I do not think Stiglitz is the end-all, be-all of economics, or close to that, and have given you no reason to believe that other than saying he is one of my favorite economists.
If you took a class on Marxist economics, how did you mistake me for a communist? And why you do so incessantly talk about your own supposed merits? You have a degree. You're an expert on the topic. You could demolish so-and-so in the argument. Blah blah blah blah. Who is impressed with this grandstanding?
This is a big part of why MP is one of my favourite posters and I endevour to replicate his style.
And still people see me as some kind of gay bashing theocon bully, very possibly an authority figure they hated growing up and who haunts them still
I don't think Ryan's plans seem very effective, based largely on CBO estimates.
I appreciate that Obama is doing something to cut defense spending. To me, that's the clear area where the spending is over the top and doesn't even provide any discernable gain. Even Bob Gates, who was appointed by Bush, signs off on lowering spending there. Ryan doesn't touch defense.
Entitlements, yes, are also too expensive and poorly run. But it's worth noting that estimates do put Obama's plan as reducing spending. And it's fair to say they say the same about Ryan's approach. Except with Ryan's approach, the government spends less and the individual citizen spends over $6000 more. It's well and good your taxes might decrease, but you aren't actually saving any money and overall the entire procedure costs more on the aggregate: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...care-overhaul/
Finally, Ryan's plan doesn't touch the wealthy's tax rates. The fact that they pay the lowest rate they have since the days preceding the depression is one thing, but add in that with a couple tax lawyers they literally pay about a 13% rate (source: the only tax return Romney is even willing to release), which is the same as someone making less than 8,700 dollars a year? That is patently absurd.
I'm also virulently opposed to privatized social security. My father is a stock broker. I worked within that field for some time, whilst preparing for the Series 7 test. Social security is massively obese, put to say placing it in that system, particularly in times like these, is like gambling it in a Vegas casino is not much of an exaggeration. It's a wildly irresponsible way to fix that problem, and like every Ryan solution one that reeks of making rich people richer and average-to-low income people pay more and live worse.
Let me caveat that paragraph with the fact that I don't know of any solid Social Security fixes from Obama's side either (it is possible I missed it, but I don't know if it), which I am not wild about, but I generally care more about the well-being of the people than the government. I know they are intrinsically connected, but I'll let government get sick first if I have a choice. Still, if both plans seem like they'll result in the suffering of young people (I am one), I will at least go for the plan that helps old people for the time being before I get screwed.
Frankly, I find his entire philosophy not only practically inefficient, but morally irresponsible. Basically it continues to let private interests get wealthier off the backs of the middle to lower class, only more efficiently than ever. He claims to be a Rand fan, but this is even worse than Randian ideals. Rigging the system doesn't help the exceptional, it helps the lucky. How is limiting or affording potential based on that any different than awarding it on anything else that's as random as what family you happened to be born into? (scratch that, I don't see how it's any different from Randian ideals)
Well, at least he has a stated position on things, unlike Romney who doesn't say anything about anything except "my way is better, just take my word for it."