Firestreak said:
Did you have a point or are you just trying to belittle me?
Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?
Did you have a point or are you just trying to belittle me?
It's some of the arguments you choose to oppose. They aren't just "theories." They're basic principles of economics. You can't apply basic common sense logic, economics like many sciences tends to be counter-intuitive.
It's not meant to belittle you, as most people are not educated about economics. Just like I'm not educated about things like playing the guitar. If I went into a guitar conversation and started talking about how plucking strings was easy I'd come off as not knowing what I'm really talking about, no? It's not a measure of intelligence or overall education just a specific knowledge most people don't have.
It's not meant to belittle you, as most people are not educated about economics. Just like I'm not educated about things like playing the guitar. If I went into a guitar conversation and started talking about how plucking strings was easy I'd come off as not knowing what I'm really talking about, no? It's not a measure of intelligence or overall education just a specific knowledge most people don't have.
And don't get me wrong, not all people who understand economics are Republicans. There are many democrats who understand very well. But they don't debate the basic principles, those are taken as a given. It's more a question of debating which specific programs to keep or cut, None of those people you voted for are actually arguing that taxes don't slow the economic growth.
From page 15 of your 72 page pdf link (only read first 20 pages so far):
From your first link:
My economics classes have been studying the US economy and the general consensus is it growing and pretty strong. You can see it is growing here. If you look here (excel document) you will see not only is GDP growing steadily, but we never went through an actual recession after the Dot com bubble burst (a recession is defined by economists as at least 2 successive quarters of negative gdp growth). We had less growth, but that is all. You can thank the media for throwing the word recession around without actually checking its definition, same thing that happened when they said we were entering a new millenia going from 1999-2000. :coco:
Edit: Your long link Trippy pretty well sums up my view plus the first salvo of counter points to my view. However, many of their counter points have holes that would allow easy counter and defence. I could go through and counter them, but my posts would become 5-10 pages each, and I don't think either of us wants to go through that. If you have some specifics growth strategies from it you would like to discuss, I would be glad to focus on that.
Your link says exactly what I have been saying from the beginning. Taxes on business and corporations gets passed on to the consumers and employees.
From your first link:
Personal debt is bad for the individual, but it doesn't affect the economy as a whole much. This is because while they are losing money to interest rates, other Americans are profiting off them who turn around and put that money back into the economy. So this balances out for the most part. It would be nice if people saved more, don't get me wrong, but at the same time the government doesn't have the ability to make small adjustments needed to fix this. This isn't something simply solved by throwing more taxes at it (which would likely worsen the situation).
This is because the insurance cost needed by doctor's to protect against malpractice keeps rising. They get sued more, insurance goes up, cost gets passed to consumers, cost of consumer insurance goes up. This problem is caused by our judicial system and does need work. Again though, this wouldn't be solved by more taxes or government healthcare. People would still being hitting doctors with frivolous suits, they would still need malpractice insurance, thus the cost would get passed to the government who would have to charge more taxes. Same thing as the insurance companies charging more and/or reducing benefits.
4-5% unemployment is actually full employment from a macroeconomics perspective. There always be forms of static, cyclical, and I forget the name of the third, but I can still describe ethem. Static unemployment comes from people having skills that don't match the demands of the economy, they are unemployed while they learn new skills. Cyclical comes from the growth and recession curve of the business cycle (google business cycle if you need further explanation of that). The final comes from people just having difficulty linking up with people wanting to hire them, such as new college graduates not knowing how to meet up and find the companies wanting to find them. These three types of employment will always exist in a capitalist system, and when minimized will result in a 4-5% unemployment rate according to macro-economists (I can provide sources when I get back to my dorm tommorow if need be).
My economics classes have been studying the US economy and the general consensus is it growing and pretty strong. You can see it is growing here. If you look here (excel document) you will see not only is GDP growing steadily, but we never went through an actual recession after the Dot com bubble burst (a recession is defined by economists as at least 2 successive quarters of negative gdp growth). We had less growth, but that is all. You can thank the media for throwing the word recession around without actually checking its definition, same thing that happened when they said we were entering a new millenia going from 1999-2000. :coco:
Agreed. Politicians accept the fact that taxes slow economic growth, it is just a matter of where you cause it and how to minimize damage.
Edit: Your long link Trippy pretty well sums up my view plus the first salvo of counter points to my view. However, many of their counter points have holes that would allow easy counter and defence. I could go through and counter them, but my posts would become 5-10 pages each, and I don't think either of us wants to go through that. If you have some specifics growth strategies from it you would like to discuss, I would be glad to focus on that.
Last edited:
Firestreak said:
"Basic Principles"? It used to be a basic principle in the medical industry that sick people had too much blood and needed to be drained of this infectious red liquid.
Things change. If people can't agree that these are basic principles, they are not. Not a single part of anyones arguement is written in stone or factual in any way except the statistics.
I have been educated in economics, wether you choose to believe it or not. Of course, that part was just in your post so you could call me uneducated and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Mudslinger extrordinaire! Please try and present an arguement in a civil fashion or go away. Right now you are coming off as a republican darkdante. Angry, on a warpath, and ignoring all reasoning.
Sorry dante, that's the truth though. A lot of times, you makes us liberals look bad. Sometimes I doubt you could present your arguement non-slaviclly enough to be understood if it was spoken and not typed.
That brought a chuckle to my face. :biggrin: Mainly the image of DD as a republican.
Trippyhippy said:
I'm not trying to be uncivil, but yes, there are basic understood principles. The idea of blood draining is somewhat of a red herring here. Blood draining was based on basic common sense, as opposed to economics which is based on scientific principles. Taxing rich and giving to the poor being better for the poor? That seems like common sense. Common sense however often isn't true.
Some of the things you're arguing against are things I learned in the first month of basic 100 level macroeconomics.
M
Mokk
Guest
Firestreak said:
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing i've ever read.
If it were often not the truth it wouldn't have time to be considered common now would it?
This arguement boils down to esoteric knowledge vs common sense. Both of which are true depending on your life circumstances and experiences making neither point moot. That you guys argue your points as the absolute truth in a general sense is why this debate is moot and will continue to be a 2-4 person intellectual circle jerk.
No flexibility whatsoever, it really is a shame to see smart people act so stupid in the name of intelligence.
Trippyhippy said:
Hey man if you want me back in the argument no need to mudsling my way hey?
:bb:
Darkdante said:
I'm not tryin to sling any mud. I'm just saying if you can be calm about it, then people may be a bit more susceptible to your point of view.
It's just that the way you present yourself makes you look angry and unwilling to accept anyones viewpoint but your own.
Edit: the same applies to Firestreak.
Last edited:
See thats the difference between you and Rones and me and someone like say.... Firestreak, though I have to say he's more like you both than he is like me.
While I like to finish things fairly quickly, getting to the point, and not dodging questions, you and Rones on the other hand can run the argument on up to 10 pages, with no resolution what-so-ever, other than conceiding the obvioius that you both see things differently, by continually dodging things that you get caught on, or repeating the same things even when you admit it doesn't happen like that in real life, and only in books.
Most people in the world don't like to read 10 pages of the same stuff going back and forth, they like it short, sweet, and to the point. When you got things going on too long, it is most likely not to be read, thereby becoming more and more worthless as time goes on.
You call me slavic, I call it colorful, readable, and interesting. Why would you read anything that has no feeling of the writer? I have my tech manuals at home, and I don't enjoy reading them.
While I like to finish things fairly quickly, getting to the point, and not dodging questions, you and Rones on the other hand can run the argument on up to 10 pages, with no resolution what-so-ever, other than conceiding the obvioius that you both see things differently, by continually dodging things that you get caught on, or repeating the same things even when you admit it doesn't happen like that in real life, and only in books.
Most people in the world don't like to read 10 pages of the same stuff going back and forth, they like it short, sweet, and to the point. When you got things going on too long, it is most likely not to be read, thereby becoming more and more worthless as time goes on.
You call me slavic, I call it colorful, readable, and interesting. Why would you read anything that has no feeling of the writer? I have my tech manuals at home, and I don't enjoy reading them.
In other words have a litte enthusiasum for the subject hey?
Mokk said:
Common sense is usually the truth in every day situations. In science, you can't just use intuition to make an argument.
It's not stupid, it's very true.
Economics has never been and will never be an exact science, common sense is more involved in it than anything else.
Darkdante said:
I'm sorry but I just spent years learning that's NOT true.
Common sense is the base of philosophy not science.
Since we're pulling in quotes, I'll let this guy make my argument.
http://www.geoffarnold.com/mt-archives/000668.html
M
Mokk
Guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
Dictionary: Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.
Thesaurus: The ability to make sensible decisions: judgment, sense, wisdom. Informal gumption, horse sense. See ability/inability.
Antonyms:
Definition: good reasoning
Antonyms: foolishness, impracticality, insanity, unreasonableness
Wordnet:
Meaning #1: sound practical judgment
Synonyms: good sense, gumption, horse sense, sense, mother wit
All things a good investor relies on.
Common sense is often (there's that word again) what lays the ground work for science. It could almost be considered the foundation of science, philosophy has little to do with it. If this were a cultural discussion you would be absolutely correct, however this has been an economics discucssion for quite some time.
Dictionary: Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.
Thesaurus: The ability to make sensible decisions: judgment, sense, wisdom. Informal gumption, horse sense. See ability/inability.
Antonyms:
Definition: good reasoning
Antonyms: foolishness, impracticality, insanity, unreasonableness
Wordnet:
Meaning #1: sound practical judgment
Synonyms: good sense, gumption, horse sense, sense, mother wit
All things a good investor relies on.
Common sense is often (there's that word again) what lays the ground work for science. It could almost be considered the foundation of science, philosophy has little to do with it. If this were a cultural discussion you would be absolutely correct, however this has been an economics discucssion for quite some time.
Common sense is a ground work for how to perform experiments. It's also useful for interpreting the data inside the experiments to come to a conclusion. It does now however predict results very accurately.
This is important for the field i'm learning specifically, Psychology, where practical assumptions of the cause/effect relationships of human behavior are very often wrong.
This is important for the field i'm learning specifically, Psychology, where practical assumptions of the cause/effect relationships of human behavior are very often wrong.
So you spend 1 year studying economics and you think you can now do something that all economists in the world cannot do.
hehe
hehe
No, I can recognize very basic principles of economics that are part of its foundation and taught in universities as facts.
M
Mokk
Guest
Firestreak said:
The conversation is currently about economics, don't let silly things like the actual definitions of a phrase get in your way or anything :roll:
If i told you the grass was green would you argue as well?
As i said were the conversation about culture, philosophy, psychology, etc the comment you made would hold water. That's not the case.
firestreak said:
Ask one of your professors when you next get the chance how much common sense is involved in economics, you're obviously not going to take anyone around here's word for it.
Last edited: