ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
A fuck trophy.
I bet your a real ladies man
Some are more equal than others...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
I bet your a real ladies man
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Women are nothing more than a life support and lubrication system for a vagina.
Not one of them has anything I want that I can't rent for a while.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Dude..
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i'll say it again, so you can understand.
Big Budgets, or Small Budgets, both work the same way.
if your expenses exceed your income you generate debt.
when debt exceeds your assets you go bankrupt.
thats all there is to it.
the rest is bullshit.
krugman and frenchy dont recognize these simple facts, thus they must be either stupid or lying.
also, Maximum Allowed Income is ridiculous, marxist and destructive of capitalism, but thats kinda the plan aint it?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and since wikipedia is the only source which you will respect...
"The University of Chicago Economics department, considered one of the world's foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prizes laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university."
"Milton Friedman (1912–2006) stands as one of the most influential economists of the late twentieth century. A student of Frank Knight, he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976 for, among other things, A Monetary History of the United States (1963). Friedman argued that the Great Depression had been caused by the Federal Reserve's policies through the 1920s, and worsened in the 1930s. Friedman argued that laissez-faire government policy is more desirable than government intervention in the economy."
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
~Milton Friedman Interview with Richard Heffner on The Open Mind (7 December 1975)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
I would say that when debts exceed one's ability to service them is when bankruptcy emerges.
But you're correct in that personal and government finance, fundamentals are the same.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Doc,
I tried to explain that to Rapey, but the he just called me a dum dum autie. That's not proper debate procedure?
I tried to explain that to Rapey, but the he just called me a dum dum autie. That's not proper debate procedure?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Recently Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential candidate and self-proclaimed expert on monetary issues, sat down for an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek. It didn’t go too well. For example, Mr. Paul talked about America running “a trillion-dollar deficit every year”; actually, the deficit is projected to be only $642 billion in 2013, and it’s falling fast.
But the most interesting moment may have been when Mr. Paul was asked whom he would choose, ideally, to head the Federal Reserve and he suggested Milton Friedman — “he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have.” The interviewer then gently informed him that Friedman — who would have been 101 years old if he were still alive — is, in fact, dead. O.K., said Mr. Paul, “Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.”
Which suggests an interesting question: What ever happened to Friedman’s role as a free-market icon? The answer to that question says a lot about what has happened to modern conservatism.
For Friedman, who used to be the ultimate avatar of conservative economics, has essentially disappeared from right-wing discourse. Oh, he gets name-checked now and then — but only for his political polemics, never for his monetary theories. Instead, Rand Paul turns to the “Austrian” view of thinkers like Friedrich Hayek — a view Friedman once described as an “atrophied and rigid caricature” — while Paul Ryan, the G.O.P.’s de facto intellectual leader, gets his monetary economics from Ayn Rand, or more precisely from fictional characters in “Atlas Shrugged.”
How did that happen? Friedman, it turns out, was too nuanced and realist a figure for the modern right, which doesn't do nuance and rejects reality, which has a well-known liberal bias.
One way to think about Friedman is that he was the man who tried to save free-market ideology from itself, by offering an answer to the obvious question: “If free markets are so great, how come we have depressions?”
Until he came along, the answer of most conservative economists was basically that depressions served a necessary function and should simply be endured. Hayek, for example, argued that “we may perhaps prevent a crisis by checking expansion in time,” but “we can do nothing to get out of it before its natural end, once it has come.” Such dismal answers drove many economists into the arms of John Maynard Keynes.
Friedman, however, gave a different answer. He was willing to give a little ground, and admit that government action was indeed necessary to prevent depressions. But the required government action, he insisted, was of a very narrow kind: all you needed was an appropriately active Federal Reserve. In particular, he argued that the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression — with no need for new government programs — if only it had acted to save failing banks and pumped enough reserves into the banking system to prevent a sharp decline in the money supply.
This was, as I said, a move toward realism (although it looks wrong in the light of recent experience). But realism has no place in today’s Republican Party: both Mr. Paul and Mr. Ryan have furiously attacked Ben Bernanke for responding to the 2008 financial crisis by doing exactly what Friedman said the Fed should have done in the 1930s — advice he repeated to the Bank of Japan in 2000. “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens,” Mr. Ryan lectured Mr. Bernanke, “than debase its currency.”
Oh, and while we’re on the subject of debasing currencies: one of Friedman’s most enduring pieces of straight economic analysis was his 1953 argument in favor of flexible exchange rates, in which he argued that countries finding themselves with excessively high wages and prices relative to their trading partners — like the nations of southern Europe today — would be better served by devaluing their currencies than by enduring years of high unemployment “until the deflation has run its sorry course.” Again, there’s no room for that kind of pragmatism in a party in which many members hanker for a return to the gold standard.
Now, I don’t want to put Friedman on a pedestal. In fact, I’d argue that the experience of the past 15 years, first in Japan and now across the Western world, shows that Keynes was right and Friedman was wrong about the ability of unaided monetary policy to fight depressions. The truth is that we need a more activist government than Friedman was willing to countenance.
The point, however, is that modern conservatism has moved so far to the right that it no longer has room for even small concessions to reality. Friedman tried to save free-market conservatism from itself — but the ideologues who now dominate the G.O.P. are beyond saving."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/opinion/krugman-milton-friedman-unperson.html?_r=0
But the most interesting moment may have been when Mr. Paul was asked whom he would choose, ideally, to head the Federal Reserve and he suggested Milton Friedman — “he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have.” The interviewer then gently informed him that Friedman — who would have been 101 years old if he were still alive — is, in fact, dead. O.K., said Mr. Paul, “Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.”
Which suggests an interesting question: What ever happened to Friedman’s role as a free-market icon? The answer to that question says a lot about what has happened to modern conservatism.
For Friedman, who used to be the ultimate avatar of conservative economics, has essentially disappeared from right-wing discourse. Oh, he gets name-checked now and then — but only for his political polemics, never for his monetary theories. Instead, Rand Paul turns to the “Austrian” view of thinkers like Friedrich Hayek — a view Friedman once described as an “atrophied and rigid caricature” — while Paul Ryan, the G.O.P.’s de facto intellectual leader, gets his monetary economics from Ayn Rand, or more precisely from fictional characters in “Atlas Shrugged.”
How did that happen? Friedman, it turns out, was too nuanced and realist a figure for the modern right, which doesn't do nuance and rejects reality, which has a well-known liberal bias.
One way to think about Friedman is that he was the man who tried to save free-market ideology from itself, by offering an answer to the obvious question: “If free markets are so great, how come we have depressions?”
Until he came along, the answer of most conservative economists was basically that depressions served a necessary function and should simply be endured. Hayek, for example, argued that “we may perhaps prevent a crisis by checking expansion in time,” but “we can do nothing to get out of it before its natural end, once it has come.” Such dismal answers drove many economists into the arms of John Maynard Keynes.
Friedman, however, gave a different answer. He was willing to give a little ground, and admit that government action was indeed necessary to prevent depressions. But the required government action, he insisted, was of a very narrow kind: all you needed was an appropriately active Federal Reserve. In particular, he argued that the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression — with no need for new government programs — if only it had acted to save failing banks and pumped enough reserves into the banking system to prevent a sharp decline in the money supply.
This was, as I said, a move toward realism (although it looks wrong in the light of recent experience). But realism has no place in today’s Republican Party: both Mr. Paul and Mr. Ryan have furiously attacked Ben Bernanke for responding to the 2008 financial crisis by doing exactly what Friedman said the Fed should have done in the 1930s — advice he repeated to the Bank of Japan in 2000. “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens,” Mr. Ryan lectured Mr. Bernanke, “than debase its currency.”
Oh, and while we’re on the subject of debasing currencies: one of Friedman’s most enduring pieces of straight economic analysis was his 1953 argument in favor of flexible exchange rates, in which he argued that countries finding themselves with excessively high wages and prices relative to their trading partners — like the nations of southern Europe today — would be better served by devaluing their currencies than by enduring years of high unemployment “until the deflation has run its sorry course.” Again, there’s no room for that kind of pragmatism in a party in which many members hanker for a return to the gold standard.
Now, I don’t want to put Friedman on a pedestal. In fact, I’d argue that the experience of the past 15 years, first in Japan and now across the Western world, shows that Keynes was right and Friedman was wrong about the ability of unaided monetary policy to fight depressions. The truth is that we need a more activist government than Friedman was willing to countenance.
The point, however, is that modern conservatism has moved so far to the right that it no longer has room for even small concessions to reality. Friedman tried to save free-market conservatism from itself — but the ideologues who now dominate the G.O.P. are beyond saving."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/opinion/krugman-milton-friedman-unperson.html?_r=0
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
lol he quoted krugman
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Friedman brought you economic policies like 'trickle down' economics
How well has that fanned out?
Economic inequality the likes of which the US hasn't seen since the 1930's
And I still wouldn't call him an "idiot"
How well has that fanned out?
Economic inequality the likes of which the US hasn't seen since the 1930's
And I still wouldn't call him an "idiot"
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you still fighting against the marxism that no one is talking about?
pathetic, even for you.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Nice selection. You're at the higher end of the single person income level for the EITC.
It is significantly higher for a single person making $8k than the figure you quoted.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
It would have worked well in the system as it was.
Clinton signed NAFTA and there have been other laws that now seem to be trickling to China.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
calculations were based on a single person working full time for min wage, bignbushy.
if subway is still only giving you part time, that's your issue. ask mommy and daddy for more allowance.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Here's another TED talk by Chrystia Freeland explaining the situation of income inequality;
People like Kynes can keep his head buried in the sand all he wants, it doesn't change the facts, it doesn't change the numbers. I find it sadly ironic he supports a system of finance that actively keeps him in the lower income bracket like millions of other Americans (as far as I know), his position would actually make a little more sense if he was one of these very wealthy people being talked about in these talks, at least at that point, it would be easy to identify greed as his main motivating factor, but I don't think he's greedy, I think he's ignorant of history and of economic policy, and I think he's very partisan when it comes to politics, so even if someone on the left presents a good idea, he shuns it because it came from the left, again, like millions of other Americans.. Our country is filled with these people and they reside in both parties, which is why the two party system is such a successful failure. It pits us against each other based on color (red/blue) while those at the top face no actual competition to the oligarchy they've created. We all pay the price, and most of us can't stop arguing over who is more right when all of them are wrong.
People like Kynes can keep his head buried in the sand all he wants, it doesn't change the facts, it doesn't change the numbers. I find it sadly ironic he supports a system of finance that actively keeps him in the lower income bracket like millions of other Americans (as far as I know), his position would actually make a little more sense if he was one of these very wealthy people being talked about in these talks, at least at that point, it would be easy to identify greed as his main motivating factor, but I don't think he's greedy, I think he's ignorant of history and of economic policy, and I think he's very partisan when it comes to politics, so even if someone on the left presents a good idea, he shuns it because it came from the left, again, like millions of other Americans.. Our country is filled with these people and they reside in both parties, which is why the two party system is such a successful failure. It pits us against each other based on color (red/blue) while those at the top face no actual competition to the oligarchy they've created. We all pay the price, and most of us can't stop arguing over who is more right when all of them are wrong.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
James B. Glattfelder: Who controls the world?
Charmian Gooch: Meet global corruption's hidden players
James B. Glattfelder: Who controls the world?
Charmian Gooch: Meet global corruption's hidden players
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so you declare friedman to be invalid because of a SLOGAN and krugman is great cuz he has a degree and a nobel prize.
friedman also has a degree and a nobel prize numbnuts.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's why I don't declare him an "idiot" like you did Krugman, he's clearly a smart person, Krugman himself even says so, but he's wrong and history shows us that
Same old tired reply "whatever I disagree with is wrong!".. I guess to people like you, reality has a liberal bias..
My argument was very clear to anyone without comprehension issues; You're a partisan hack, each and every one of your posts demonstrates that. Any idea coming from anywhere left of where you reside on the political spectrum is wrong because you say it's wrong. I've got news for you, in order for an idea to be wrong you need to demonstrate why it's wrong, not just declare it so. That's how debate works. I've explained my position and backed it up with historical context. All you've done is piss your pants and call 'foul!'. You can sit in your pissy-pants all day long, it doesn't change the facts and it doesn't change the numbers.
