304 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 9:33 PM, said:

There are several entire websites devoted to debunking evolution.

Which goes farther to prove Henry's point imo

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 9:34 PM, said:

Which goes farther to prove Henry's point imo

There are also several websites devoted to debunking the bible.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 9:51 PM, said:

There are also several websites devoted to debunking the bible.

Those are on par with ufo sighting sites.You might need a program...you can't be let loose on the internet without a program.

[hblask]

[strategy]

hblask, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 7:51 PM, said:

I know, Krugman has been backpedaling and spinning ever since trying to not look like such a total fool. It's funny to see him try to wriggle out of his flagrant errors.

yeah, I was definitely ridiculing ron paul's side of things, at least for that portion of the discussion. at the very least, his ideas suffer from the "how do we get from here to there" problem, and it's just absurd to hear him say stuff like, "let's try it my way [on radically reducing tax revenue and expenditures], and if I'm wrong, who cares?" I just don't think he's winning people over with the way he handled the appearance.

[akoff]

hblask, on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 6:13 PM, said:

so we have had the Nasdaq and housing bubbles(nice work Paul), we replaced them with the government spending bubble - what comes next?

[BaseJester]

strategy, on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 11:15 PM, said:

yeah, I was definitely ridiculing ron paul's side of things, at least for that portion of the discussion. at the very least, his ideas suffer from the "how do we get from here to there" problem, and it's just absurd to hear him say stuff like, "let's try it my way [on radically reducing tax revenue and expenditures], and if I'm wrong, who cares?"

Yeah, that's a political Pascal's wager.

[LongLiveYorke]

akoff, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 6:21 AM, said:

so we have had the Nasdaq and housing bubbles(nice work Paul), we replaced them with the government spending bubble - what comes next?

Probably Social Media bubbles, though those will be much more self-contained and will only hurt the silly people who think FB is worth $100 billion or whatever.

[Balloon guy]

[Roll the Bones]

I'm obviously not that versed in economics, but I admit that from what I know, and what I see going on, Krugman makes much more sense than Ron Paul. I mean, I thought we were all the past the "free market" will cure all ills and know it's total bunk. Krugman seems to be right on the deficit spending (in my mind) as well. The conservative fiscal policy doesn't seem to be fairing to well in Europe as it continually declines as unemployment keeps going up.Wouldn't we be better off spending some money to reduce unemployment and have the added bonus of starting to fix a crumbling infrastructure? It's not like we pay the debt off anyway, simply the interest. I realize that it can't rise indefinately, but cutting during a recession seems to only add to our woes. It seems more fiscally prudent to cut as the economy expands.

[Balloon guy]

The free market has been shown to fail every time its left alone...

[Roll the Bones]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 3:01 PM, said:

The free market has been shown to fail every time its left alone...

Behavioral economics show that the market doesn't always act rational as had been presupposed. I am not saying I am against free markets, they are the best system, but not without some regulation. I think the whole "nudge" theory is interesting as well, which doesn't inhibit choice, but at least defaults to what we know are better choices for society.

[Balloon guy]

Central planning for an economy has had a stellar track record...

[Roll the Bones]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 4:27 PM, said:

Central planning for an economy has had a stellar track record...

Well, yeah actually it has. Progressive democracy has been instrumental in reducing violence and giving people a more successful, peaceful existence aas well as the resulting freedoms from that, than other forms of government. I believe it revolves around having a government you respect and is open and fair as well as representative.I think that is my biggest issue with us leaning towards a corporate led government that weilds to much influence on the masses, they aren't representative. But at least we have a choice to debate it and attempt to right the ship.

[hblask]

strategy, on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 9:15 PM, said:

yeah, I was definitely ridiculing ron paul's side of things, at least for that portion of the discussion. at the very least, his ideas suffer from the "how do we get from here to there" problem, and it's just absurd to hear him say stuff like, "let's try it my way [on radically reducing tax revenue and expenditures], and if I'm wrong, who cares?" I just don't think he's winning people over with the way he handled the appearance.

So even though history is overwhelmingly on his side and for most of our country's history expenditures were FAR below current levels and growth much higher, RP's plan is "radical"? LOL

[hblask]

Roll the Bones, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 12:49 PM, said:

I thought we were all the past the "free market" will cure all ills and know it's total bunk.

Nobody said it "cures all". The claim, backed by volumes of evidence, is that government interference makes problems worse. The Depression, the 70s, the S&L crisis, the housing crisis... how much more evidence do we need before we finally, once and for all, give up on the ridiculous notion that wise central planners give better results than a millions individual small experiments?

Quote

Krugman seems to be right on the deficit spending (in my mind) as well.

And you are basing this, I guess, on the fact that we are in the worst economic downturn since the last time government spending grew by this much?

Quote

The conservative fiscal policy doesn't seem to be fairing to well in Europe as it continually declines as unemployment keeps going up.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

Quote

Wouldn't we be better off spending some money to reduce unemployment and have the added bonus of starting to fix a crumbling infrastructure?

It doesn't work that way. That money comes from somewhere else. If the government spends a million dollars to create 5 jobs, that's visible and they pat themselves on the back. They ignore the fact that 10 jobs were destroyed by the redistribution of wealth to low-value uses.

Quote

It's not like we pay the debt off anyway, simply the interest. I realize that it can't rise indefinately, but cutting during a recession seems to only add to our woes.

How can we ever stop being drunk if we quit drinking in the middle of a 3-day bender?

[hblask]

Roll the Bones, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 1:53 PM, said:

Behavioral economics show that the market doesn't always act rational as had been presupposed.

That is a strawman, that's why. The only claim is that, on average, each person will act more rationally toward their own life than distant bureaucrats who know nothing about that person's life.

Quote

I am nouote]t saying I am against free markets, they are the best system, but not without some regulation.

Again, a strawman. Nobody is suggesting no laws.

Quote

I think the whole "nudge" theory is interesting as well, which doesn't inhibit choice, but at least defaults to what we know are better choices for society.

Because central planning bureaucrats know best what is right for me and you?

[hblask]

Roll the Bones, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 3:37 PM, said:

Well, yeah actually it has. Progressive democracy has been instrumental in reducing violence and giving people a more successful, peaceful existence aas well as the resulting freedoms from that, than other forms of government. I believe it revolves around having a government you respect and is open and fair as well as representative.I think that is my biggest issue with us leaning towards a corporate led government that weilds to much influence on the masses, they aren't representative. But at least we have a choice to debate it and attempt to right the ship.

The "progressive democracy" in your first paragraph is the necessary and sufficient condition to the corporatism in your second paragraph. Look at the 1900s, and graph the rise of progressives vs the rise in corporatism. It's 1:1.

[InternetExplorer]

hblask, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 6:29 PM, said:

So even though history is overwhelmingly on his side and for most of our country's history expenditures were FAR below current levels and growth much higher, RP's plan is "radical"? LOL

it is radical in the context of today's structure. I don't care that the status quo is wrong, or that things were different 80 years ago. it's radical TODAY. YOU [RP] are tasked with swaying the listener. he doesn't even look like he's trying to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with him. this was a disservice to libertarians, and you should be able to recognize that.

[hblask]

InternetExplorer, on 03 May 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

QUOTE (hblask @ Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 6:29 PM)So even though history is overwhelmingly on his side and for most of our country's history expenditures were FAR below current levels and growth much higher, RP's plan is "radical"? LOLit is radical in the context of today's structure. I don't care that the status quo is wrong, or that things were different 80 years ago. it's radical TODAY. YOU [RP] are tasked with swaying the listener. he doesn't even look like he's trying to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with him. this was a disservice to libertarians, and you should be able to recognize that.

The truth will win in the long run, it's important to have people who will speak it and not worry about the political correctness of it.