "The Broken Window Fallacy" which Obama and Krugman are known to commit on a regular basis. But despite it's simple nature, many people still fail to grasp it. Here is a brief video, although kind shitty, still accurate and highlights the key points. If you can sit through 3.5 minutes of it then you may see what is wrong with Obamanomics. If not, and you agree with Obamanomics, then you can thank the radical islamists for destroying the world trade centers and spurring economic activity. Maybe even ask them to come back and blow up some more stuff. In fact, might as well just do it yourself by burning down your house.
How did I know when I saw him post in the NASA thread that he'd be in here as well? Standard.
Edit:
On June 25 2012 14:26 Doublemint wrote: This really is a terrible video... How can anyone be satisfied by putting the words of Krugman just this much out of context, or rather showing only snippets of a clip to fit an anti government agenda?
And about the presentation... how you reach the goal is not as important as long as you reach it, right? Even if it's intellectually dishonest and highly manipulative - in other words, dumb.
Intellectually dishonest sums up most political debates (from both sides) rather well, I think.
For all of those bashing the video, it doesn't mean that the broken window fallacy is wrong. I don't know how you go about creating wealth by destroying it. Here's a better video:
On June 25 2012 15:03 GameTime wrote: For all of those bashing the video, it doesn't mean that the broken window fallacy is wrong. I don't know how you go about creating wealth by destroying it. Here's a better video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls
Anyone who isn't brainwashed fodder doesn't actually think that b/c the "hooligan" breaks a window the economy is stimulated via the baker spending to have it repaired. Anyone who actually THINKS about it knows that the economy was stimulated by WW2 b/c of increased demand for goods and work provided by that demand.
No one thinks that the WTC going down caused any amount of stimulation to the economy via having to rebuild the towers as this idiotic fallacy implies. The demand for war, and everything that comes with war (demand, increased production, increased jobs), went up b/c of the WTC attacks which caused the statement that they might be the best thing for the economy. Way to take the statement out of context and completely make an irrelevant comparison with that fallacy.
Edit: This is why I can't stand arguing with conservatives. They're horribly dishonest in their arguments and generally don't actually research anything. At least liberals tend to just come across as assholes. (These are in my experience only, and generalized based on the success of Fox News. Actual basis in fact would require a study to be done.)
On June 25 2012 15:03 GameTime wrote: For all of those bashing the video, it doesn't mean that the broken window fallacy is wrong. I don't know how you go about creating wealth by destroying it. Here's a better video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls
Anyone who isn't brainwashed fodder doesn't actually think that b/c the "hooligan" breaks a window the economy is stimulated via the baker spending to have it repaired. Anyone who actually THINKS about it knows that the economy was stimulated by WW2 b/c of increased demand for goods and work provided by that demand.
No one thinks that the WTC going down caused any amount of stimulation to the economy via having to rebuild the towers as this idiotic fallacy implies. The demand for war, and everything that comes with war (demand, increased production, increased jobs), went up b/c of the WTC attacks which caused the statement that they might be the best thing for the economy. Way to take the statement out of context and completely make an irrelevant comparison with that fallacy.
Edit: This is why I can't stand arguing with conservatives. They're horribly dishonest in their arguments and generally don't actually research anything. At least liberals tend to just come across as assholes. (These are in my experience only, and generalized based on the success of Fox News. Actual basis in fact would require a study to be done.)
As an addendum to your point: fiscal stimulus only expands the economy in a recession. It's not expansionary in a boom because of crowding-out effects and tight monetary policy.
On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote: That video is unbearably bad...
But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation.
I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke.
Yeah, I lost it at that point as well. The really scary idea is that it may be an accurate presentation of the level of sophistication found in the thought processes of the people who distribute these things.
Then maybe you should go straight to the source. Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson. I have and don't need to reply on a shitty video to explain basic fallacies. I have it on my bookshelf but it is also available online.
Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even win a Nobel Prize since you will be accomplishing a feat no one else has). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Obamanomics is based on a fallacy and understand why Krugman cannot be taken seriously.
On June 25 2012 15:03 GameTime wrote: For all of those bashing the video, it doesn't mean that the broken window fallacy is wrong. I don't know how you go about creating wealth by destroying it. Here's a better video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls
Anyone who isn't brainwashed fodder doesn't actually think that b/c the "hooligan" breaks a window the economy is stimulated via the baker spending to have it repaired. Anyone who actually THINKS about it knows that the economy was stimulated by WW2 b/c of increased demand for goods and work provided by that demand.
No one thinks that the WTC going down caused any amount of stimulation to the economy via having to rebuild the towers as this idiotic fallacy implies. The demand for war, and everything that comes with war (demand, increased production, increased jobs), went up b/c of the WTC attacks which caused the statement that they might be the best thing for the economy. Way to take the statement out of context and completely make an irrelevant comparison with that fallacy.
Edit: This is why I can't stand arguing with conservatives. They're horribly dishonest in their arguments and generally don't actually research anything. At least liberals tend to just come across as assholes. (These are in my experience only, and generalized based on the success of Fox News. Actual basis in fact would require a study to be done.)
Also, the idea that the more you pay taxes, the more inflation it will make, and that those dollars would have been better in the hands of others who would have spend them into goods and services is wrong. Tax =/= inflation, it's public investment through debt (read increase in the monetary mass) that create inflation (and not everyone agrees with that in economy). And the more people are rich, the more they save and don't use to buy goods, which is why we needs redistribution in the first place. Epocalypse is so bad in economy it's sick.
On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote: That video is unbearably bad...
But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation.
I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke.
Yeah, I lost it at that point as well. The really scary idea is that it may be an accurate presentation of the level of sophistication found in the thought processes of the people who distribute these things.
Then maybe you should go straight to the source. Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson. I have and don't need to reply on a shitty video to explain basic fallacies. I have it on my bookshelf but it is also available online.
Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even win a Nobel Prize since you will be accomplishing a feat no one else has). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Obamanomics is based on a fallacy and understand why Krugman cannot be taken seriously.
In my country, Henry Hazlitt is not considered as an economist (a philosopher and a journalist, but not an economist) and the book you linked is just a vulgarisation based on Frederic Bastiat's book, a notorious pro free market economist who lived 200 years ago. I suggest you read modern economy.
On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote: That video is unbearably bad...
But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation.
I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke.
Yeah, I lost it at that point as well. The really scary idea is that it may be an accurate presentation of the level of sophistication found in the thought processes of the people who distribute these things.
Then maybe you should go straight to the source. Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson. I have and don't need to reply on a shitty video to explain basic fallacies. I have it on my bookshelf but it is also available online.
Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even win a Nobel Prize since you will be accomplishing a feat no one else has). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Obamanomics is based on a fallacy and understand why Krugman cannot be taken seriously.
Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even understand why so many Nobel Prizes have been given out for mainstream economics). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Keynesian economics is mainstream, and why no one in academia (in fact, no one other than Ron Paul fans) takes Austrian economics seriously.
Both sides are partially correct, and I fail to understand why this observation isn't universal...
Simply put, the goal is to amass weath (this = higher SoL). A temporary surge in production can be beneficial in the short term as it tips the equilibrium of demand to the high side. The problem is that you cannot maintain this surge indefinitely as it is not genuine. Creating more by breaking stuff does not lead to long term growth because you are just working twice as hard to maintain the same standard of living. Sure, you'll have work, but it's not productive work.
The poor man working a factory job to make ends meet will love this short term work. However it's not healthy for long periods of time. It is beneficial for short-term emergencies, but you need to be able to transition out of it or you are left sitting in a position where you have manipulated the equilibrium to a position where it cannot seamlessly transition back into its rightful position.
On June 25 2012 21:10 BluePanther wrote: Both sides are partially correct, and I fail to understand why this observation isn't universal...
Simply put, the goal is to amass weath (this = higher SoL). A temporary surge in production can be beneficial in the short term as it tips the equilibrium of demand to the high side. The problem is that you cannot maintain this surge indefinitely as it is not genuine. Creating more by breaking stuff does not lead to long term growth because you are just working twice as hard to maintain the same standard of living. Sure, you'll have work, but it's not productive work.
The poor man working a factory job to make ends meet will love this short term work. However it's not healthy for long periods of time. It is beneficial for short-term emergencies, but you need to be able to transition out of it or you are left sitting in a position where you have manipulated the equilibrium to a position where it cannot seamlessly transition back into its rightful position.
Obviously... Keynesian stimulus is meant to be temporary... This is basic, first-year, macroeconomics.
On June 25 2012 21:10 BluePanther wrote: Both sides are partially correct, and I fail to understand why this observation isn't universal...
Simply put, the goal is to amass weath (this = higher SoL). A temporary surge in production can be beneficial in the short term as it tips the equilibrium of demand to the high side. The problem is that you cannot maintain this surge indefinitely as it is not genuine. Creating more by breaking stuff does not lead to long term growth because you are just working twice as hard to maintain the same standard of living. Sure, you'll have work, but it's not productive work.
The poor man working a factory job to make ends meet will love this short term work. However it's not healthy for long periods of time. It is beneficial for short-term emergencies, but you need to be able to transition out of it or you are left sitting in a position where you have manipulated the equilibrium to a position where it cannot seamlessly transition back into its rightful position.
Obviously... Keynesian stimulus is meant to be temporary... This is basic, first-year, macroeconomics.
Arizona Immigration decision incoming I think : scotusblog.com.
Finding out here in minutes.
So far :
Juvenile Sentencing : The Court holds that the Eighth Amendment forbids a scheme of life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles.
Montana v Citizens United : Summarily reversed means that the Montana Supreme Court decision was reversed without briefing or oral argument.
Arizona : The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Justice Kagan does not participate. The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.
No healthcare decision.. but the inference based on the remaining opionins is that Chief Justice Roberts will have it.
The "paper's" provision was held up. But that will come under attack due to some pending racial profiling cases. And now that is kind of meaningless. So what if they check your status...they can't arrest you for it.
On June 25 2012 23:38 RCMDVA wrote: Well it looks like Obama won one with Arizona.
The "paper's" provision was held up. But that will come under attack due to some pending racial profiling cases. And now that is kind of meaningless. So what if they check your status...they can't arrest you for it.
Yeah, definitely a win for the administration with the Arizona case. I'm going to read the opinion later to see what the reasoning was. I'm a little bit surprised because, by all accounts, the justices were very hostile to the feds during oral arguments.
EPT
