Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
pleasuregiver9876
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:52:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/30/2011
Posts: 3,018
Location: Windsor, Canada
nope
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:21:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
I take it you've never heard of Billy Goat Gruff.


I take it you're financially illiterate on top of economically naive.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:19:11 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

Even if Obama wins this time - and it's looking awfully tight right now - there is a rising tide of anger, hate, xenophobia and fear in North America and the rest of the world. There are over 7 billion of us and that number's doubling at an alarming rate. Global Warming's at the point where even if we were committed to saving the planet and our grandchildren, it will be too late. Who will run for President 4 years from now, and 4 years after that? It's not like Republicans are running out of money, and more and more in politics, money not only talks, it doesn't listen.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:27:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

Even if Obama wins this time - and it's looking awfully tight right now - there is a rising tide of anger, hate, xenophobia and fear in North America and the rest of the world. There are over 7 billion of us and that number's doubling at an alarming rate. Global Warming's at the point where even if we were committed to saving the planet and our grandchildren, it will be too late. Who will run for President 4 years from now, and 4 years after that? It's not like Republicans are running out of money, and more and more in politics, money not only talks, it doesn't listen.


That's why I say that the only hope is for Democrats to kick the socialists out of the party and to embrace equal opportunity instead of equal outcome.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:30:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955
1ball wrote:


That's why I say that the only hope is for Democrats to kick the socialists out of the party and to embrace equal opportunity instead of equal outcome.


I'm Canadian.
Don't you watch Fox News?
We're all socialists up here.
Mazza
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:35:23 PM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 3,251
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom


May I suggest an alternative to the current Democrat vs Republican punch-up that is the US elections?

(lifted from FB - I make no apology)
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:53:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:
I'm Canadian.


Doesn't matter. If there's any hope of doing anything reasonable about the problems you mentioned, it starts with getting control of the growth of dependence on government. Canada doesn't have much clout, but it can help.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 4:11:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955
1ball wrote:


Doesn't matter. If there's any hope of doing anything reasonable about the problems you mentioned, it starts with getting control of the growth of dependence on government. Canada doesn't have much clout, but it can help.


I understand. You believe the things Mitt Romney says.
This book explains why:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

If Romney wins, my fear is we can kiss the world economy goodbye.

I have to go now. Still a chapter left to read in Das Kapital, then Mao's Little Red Book.
After that a union meeting, then a march on city hall.
One thing about us socialists: we're BUSY.
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 4:17:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955
As to what Mitt Romney says:'

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/the-real-romney/

Of course, Krugman is a pinko, just like me.
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 6:51:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:35:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:


I understand. You believe the things Mitt Romney says.
This book explains why:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

If Romney wins, my fear is we can kiss the world economy goodbye.

I have to go now. Still a chapter left to read in Das Kapital, then Mao's Little Red Book.
After that a union meeting, then a march on city hall.
One thing about us socialists: we're BUSY.


http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L3

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:29:17 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955


Your ideas about economics come from a book written in 1946? - 1946????!!!!
Guess what
We have computers now.We've been to the moon. There was a thing called Rock and Roll.
We're no longer in a war economy.

Hazlitt was a supporter of Joseph McCarthy, co-founder of The National Review, and a friend of Ayn Rand. He was opposed to Keynesian economic theory and, incidentally, psychoanalysis, (Republicans are so afraid of questions). He was admired and quoted by that towering intellectual and great economic theorist, Ronald Reagan.

Who do you rely on for history lessons - Henry Ford?

Gotta hop in my Packard, pick up my Zoot Suit, then drive down to The Bijou theatre -
It's A Wonderful Life just opened.

(I once knew someone who thought that if he had the last word, he'd won the argument.
I'm not going to post more to this thread.
Will you?)

She
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:43:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,497
Location: Europe
I for sure don't know much how the candidature is progressing in the USA, however I honestly hope that democrats take the elections.. previous republican president did enough for the whole centurylaughing6 when it comes how he influenced the rest of the world, beside a good laugh that is


And welcome to the Think Tank, Oberon. It is fun over here, I predict you will enjoy it icon_smile
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:50:56 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955
She wrote:


And welcome to the Think Tank, Oberon. It is fun over here, I predict you will enjoy it icon_smile


Thank you, She, but reading these things is bad for my health.
I'm out of here.
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:28:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:
Your ideas about economics come from a book written in 1946? - 1946????!!!!


Can you rationally dispute the economic principles? I didn't think so. You engage in genetic fallacy. The source of the idea does not negate the validity of the idea.




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:27:16 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Can you rationally dispute the economic principles? I didn't think so. You engage in genetic fallacy. The source of the idea does not negate the validity of the idea.




Funny you should ask. Henry Hazlitt, who was a journalist, by the way, and not an economist, based his Economics in One Lesson on Frederic Bastiat's 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas". Bastiat failed to see that money invested in such things as public works and maintenance of public infrastructure is not money that goes into a hole and disappears. Public money put into circulation in an economy boosts the economy, something that both Bastiat and Hazlitt failed to take into account.

Bastiat started from the point of view that the only purpose of a government is to protect life, liberty and property. An economic theory based on this concept of government cannot allow for public works, public education, public roads, bridges or any of the public conveniences that make our society function. Do we want toll roads, with toll booths at every interval where the road passes through some private person's property? We aren't living in 1850 anymore. We don't just cut down trees and drive our wagons as far as they'll go.

Hazlitt writes about classical Keynesian economics without bothering to accurately quote Keynes. His quotes from Keynes, and others, are taken out of context and made to fit his own perspective and view of classical liberalism. He doesn't present any actual arguments against Keynes, just misrepresentations of Keynes writing twisted to suit his own theories.

Assuming that you've actually read Hazlitt, in chapter two, where he presents Bastat's broken window parable, he fails to see that the $50 that the baker spends on a new window doesn't fall into a hole and die. The fifty dollars is still in the economy. The glazer might use it for a new suit himself. He also neglects the government's possible role in seeking redress for the broken window from the person who broke it. In chapter three, he presents the idea that war is not beneficial to the economy a year after WWII turned the American economy around from depression. The economy has benefited from war, whether we think it is morally right for it to do so or not. Hazlitt ignores this, and presents another fallacy; that replacement of things destroyed is money lost.

He shows a total misunderstanding of Keynesian economics in chapters four and five. Keynes believed that lowering taxes and spending public money would boost the economy. Hazlitt argues that it will not, despite the fact that the United States flourished during the periods of time when we were most committed to Keynes principals, from WWII until the Reagan administration, then again under Bill Clinton.

Public spending is not money thrown down a drain. Hazlitt offers no proof anywhere in his writing that it is. Hazlitt's theory depends on every single little item in an economy being interlinked. He doesn't think that defense spendings effect on local economies is important because it isn't universal. He doesn't allow for the fact that the overall economy is based on numerous local economies. As a society, keeping the economy as a whole solvent depends on the viability of local businesses, many of whom depend on government subsidies and loans. Hazlitt sees the economy as backwards from it's reality. He believes that to say an economy works, or that public works are profitable, it is necessary for every single item to be profitable. He knows nothing about loss leaders.

His simplistic approach to economics might work on the level of a society of a few thousand people, but world economies are based on billions of individuals and billions of actions on a daily basis. If you can think of a way to keep the world moving along without government I'd like to hear it.

Buz
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:53:38 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 6,991
Location: Atlanta, United States
Currently the per capita debt of each American citizen is almost identical to that of each citizen of Greece. In other words in order to stave off future economic collapse and pay our debts, austerity will be coming to the USA. It will not be pretty. Bush added billions and Obama trillions. The two of them set new records for deficit spending. Not all on them of course. Add the US Congress of the last 12 years into. Bush, Obama, and Congress all share the blame in this fiasco.

Currently neither Obama or Romney has a budget plan that even attempts to tackle the mounting deficit. Even if they do, the budget must be enacted through Congress. The president technically only signs off on it. But in reality The White House is usually in constant contact with the Legislators on the budget committee during this process.

Do you keep voting for your same US Congessman or Congresswoman and US Senator over & over? If so, YOU are to blame also.


1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:36:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Henry Hazlitt, who was a journalist, by the way, and not an economist,


Genetic fallacy. The validity of an idea is independent of its source.

Quote:
Hazlitt writes about classical Keynesian economics without bothering to accurately quote Keynes. His quotes from Keynes, and others, are taken out of context and made to fit his own perspective and view of classical liberalism. He doesn't present any actual arguments against Keynes, just misrepresentations of Keynes writing twisted to suit his own theories.


From the Preface:

When analyzing fallacies, I have thought it still less advisable to mention particular names than in giving credit. To do so would have required special justice to each writer criticized, with exact quotations, account taken of the particular emphasis he places on this point or that, the qualifications he makes, his personal ambiguities, inconsistencies, and so on. I hope, therefore, that no one will be too disappointed at the absence of such names as Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, Major Douglas, Lord Keynes, Professor Alvin Hansen and others in these pages. The object of this hook is not to expose the special errors of particular writers, but economic errors in their most frequent, widespread or influential form. Fallacies, when they have reached the popular stage, become anonymous anyway. The subtleties or obscurities to be found in the authors most responsible for propagating them are washed off. A doctrine becomes simplified; the sophism that may have been buried in a network of qualifications, ambiguities or mathematical equations stands clear. I hope I shall not be accused of injustice on the ground, therefore, that a fashionable doctrine in the form in which I have presented it is not precisely the doctrine as it has been formulated by Lord Keynes or some other special author. It is the beliefs which politically influential groups hold and which governments act upon that we are interested in here, not the historical origins of those beliefs.

Quote:
Public money put into circulation in an economy boosts the economy, something that both Bastiat and Hazlitt failed to take into account.


You seem to have read from a liberal "attack paper" that's full of bullshit.

Quote:
Bastiat started from the point of view that the only purpose of a government is to protect life, liberty and property. An economic theory based on this concept of government cannot allow for public works, public education, public roads, bridges or any of the public conveniences that make our society function.


Utter bullshit. One of the justifications for much of the public infrastructure is the use of it for defensive purposes. Public roads, bridges, highways, etc. enable a more effective defense and were sold partially on that basis. Bastiat had no problem with forts and one can assume that as military tech evolved, the benefits of mixed civilian/military usage of facilities he could not have envisioned, such as airports and expressways, would have been acceptable, because they would have been driven by the nature of what threats to life, liberty and property were being protected against.

Quote:
Assuming that you've actually read Hazlitt, in chapter two, where he presents Bastat's broken window parable, he fails to see that the $50 that the baker spends on a new window doesn't fall into a hole and die.


More bullshit. He recognizes that the $50 didn't fall into a hole and die. It was the window and the value it had for the baker that fell into a hole and died.

The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

Quote:
The fifty dollars is still in the economy. The glazer might use it for a new suit himself.


Wouldn't the glazer be out the cost of materials and the time involved to do the job? By your logic, the community would be of greater value if we destroyed everything and started from scratch. Do you see the problem there? Wealth was reduced to scrap value. Let's try that with everything you own, "for the common good". See the problem now? The "community" is out one window and the value it had for the society, or one suit, or just $50.

Quote:
He also neglects the government's possible role in seeking redress for the broken window from the person who broke it.


Lfunny The government will charge the society to catch the vandal and maybe get money from him to pay for the window repair. In the meantime, everyone has paid for the possibility of that outcome and whatever deterrent effect the existence of the law enforcement industry has.

Quote:
In chapter three, he presents the idea that war is not beneficial to the economy a year after WWII turned the American economy around from depression. The economy has benefited from war, whether we think it is morally right for it to do so or not. Hazlitt ignores this, and presents another fallacy; that replacement of things destroyed is money lost.


Take into account the losses on both sides of the war and try as hard as you can to show me the net benefit to the global economy.

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. You choose to look only at the benefits to survivors and winners and to ignore the losses and depletion of resources that occurred. Let's have a mock war and take the immorality of killing people out of it. We'll blow up a bunch of cities and industrial plants in numerous countries and see what shape the global economy is in afterwards. There will undoubtedly be some winners, but are you honestly so stupid as to believe we'll be better off for having done that?

Now there is a half-truth in the “backed-up” demand fallacy, just as there was in the broken-window fallacy. The broken window did make more business for the glazier. The destruction of war will make more business for the producers of certain things. The destruction of houses and cities will make more business for the building and construction industries. The inability to produce automobiles, radios, and refrigerators during the war will bring about a cumulative post-war demand for those particular products.

To most people this will seem like an increase in total demand, as it may well be in terms of dollars of lower purchasing power. But what really takes place is a diversion of demand to these particular products from others. The people of Europe will build more new houses than otherwise because they must. But when they build more houses they will have just that much less manpower and productive capacity left over for everything else. When they buy houses they will have just that much less purchasing power for everything else. Wherever business is increased in one direction, it must (except insofar as productive energies may be generally stimulated by a sense of want and urgency) be correspondingly reduced in another.


Quote:
Keynes believed that lowering taxes and spending public money would boost the economy.


Really? How did Keynes plan to do that without incurring debt?

Quote:
Hazlitt argues that it will not, despite the fact that the United States flourished during the periods of time when we were most committed to Keynes principals, from WWII until the Reagan administration, then again under Bill Clinton.


Since there is no way to compare what happened during any period to what might have happened had another course been chosen, you are committing a logical fallacy of assuming that results are attributable to the course chosen rather than other factors.

Quote:
Public spending is not money thrown down a drain. Hazlitt offers no proof anywhere in his writing that it is.


He does not make the claim that it is. That's something you would have us believe, but it is more bullshit.

A bridge is built, If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the taxpayers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection.

Quote:
His simplistic approach to economics might work on the level of a society of a few thousand people, but world economies are based on billions of individuals and billions of actions on a daily basis. If you can think of a way to keep the world moving along without government I'd like to hear it.


Another logical fallacy, this time a false dichotomy. The choice is not between government or no government. The choice is between government that is rational and government that is irrational. You have done nothing to defend the rationality of your beliefs. That's understandable, because its impossible. You have only sought to distort what was written by Hazlitt. His entire premise can be shortened to TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) and all the smoke and mirrors and hand waving and bullshit you can shovel isn't going to change that.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,955
Lets get the phone lady facts straight and do some research and thinking of our own. That program was started by Ronald Reagan and continued heavily during the Bush years so it is a program started by Republicans .
Hubs_in_hose
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:11:01 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 10/10/2012
Posts: 4
Location: United States
It is well past time for the American voters to wake up.

The Republicans and Democrats are BOTH to blame for the economic, social, and political mess that we are in. To continue to vote for EITHER of the parties is a continuation of the status quo. There is a movement underway -- it probably won't be fully successful this year but it is making real strides -- to take back the political system.

The Libertarian party candidate, Gary Johnson, is on the ballot (yes, his slate of Electoral College voters) in 47 states. It would have been 50 but the Republican and Democrat political machines have three states access tied up in a costly legal battle. This is the first time in generations that a third party has been on the ballot in nearly all the states. Ross Perot was not on the ballot in all 50 states. This is huge. Johnson may carry New Mexico and can cause some western states to not be an automatic for either party. The main reason why this is huge is that ballot access in future elections are tied to the results of this election. If you want to see more third party candidates in future elections, you need to vote for the third party that you like now. Most states have election code that dictates if a party reaches a certain percentage of the vote in the previous election then they are allowed access in future elections (around 10% to 15%). This is the key measure that the Democrats and Republicans use to stop those "uppity" third party campaigns. They make the other parties spend most of their money on ballot access so they don't have anything left to run a real campaign.

I urge you, if you live in a state that is deep one side or the other, vote Libertarian. You will be helping the cause in the long run
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:41:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Hubs_in_hose wrote:
I urge you, if you live in a state that is deep one side or the other, vote Libertarian. You will be helping the cause in the long run


I believe I smoked some of that stuff once. Or maybe that was the little tab of paper that I put on my tongue for a while.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:02:43 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


His entire premise can be shortened to TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch)


Talk about simplistic. You give your usual knee jerk responses, trying to prove your points by repeating the same false points over and over. Hazlitt misquoted and misrepresented Keynes as the basis for his simple minded theory of economics, and you continue to quote his nonsense in order to defend it.

Saying that the validity of an idea is independent of it's source only works if the idea is valid. Hazlitt isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if he were an economist, his theories would still be simple minded bullshit. My point is that he isn't trained to think like an economist, or to understand economic theory beyond the superficial sign board sloganeering like TANSTAAFL. He bases his book on what he believes is common sense. He doesn't see the fallacy in his own reasoning because he doesn't know how to look for it. What he does is report, which is something journalists are trained to do. Even his understanding of Bastiat is superficial, and Bastiat's ideas have almost no relevance in a world of over six billion people.

The problem is that conservative economists think about economies in terms of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Like yourself, they are locked into the past, unable to transpose the ideas of either Smith or Marx beyond the strictures of the time in which they wrote. The world economy today runs on a mixture of government funds and private investment in ways that neither could have imagined.

Hazlitt's entire theory rests on the fact that he believes money spent is money lost. He may not state it in those exact words, but a close reading of his pitiful simplification of world economics shows that he believes that.

The fact that Bastiat had no problem with forts doesn't change his views on the role of government as I have stated them. He saw defense as one of the roles of government. What he failed to see is that the spending on defense affected the economy in positive ways.

1ball wrote:
Since there is no way to compare what happened during any period to what might have happened had another course been chosen, you are committing a logical fallacy of assuming that results are attributable to the course chosen rather than other factors.


Economists, as opposed to journalists and right wing radio hosts, compare economic variables over different periods all the time. That's an important part of economic theory. It is possible to measure economic factors in different places and at different points in history and arrive at a conclusion of what worked and what didn't.


1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:28:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Saying that the validity of an idea is independent of it's source only works if the idea is valid. Hazlitt isn't valid.


You're certainly invited to make a case for the validity of your beliefs or rationally dispute the validity of his, but so far you've done neither. You've done nothing more than make claims that he is wrong and false claims that he means this or that. His own words speaks for themselves and the conclusions you draw are not supported in his words.

Quote:
Hazlitt's entire theory rests on the fact that he believes money spent is money lost. He may not state it in those exact words, but a close reading of his pitiful simplification of world economics shows that he believes that.


Repeating your false claim gives it no more validity this time than it did the first time.

Quote:
The fact that Bastiat had no problem with forts doesn't change his views on the role of government as I have stated them. He saw defense as one of the roles of government. What he failed to see is that the spending on defense affected the economy in positive ways.


More bullshit. Nobody doubts that spending affects the economy in positive ways, but you are unable to build a convincing case that public spending is more positive than private spending, or saving or investing either for that matter.

1ball wrote:
Since there is no way to compare what happened during any period to what might have happened had another course been chosen, you are committing a logical fallacy of assuming that results are attributable to the course chosen rather than other factors.

Quote:
Economists, as opposed to journalists and right wing radio hosts, compare economic variables over different periods all the time.


Of course they do. Medicine men used to do the same thing when they shook rattles over sick people and gave them herbs to drink. Claiming it was the rattle shaking and not the tea that cured the illness or claiming that it was the spirits that killed the patient was how they kept their job.

Keynes knew about the importance of maintaining investor confidence, but you ignore that repeatedly.

economic prosperity is excessively dependent on a political and social atmosphere which is congenial to the average business man. If the fear of a Labour Government or a New Deal depresses enterprise, this need not be the result either of a reasonable calculation or of a plot with political intent; — it can be the mere consequence of upsetting the delicate balance of spontaneous optimism. In estimating the prospects of (public sector) investment, we must have regard, therefore, to the nerves and hysteria and even the digestions and reactions to the weather of those upon whose spontaneous activity it largely depends.

Now, why didn't you answer my question about Keynes's belief in lowering taxes and spending confiscated money boosting the economy without leading to debt?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32:18 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,179
Location: California
CoopsRuthiel wrote:


Assuming that you've actually read Hazlitt, in chapter two, where he presents Bastat's broken window parable, he fails to see that the $50 that the baker spends on a new window doesn't fall into a hole and die.


1ball wrote:
More bullshit. He recognizes that the $50 didn't fall into a hole and die. It was the window and the value it had for the baker that fell into a hole and died.

The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.




Why can't he just buy the window and the suit? What if two windows would have been broken? He was just gonna fix one? Apperently these are cheap ass suits that cost as much as a window.

Or if this guy really is that hard up... What is the difference if he just goes and buys the suit next week when he gets paid again? What? is another window going to break next week too.

What if he would have bought the suit before the window breaks and he lost his receipt and the tailor is a major douche and doesn't give him his money back? what? He's not going to fix the window?





1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:40:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
Why can't he just buy the window and the suit?


That's an irrelevant question. He can do what he wants with his money, but once the value of the window is taken from him, his decision is how to respond to that. The lesson is about the consequences of wealth destruction, not about his personal buying habits.

Quote:
What if two windows would have been broken? He was just gonna fix one?


Another irrelevant question.

Quote:
Apperently these are cheap ass suits that cost as much as a window.


An irrelevant observation.

Quote:
Or if this guy really is that hard up... What is the difference if he just goes and buys the suit next week when he gets paid again? What? is another window going to break next week too.


More irrelevant questions.

Quote:
What if he would have bought the suit before the window breaks and he lost his receipt and the tailor is a major douche and doesn't give him his money back? what? He's not going to fix the window?


More irrelevant questions.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:00:31 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,179
Location: California
1ball wrote:


More irrelevant questions.



How are they irrelevant? A reduction in excessive savings would benefit an economy no matter if a glazier or tailer get the money (or both).





1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:11:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
How are they irrelevant?


The lesson is about wealth destruction.

Quote:
A reduction in excessive savings would benefit an economy no matter if a glazier or tailer get the money (or both).


Chapter 23.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:14:19 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
1ball, the point here is that Hazlitt is addressing a broken window as if it were the world economy. It isn't. I could explain myself blue in the face to you, giving you facts and figures, but you would stick to your talking points and ignore them like you have always done in the past. If you think being an economist is the same thing as being a witch doctor, there is nothing that I could say that would satisfy you anyway.

I've even forgotten what the original purpose of this thread was. Oh right. Whether Romney/Ryan can get elected. Obviously they can. A large part of the population of the United States are brain washed. Like you, they get their information from Fox News and right wing radio. They are spoon fed lies twenty four hours a day. They'd vote for Satan if Rush Limbaugh told them it was the thing to do. The world isn't what it was when you were a boy, it's never going to be that way again. It isn't the same as when Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations. It isn't the same as when Hazlitt published his misunderstanding of Keynesian economic theory. It's complicated. Sign post sloganeering won't fix it. Refusing to accept economics as a science doesn't make your point for you. Saying you have refuted me doesn't mean you have. That only works on right wing talk radio.

Stop defending the people who don't need defending and find out what's really going on in the world.

Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:27:23 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,179
Location: California
1ball wrote:


Chapter 23.


I dont have time for mickey mouse economy primers. Since you've read them already you should know how to regurgitate the info in a conversational manner if you truly get it. Pointing people toward that economy primer is like just answering every question with "google it". It's a forum.

Also with wealth destruction. I understand that the lesson is that by breaking the window we give business to the glazier and not the tailer. And if we keep destroying windows then the tailor may go out of business and that is bad. The point this fallacy tries to make is that if wealth destruction actually boosts the economy then why not destroy the whole town if one window boosts it. I get that. I also get that taking anything to an extreme like that would make everything a fallacy. Don't be retarded.

ALSO... Why is a tailor's profession more important than a glaziers? So like if we destroy wealth to rebuild it and give the construction industry some business how is that worse than not destroying wealth and having the population spend money on wine, dirtbikes, cruises etc. instead because taxes would be lower because we aint rebuilding anything. We would be putting money in more useless industries. So instead we would be advancing technologies in useless industries rather than something like construction.



1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:49:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
I dont have time for mickey mouse economy primers.


So you want to be spoon fed an education? I can set up a paypal account for you to fund.

Also with wealth destruction. I understand that the lesson is that by breaking the window we give business to the glazier and not the tailer. And if we keep destroying windows then the tailor may go out of business and that is bad. The point this fallacy tries to make is that if wealth destruction actually boosts the economy then why not destroy the whole town if one window boosts it. I get that. I also get that taking anything to an extreme like that would make everything a fallacy. Don't be retarded.

Quote:
So like if we destroy wealth to rebuild it and give the construction industry some business how is that worse than not destroying wealth and having the population spend money on wine, dirtbikes, cruises etc. instead because taxes would be lower because we aint rebuilding anything. We would be putting money in more useless industries. So instead we would be advancing technologies in useless industries rather than something like construction.


Deciding that an industry is useless is something an individual does with their demand. Entertainment is a sector of the economy.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.