Jump to content

Rate the last movie you saw ...


Guest

Recommended Posts

 

 

Yes, lets debate two economic theories, neither of which have ever been put into practice in full, that'll be fucking stimulating for all concerned.

 

Ok, well if you don't want to debate, then stop making small little shots at my comments and throwing around assertions. You have yet to respond to our other debate.

 

To you have anything else of value to add to that debate rather than just walking away calling me a child? Willing to admit you at least MIGHT be wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well if you don't want to debate, then stop making small little shots at my comments and throwing around assertions. You have yet to respond to our other debate.

 

I'm honestly not sure why you've tried to turn it into an Austrian vs Keynesian debate (which, even ignoring the "no real world data for either" problem, seems largely unrelated to the topic). I am, however, asserting that Rand held a substantially different view to Smith (and also to Hayek and Friedman, who didn't agree on several points either).

 

 

To you have anything else of value to add to that debate rather than just walking away calling me a child? Willing to admit you at least MIGHT be wrong?

 

The problem with said other debate is we'd just back and fourth for a long time and go nowhere, I've learnt that it's pointless debating with people who are certain in a set of beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting the feeling Erik actually knows about Economics *boggle*

 

Arguing economics is like arguing politics, because despite the university degrees attesting to the opposite, both are art forms not sciences. They are massively influenced by a variety of external variables which cannot be controlled and usually can't even be measured. This isn't to say various theories can't be applied within a general range of results but the comparison of one to the other with the expectation that there will be an objectively quantitative outcome is pretty naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can we all agree that Ayn Rand is an evil troll?

 

How is she evil?

 

She was a very cold woman, especially considering she is believed to have an abortion, but she wasn't "evil"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A modified version of Keynes' ideas worked out pretty well for Norway during the most recent recession!

 

Why isn't Keynesian economics working for the United States. Keynesian economics is essentially trying to treat the symptoms of a recession without actually solving the problem.

 

Erick, so you aren't even possibly considering that I might have a superior belief to your's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is she evil?

 

She was a very cold woman, especially considering she is believed to have an abortion, but she wasn't "evil"

 

Yeah having abortions makes you "a very cold woman". Right.

Ayn Rand was the kind of person who'd literally push a hobo in front of the bus if she believed it'd yield any kind of personal advantage.

 

Why isn't Keynesian economics working for the United States. Keynesian economics is essentially trying to treat the symptoms of a recession without actually solving the problem.

 

Erick, so you aren't even possibly considering that I might have a superior belief to your's?

 

Because the extreme capitalism of the US is inherently flawed in the first place. It would probably work better if psychotic republicans didn't actively sabotage every effort to, you know, sort things out.

 

Solid arguments for objectivism being a "superior belief" to anything, up to but not including stalinism:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't Keynesian economics working for the United States. Keynesian economics is essentially trying to treat the symptoms of a recession without actually solving the problem.

 

Keynesian economics is not currently being practised in the United States, nor has it been even close to the case at any point in at least the last 12-15 years, arguably it was never practised except during FDRs third term -- you could make an argument it was somewhat inadvertently practised during the Clinton years, as well as some other times.

 

However, with regard to the latter part of your comment, Keynes ideas with regard to counter cyclical spending were intended to limit economic over stimulation (and thus avoid the excessive supply of credit that comes with it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynesian economics is not currently being practised in the United States, nor has it been even close to the case at any point in at least the last 12-15 years, arguably it was never practised except during FDRs third term -- you could make an argument it was somewhat inadvertently practised during the Clinton years, as well as some other times.

 

However, with regard to the latter part of your comment, Keynes ideas with regard to counter cyclical spending were intended to limit economic over stimulation (and thus avoid the excessive supply of credit that comes with it).

 

Ever heard of quantitative easing? Or the Fed spending virtually endless amounts of money? Or stimulus? Yeah it's happening in America.

 

How is having good credit a bad thing? Keynes's ideas are incompatible with the free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah having abortions makes you "a very cold woman". Right.

Ayn Rand was the kind of person who'd literally push a hobo in front of the bus if she believed it'd yield any kind of personal advantage.

OK, your whole argument is just a complete fallacy that proves to me you have absolutely no understanding of capitalism or Rand.

 

And are you saying that it is better to kill an unborn baby instead of a hobo? Why not: don't kill the hobo or baby?

 

Because the extreme capitalism of the US is inherently flawed in the first place. It would probably work better if psychotic republicans didn't actively sabotage every effort to, you know, sort things out.

 

Solid arguments for objectivism being a "superior belief" to anything, up to but not including stalinism:

 

Once again, you are proving to me you have absolutely no understanding of capitalism. I'm not an objectivist BTW, your assumptions are actually quite funny. I am a libertarian.

Once again, you appear to have no understanding of capitalism. In the interest of not further hijacking this thread, why don't we start another thread on what capitalism is? It really is quite simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We knew you were a libertarian. Because you haven't put forward any actual thesis or argument of your own, just a bunch of rhetorical questions followed up by the assertion that it is everyone else who doesn't understand capitalism. That's Internet Libertarianism 101.

 

There is no such thing as a 'free market' in the magical Libertarian sense as there is always Government regulation of some sort. Essentially so that the capitalist machine doesn't cannibalise itself and because economics as a theory do not take into account the people involved except in terms of their transactions and consumption levels.

 

Additionally, anyone who says their 'belief' is 'superior' is a fucking idiot. In the words of the prophet, "Your beliefs, they're just that. They're nothing. They're how you were taught and raised. That doesn't make them real".

 

I am interested how in your utopia, which has no quantitative easing, stimulus packages or other incentives to incite investment, spending and build consumer trust, your economy would survive in any way shape or form after the free market allowed tens of millions of people to become unemployed when their giant parent company's collapsed and the bottom fell out of the housing market, allowing that 0.1% of the population who are massively wealthy to buy up all the property for a bargain price as well as all means of production.

 

These masses of people, with no food, money or home would do what exactly? Keeping in mind the aim of society is not to allow the smallest group of people to obtain the greatest material wealth but to allow for a certain stability and safety in numbers through people who exist in concordat within a range of acceptable behaviours and rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last movie I watched was Zombieland. Again.

 

I give it 7/10 because it is still funny even on the multiple-th watch and Woody Harrelson was so damn happy to be eating that twinky. Also, it is a scintillating documentary on what happens without Government regulation and it's commentary on unfettered libertarian capitalism is unparalleled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last movie I watched was Zombieland. Again.

 

I give it 7/10 because it is still funny even on the multiple-th watch and Woody Harrelson was so damn happy to be eating that twinky. Also, it is a scintillating documentary on what happens without Government regulation and it's commentary on unfettered libertarian capitalism is unparalleled.

 

Wow, how classy to continue the argument in a passive aggressive manner. I just looked it up, and I would be very careful before I called a COMEDY a "scintillating documentary."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

satire

Pronunciation: /ˈsatʌɪə/noun

[mass noun]


  • The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We knew you were a libertarian. Because you haven't put forward any actual thesis or argument of your own, just a bunch of rhetorical questions followed up by the assertion that it is everyone else who doesn't understand capitalism. That's Internet Libertarianism 101.

 

There is no such thing as a 'free market' in the magical Libertarian sense as there is always Government regulation of some sort. Essentially so that the capitalist machine doesn't cannibalise itself and because economics as a theory do not take into account the people involved except in terms of their transactions and consumption levels.

 

Additionally, anyone who says their 'belief' is 'superior' is a fucking idiot. In the words of the prophet, "Your beliefs, they're just that. They're nothing. They're how you were taught and raised. That doesn't make them real".

 

I am interested how in your utopia, which has no quantitative easing, stimulus packages or other incentives to incite investment, spending and build consumer trust, your economy would survive in any way shape or form after the free market allowed tens of millions of people to become unemployed when their giant parent company's collapsed and the bottom fell out of the housing market, allowing that 0.1% of the population who are massively wealthy to buy up all the property for a bargain price as well as all means of production.

 

These masses of people, with no food, money or home would do what exactly? Keeping in mind the aim of society is not to allow the smallest group of people to obtain the greatest material wealth but to allow for a certain stability and safety in numbers through people who exist in concordat within a range of acceptable behaviours and rights.

 

http://www.mmatycoon.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37672

Link to comment
Share on other sites

satire

 

Pronunciation: /ˈsatʌɪə/noun

[mass noun]

  • The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

 

Glad to see that freedom, peace, and tolerance is a joke to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erick, please give me a link to explain. Have you ever heard of Ben Bernanke? The Federal Reserve is pretty much in charge of U.S. monetary policy Ben Bernanke is a huge Keynesian and he has been the Chairman of the federal reserve. He kept interest rates at rock bottom to maintain aggregate demand in the housing market. Then it crashed.

 

I am interested in how you say that Keynesian theory has not affected U.S. monetary policy.

 

Also, you said yourself that high credit and high buying power was an issue of free-market capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...