User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 276

  1. #71
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I already asked you to detail what "Bush deregulation" led to the recession, and you didn't do that. Why do I have to outline everything? Moreover, what do you mean by "will work?" Why things would be better?
    I want you to tell me, so I won't mistake you for an Austrian economist any longer. I want you to tell me why I should agree with you.

  2. #72
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yeah really, it's not like being against socialized medicine means you're necessarily against giving medical care to the poor.

    Having watched the video, it sounds like only a few people are actually yelling "YEAH" to the question should the person be left to die.
    I think this point deserves to be emphasized.

  3. #73
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    1) Most libertarians like Austrian economic theory, including Ron Paul
    Sadly, this is because of values, not because of an understanding of economics.

    2) I was talking about Reagan, and his trickle-down theory
    Reagan had no "trickle-down" theory. "Trickle-down" is a pejorative description of supply-side economics, as described from a demand-side perspective: it looks like the government is giving money to rich folks, all the while farcically claiming that it will "trickle-down" to the poor folks.

    Supply-side economics, understood in its own terms, is nothing like this. As compared to demand-side (Keynesian) model, the supply-side argument is that economic productivity is what creates wealth, not mere demand. Anything that inhibits productivity inhibits economic growth, in the supply-side perspective.

    3) I am making sense because I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHY REAGANONMICS ARE WRONG...and Bush was applying a form of Reaganomics.

    So answer my last post. TELL ME WHY YOUR FORM OF LIBERTARIANISM IS GREAT AND WILL WORK.
    Bush wasn't applying anything resembling Reaganomics. Bush was a tax-and-spend Republican. Not as bad as Nixon (who imposed price controls and decoupled the dollar from gold), but nowhere near Reagan except in terms of applying military strength. (It's actually interesting that Reagan hardly applied the military - once in Grenada - but both Bushes, presumably softer and nicer, fought major wars.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    We live now in a time of boom or bust. I don't think that's a sensible way to live.
    Since you seem interested in the topic, I'll bet you'll get a kick out of this, if you haven't seen it yet:
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk[/YOUTUBE]
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  4. #74
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    1) Most libertarians like Austrian economic theory, including Ron Paul
    "Like" or believe they were right? Because the majority of libertarian-leaning people I know are not Austrians.


    2) I was talking about Reagan, and his trickle-down theory
    Not libertarian at all.


    3) I am making sense because I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHY REAGANONMICS ARE WRONG...and Bush was applying a form of Reaganomics.
    How? Running deficits? If so, Obama is the biggest Reaganomist ever.


    So answer my last post. TELL ME WHY YOUR FORM OF LIBERTARIANISM IS GREAT AND WILL WORK.
    Basic rundown?

    - More civil liberties

    - No offensive wars and end of being the world's policeman (no loss of lives, no insane debt for funding wars, and closing expensive, do-nothing bases everywhere)

    - Slashing of taxes and regulations will spur economic growth and investment, which leads to jobs and cheaper, better goods that improve everyone's lives

    - Eliminating the public debt will help to slow down inflation, which steals money out of people's pockets (especially the working class)

    - Eliminating barriers to entry in many industries will increase competition and value to consumers, while killing off or forcing change in big, old, lumbering dinosaur protected businesses

    - Experiments in privatizing some sectors of what previously had been the sole jurisdiction of government (school vouchers, provision of services, post office, roads, etc.)

    - I am not an "End the Fed" zealot, but an audit of our quasi-governmental financial organizations is absolutely necessary



    Those are basic things that I think will happen. Libertarians do a disservice to themselves and the movement by being overly utopian. I guess I am a Hayekian, in that I believe one of the strongest reasons to be a libertarian is not because it will fix everything in society. Rather, it's that the alternatives are bad. In almost every facet of life, freedom isn't just nicer to our sensibilities; it works better than command.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #75
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I want you to tell me, so I won't mistake you for an Austrian economist any longer. I want you to tell me why I should agree with you.
    Many months ago, I gave a quick rundown as to what caused the recession. I will try to find that post.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #76
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I will not make another post in this thread, as I don't care to squabble with the completely mis/un/malinformed, but here's a related conversation I had with a friend on facebook earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by friend
    oh, the current hypocritical stage of the right. God forbid it was a question about abortion because in that case the Government should have a say: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...163216817.html

    Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die
    news.yahoo.com
    If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a health...
    Like · · Share · 11 hours ago · Privacy:
    Xxxx X Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx X. Xxxxx like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Did you actually watch the debate?
    9 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by friend
    i saw parts of it. why? are u referring to the fact that the candidates did not endorse the chants. the fact that the republican candidates participate in a tea party debate is enough. I wonder what would happen if democrats took part in a socialist party debate
    8 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    They do every time they have a debate. Let's just be real, Democrats, for the most part, are Socialists. The Tea Party is a mixture of Conservatives and Libertarians, united by the fact that they are both fiscal conservatives, and view our fiscal unsustainability as the overriding issue of our time (which it is). CNN are the bunch who decided to call it the Republican/Tea Party debate -- take your issue up with them. The candidates are just trying to get exposure, let their views be known, and get to the top of the pack.

    I'm asking whether you watched it because, if you did, then you might actually have proper context for the question. I'm not gunna waste my time reading what Ms. Nobody Hartman has to say about the matter, cuz I know my perspective will undoubtedly be more nuanced and relevant than that of the author of some knee-jerk reactionary piece (as I did watch the debate, I understand the context, and I understand the philosophical nuances of the issue).

    The question was asked with very specific parameters, and is a very important philosophical question: if a young, 30-yr old, healthy, working male professional faces the decision of whether to buy health insurance, and he says to himself, "You know, I'm healthy, and I don't really want to pay these $200-$300 premiums each month, cuz I'd rather use that money elsewhere", then, if he does get seriously injured, is it society's responsibility to pay for his healthcare costs?

    Some (a rather small faction, tbh) said, "NO!"

    Is that really that philosophically of an outrageous answer?

    If you say "Yes" to the same question to which they answered "No", then there is no incentive for *any* individual to purchase health insurance in the first place, as they will be taken care of regardless.

    And now you've got the free-rider problem.
    7 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by friend
    that is part of the issue that i have with current conservative movement. the movement was a reactionary effort to Obama's election. as the economical issues created a debt problem inherited by the previous administration the "movement" has taken this as their principal mantra but in turn making them even that much more hypocritical as they never had objections to increase deficits under the bush presidency.
    7 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by friend
    in regards to a no answer you are right that creates a free loader problem and that is the issue i have with the presidents health care plan: it did not fix the issues and mostly because he did not go all the way because he wanted to attract some republican support which did not happen anyways. So what was supposed to be the biggest piece of social legislation in almost a century fell short in my opinion. We will see the effects in 2014. The narrowness of a yes or no answer is what has cause my dissatisfaction with the right.
    7 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Actually, Bush was (and continues to be) heavily criticized by the more fiscal conservative elements of the party for his fiscally unconservative ways. In fact, I believe it was The National Review, certainly one of the most conservative platforms in our society, that put this precise issue on one of their covers right in the middle of his Presidency...

    Regardless, the severity of the impending fiscal problem, while recognized by some back then, was not nearly as apparent then as it is now: after the financial/economic crisis, everybody is fully cognizant of how pressing the issue real is.

    So what's the point of finger-pointing to past ignorance? Where does it really get us? Other than finger-pointing?

    I'm not saying we shouldn't recognize the facts, but how is this a beneficial strategy for going forward?
    7 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Ok, first, just to clarify your language: it's not a "no" answer that would create the free-loader problem, it's a "yes" answer that would. The Tea Partiers who spoke up at the debate gave a "no" answer (i.e., they do not want to create the free-loader problem). So, once again, what's so problematic with that?

    Second, obviously, you think a single-payer system is what we need.

    I am not completely philosophically opposed to such a position, but, pragmatically, I suspect that, not only would it be highly problematic, but it would have absolutely no chance at passing.

    And there are completely understandable reasons why people might be opposed to it. It *is* essentially un-American, in that it more-or-less eliminates freedom of choice. And the current system could probably be reformed in such a way that it deals with our problems while still maintaining our freedom of choice.

    Quite frankly, after learning more about our healthcare system, I don't think Obamacare is necessarily all that bad. I don't know the very specific in's-and-out's well enough to give it wholesale support, but it does seem to address some very real and specific problems with our current healthcare system: particularly, circling back to my previous point, the free-rider problem.
    6 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by friend
    i dont think i am a fan of a single payer program i would not trust bureaucracy with that responsibility. my philosophical stand is one that government should only focus on providing key services to its citizens: education, protection (policing, military), and health services. outside of that the govt should only set the rules of the game. I am not oppose to private investment to provide for the basic services as long as they can do a better job than the government, but businesses usually relate a better job with higher profits and not the best service so there has to be a midpoint between govt and biz involvement. I agree with the puritan believes of the republican fiscal philosophy but in the parties current state of what I believe to be of a hypocritical nature i cannot align my vote with them. I agree with you that pointing out blame provides no advancement but the way the republicans have use it makes me sick.
    6 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Fair enough.

    I don't understand what you mean, though, when you say that Obamacare didn't go far enough, but that you don't support a single-payer system. It would seem to me that the further step than Obamacare would be a single-payer system.

    Would you care to elaborate?
    6 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by friend
    like i said i want to see how it pans out after 2014 and if a republican wins with what if any changes happen. it might turn out to fix our health care system but i think it will fall short.
    6 hours ago · Like
    Quote Originally Posted by me

    34 minutes ago · Like ·

  7. #77
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    1) Most libertarians like Austrian economic theory, including Ron Paul
    The original form of austrian economics is centered upon explaining how manipulating interest rates affects the business cycle. It's relatively agnostic as far as public spending, social welfare, etc. goes - they see central banks as the main enemy of a functioning market, not nation-states. Then, some other authors (such as Rothbard) developed an extreme version of austrian economics that supports the privatization of roads etc. - that's just a very tiny undercurrent, even though it's definitely a vocal minority.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  8. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    <good post>
    Although it seems like you support Hayek and supply side theories from the content, your tone seems fairly neutral, and unbiased.

    I have gone back and forth on this subject (was Libertarian for a while, now I am not), and you seem fairly knowledgeable. So do you mind if I ask some questions? (I suppose anyone can answer)

    If productivity drives economic growth, why do we generally advise entrepreneurs and inventors to be “market driven”? That is to look for pent-up demand to decide when and where to start a business, and in deciding what to offer?

    What, exactly, is a “free” market? Does it resemble one where there are no rules, where I can kill you and take your stuff, and only the strongest survive? If one were to admit rules, where do you draw the line on what rules are admissible? How do you deal with people’s cleverness to follow the letter of the rules, while breaking the spirit of them?

    Without “incentives” or other forms of “manipulation” of the market, how does one account for market externalities? Like, limited bandwidths, limited land, pollution, etc.?

    Why are there so few Hayek followers in power? Why is Keynesian macroeconomics the one predominantly taught in college undergrad?

    Real GDP is supposed to be inflation adjusted. How is that done? Based on the CPI?

    It does seem weird to measure the result of rebuild after a riot, earthquake, or flood, and war, as being part of economic output. But how do you differentiate between “good” and “bad” economic output?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #79
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I'd love to live in Ron Paul's world where people are free, and moral, and fair and care for each other for small groups. That would be ideal. But I don't think people living in the U.S. at this juncture even have the morality to make such a sweet little dream a reality. It's more like dog eat dog.
    That's the essence of class struggle Marmie, everyone at the country club IS going to look after each and other and behave free, moral and fair towards one another (until the chance to screw each other over without repercussions comes up) but towards the "others", well, its open season.

  10. #80
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Since you seem interested in the topic, I'll bet you'll get a kick out of this, if you haven't seen it yet:
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk[/YOUTUBE]
    I have a sort of love hate relationship with those videos, I like the fact that they are trying to popularise some authors who are worth reading but to be honest its like south park, the only purpose is to make an establishment message cool.

    I'm waiting for the video which explains that contrary to neo-liberal raps there's not been an economy which hasnt been keynesian since before world war two, possible since just after the end of world war one, whether its been military keynesian or social spending keynesian and that there's not any examples of exclusively private wealth circulating economies which are also mass producing and mass consuming as opposed to aristocratic and niche market societies in history.

Similar Threads

  1. media coverage of the tea parties
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
  2. Tax Day Tea Party Protests
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 10:47 PM
  3. Civil unrest: National tea party, tax revolt
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 04:14 PM
  4. Let pretend we are at a party!
    By Ypsilon in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 05:39 PM
  5. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO