• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 
Main Menu

Guns

Started by Caruthers612, July 01, 2010, 11:34:40 PM

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 26, 2013, 05:41:53 AM

Sure we do; but of the time; today. Relevant to this now. . When the by elections come around and enough vote against the incumbent, they get voted out. We don't bang on about how our ancestors laid down rules that stand above the law and we have to stick to them...or else. Here, the law stands as the last governor.



Here we have rights that can't be taken away by the majority

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 26, 2013, 05:50:21 AM

Here we have rights that can't be taken away by the majority


We have rights; they're just written into law..

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 26, 2013, 05:48:42 AM

[size=78%] [/size]
Oh for fucks sake.  If, say, Thomas Jefferson or any of the rest of them were alive today, he would have grown up in the same modern society we did. 


Only he didn't; which was my point.

Quote
Speaking of running a modern corporation, which of our current 'leaders' has ever done anything outside of holding public office?  Please begin your response with Obama and his accomplishments.


Tardy today..you got quite a way down before mentioning Obama! If you don't like the methods that get your presidents elected, change it: or stand yourself.. Isn't that in the constitution? Every US citizen is eligible?

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 26, 2013, 05:53:44 AM

We have rights; they're just written into law..


Which are either permanent - like ours - or can be swept away by a majority

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 26, 2013, 05:59:07 AM

... Tardy today..you got quite a way down before mentioning Obama!...



Obama doesn't belong in a discussion on the Constitution, unless it's about his distain for it and the ways in which he circumvents and undermines it.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 26, 2013, 06:10:30 AM



Obama doesn't belong in a discussion on the Constitution, unless it's about his distain for it and the ways in which he circumvents and undermines it.


So why mention him?  ::)


Interesting you didn't address this though..


Quote
Oh for fucks sake.  If, say, Thomas Jefferson or any of the rest of them were alive today, he would have grown up in the same modern society we did. 
Only he didn't; which was my point.

at least the founders seemed to give a shit about the greater good of the country, unlike today. Yes the founders were a product of their times, and they had a well rounded education, a simplified world, and lacked multibillion dollar international corporations that routinely buy and sell elected officials... It seems like many of the current crop of politicians would rather see the country implode, so they can blame it on the opposition, so they can get more PAC $, so they can get re-elected... or they do what their corporate handlers tell them to do...   

You offer a familiar refrain, Neverender, one I think that has been presented multiple times on this forum (in a nutshell:  politicians are bought and paid for by corporations).

As an aside, it strikes me as curious how often there seems to be a disconnect between the idea of corporate-owned politicians (clearly a bad thing) while at the same time so many worship the cult of capitalism.  What I mean is this:  capitalism is not such a great thing, we all seem to agree, when mega-corporations essentially purchase Washington power to assure business-friendly policy.  Regulating business on a number of levels is a pretty good idea (and essential to the health of this country).

And yet capitalism is a significant part of our economic structure.  However, there are certainly elements of government regulation and welfare as well (which affect capitalism).  For instance, we do try to regulate business by demanding they follow certain rules to assure the health of its workers and the nation's people (the consumers).  We also offer subsidies to some businesses (big corn), pay farmers NOT to grow crops, and so forth.  I'm not economist, but it seems it could be argued that we (in the U.S.) do not have pure capitalism. 

So my post has nothing to do with guns.  And perhaps I am offering observations that are readily clear to everyone.  I suppose it comes back to a theme I keep revisiting on on CG:  there are no easy answers.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 26, 2013, 05:35:56 AM

You're describing deities. Not humans who make mistakes or might re-evaluate. Do you seriously think those same people (All men!) would; furnished with knowledge from the last century come up with the same documents? And the human nature not changing thing is silly.. The USA didn't have women votes ratified until 1920 or so, and segregation until the 50's! That's just two major changes of human nature forcing a change of law...



Having women vote and ending segregation are not changes in human nature.  If they were, everyone one the planet would have evolved into doing it as a matter of course.


Those are examples of education and a bit of enlightenment.  Selfishness, anger, compassion, wariness of the 'other', etc are still with us.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on July 26, 2013, 11:39:46 AM
You offer a familiar refrain, Neverender, one I think that has been presented multiple times on this forum (in a nutshell:  politicians are bought and paid for by corporations).

As an aside, it strikes me as curious how often there seems to be a disconnect between the idea of corporate-owned politicians (clearly a bad thing) while at the same time so many worship the cult of capitalism.  What I mean is this:  capitalism is not such a great thing, we all seem to agree, when mega-corporations essentially purchase Washington power to assure business-friendly policy.  Regulating business on a number of levels is a pretty good idea (and essential to the health of this country).

And yet capitalism is a significant part of our economic structure.  However, there are certainly elements of government regulation and welfare as well (which affect capitalism).  For instance, we do try to regulate business by demanding they follow certain rules to assure the health of its workers and the nation's people (the consumers).  We also offer subsidies to some businesses (big corn), pay farmers NOT to grow crops, and so forth.  I'm not economist, but it seems it could be argued that we (in the U.S.) do not have pure capitalism. 

So my post has nothing to do with guns.  And perhaps I am offering observations that are readily clear to everyone.  I suppose it comes back to a theme I keep revisiting on on CG:  there are no easy answers.




Capitalism, system of free exchange, whatever we call it, is riddled with flaws.  You listed some.  It's why we need regulation, zoning laws. child labor laws, the SEC, the civil court system and so on.  The thing is, given human nature (esp self interest and a hunger for power and wealth), a modified version - including a safety net, said regulations, and certain things being done collectively - is what has worked best.


And attempts at central planning, which by definition requires a massive bureaucracy and the use of brute force, is what has worked worst.


Reasonable people can dcuss what and how much should be done collectively.  By 'worked best' we mean best at providing food, jobs, wealth creation, overall higher quality of life, etc.  300 million decision makers in the US making many transactions each day they believe is in their self interest is much more accurate and productive than a bunch of bureaucrats making those decisions for us based on whatever their agenda is.



Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 27, 2013, 11:07:10 AM



Capitalism, system of free exchange, whatever we call it, is riddled with flaws.  You listed some.  It's why we need regulation, zoning laws. child labor laws, the SEC, the civil court system and so on.  The thing is, given human nature (esp self interest and a hunger for power and wealth), a modified version - including a safety net, said regulations, and certain things being done collectively - is what has worked best.


And attempts at central planning, which by definition requires a massive bureaucracy and the use of brute force, is what has worked worst.


Reasonable people can dcuss what and how much should be done collectively.  By 'worked best' we mean best at providing food, jobs, wealth creation, overall higher quality of life, etc.  300 million decision makers in the US making many transactions each day they believe is in their self interest is much more accurate and productive than a bunch of bureaucrats making those decisions for us based on whatever their agenda is.

Oh bless; 300 million decision makers? Break that down shall we.. JUST the adults..32 Million are illiterate. That's 14% who can't read that last sentence. 21% can't read above 5th grade. 19% of kids coming out of high school can't read that last paragraph.

That being the case, how can those disadvantaged possibly be put in the same frame as a reasonably educated person (Not necessarily university) who has the capability of making reasoned decisions based on a broad understanding? What "works best" is ensuring we don't accept it, and think because it's the other guy it doesn't matter..Give a man a fish, teach him to fish and all that jazz...

Wow, Yorkshire, where did you get those figures?  That's dreadful.  Fifty+% of the American populace cannot read (with any degree of comprehension) a bloody paragraph (or even a sentence)?  Are the figures any better in the UK?  I wonder the most literate country is (and how you sign up to move there).

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: West of the Rockies on July 27, 2013, 12:04:22 PM
Wow, Yorkshire, where did you get those figures?  That's dreadful.  Fifty+% of the American populace cannot read (with any degree of comprehension) a bloody paragraph (or even a sentence)?  Are the figures any better in the UK?  I wonder the most literate country is (and how you sign up to move there).

http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

I think the 14% (32Million) includes the 5th grade literately functional. But even so, it's a lot of people. Roughly the populations of Penn and NY states combined.

I was going to link a finding from last year, but it was in the Daily Mail, and subsequently discredited as based on dodgy statistics. I can't however find the real statistics.. I wouldn't be surprised if it was something similar (as a %) of adults..but that's a guess. You also need to put the influx of many different nationalities involved too..So are they unable to write English because it's a second language or first?


I think the most literate is China..They work their kids hard. And I know from experience that a good many who come to the UK can speak two or three languages very well.. It seems to be the case that far eastern people are very good at having a working knowledge of English.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 27, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
... I think the most literate is China..They work their kids hard. And I know from experience that a good many who come to the UK can speak two or three languages very well.. It seems to be the case that far eastern people are very good at having a working knowledge of English.



I don't know the current statistics, but not too long ago 4/5ths of the Chinese living in the People's Republic were rural farmers.  They don't get much of an education at all.  Anyone who went to school during the period when Mao was Chairman learned nothing - nothing - but what was in his Little Red Book and his other writings.

So that leaves people who went to school in the cities after Mao left the scene in 1976.  Reformer Deng Xiaping didn't show up until 1982.  China has some very good universities now, and there are better what we'd call K-12 schools in the cities, but how education got from approx. dead zero in 1982 to something less than what we have in the US now roughly parallels the growth of their economy over the same period. So, many who are adults there now are poorly educated, while young adults had it better and it is getting better for kids now.

Now if you had said Korea (South) or Japan, or the Chinese as a group everywhere except in the PRC you might have been in the ballpark




By the way, your statistics on the US literacy are skewed by many millions of legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America - many if not most of whom are not literate in Spanish either.  Alpo skewed by mostly legal immigrants from all over the world, although plenty do speak and write English.  Your stats would also include our lousy inner city school and kids that go there who do not value education (that's 'acting white') in any way. 

Our school system is close to 100% run by - guess who - and has been for decades now, with the predictable results.  Many of the precious school hours are devoted to a curriculum that more closely resembles a PC reeducation camp than a school.  The Educrats at the state and Federal level overrule anything the teachers and parents want, or think best.

Interestingly, our colleges and universities are top notch, although apparently that is not as true as it was even a few years ago.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 27, 2013, 02:28:18 PM


I don't know the current statistics, but not too long ago 4/5ths of the Chinese living in the People's Republic were rural farmers.  They don't get much of an education at all.  Anyone who went to school during the period when Mao was Chairman learned nothing - nothing - but what was in his Little Red Book and his other writings.

So that leaves people who went to school in the cities after Mao left the scene in 1976.  Reformer Deng Xiaping didn't show up until 1982.  China has some very good universities now, and there are better what we'd call K-12 schools in the cities, but how education got from approx. dead zero in 1982 to something less than what we have in the US now roughly parallels the growth of their economy over the same period. So, many who are adults there now are poorly educated, while young adults had it better and it is getting better for kids now.

Now if you had said Korea (South) or Japan, or the Chinese as a group everywhere except in the PRC you might have been in the ballpark


Only things have moved on.. Half of the worlds construction cranes are in China. China is building about a million times (Not a million, but a hell of a lot) the combined road network of the UK per month! I attended a corporate dinner earlier this year and chatted to the director who sells to China; the trade they do is phenomenal. He said the biggest shock he got initially, was how capitalist they are! And how much they learn very quickly; English is spreading like the plague because they know that's how they communicate with customers and suppliers around the world.  He speaks Mandarin quite fluently, but it's restrictive as not all Chinese use or speak it. He said they love it when he goes over on business, because a) he gets free accommodation, he stays with the family of his clients, who he graciously accepts the hospitality of and b) the language thing is two way..they learn from each other.



Quote
By the way, your statistics on the US literacy are skewed

Not my statistics.. take it up with the source.

Quote
by many millions of legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America - many if not most of whom are not literate in Spanish either. 


Alpo skewed by mostly legal immigrants from all over the world, although plenty do speak and write English.  Your stats would also include our lousy inner city school and kids that go there who do not value education (that's 'acting white') in any way. 

Which is where I drew parallels with the case in the UK. I think various factors need to be included too; however taking those factors out isn't productive either, because the issues still exist.

Quote
Our school system is close to 100% run by - guess who - and has been for decades now, with the predictable results.  Many of the precious school hours are devoted to a curriculum that more closely resembles a PC reeducation camp than a school.  The Educrats at the state and Federal level overrule anything the teachers and parents want, or think best.

Hmmm, if some of your parents are the same as ours (and I suspect they are), many parents don't know best..Some can't even look after themselves, are barely able to communicate in speech or the written word, so what reason would they have to know what is best for their offspring? It's easier to give a three year old a can of coke, turn on the TV and DVD player (Or just TV) and let the electric box do the stimulation. Too many parents don't have the capability to read to their children or stimulate their minds (Because they too were bereft of it as children)..It isn't the fault of the democrats (I know you want it to be so; desperately) but it doesn't stack up when compared with the rest of the world..take France, or China for example. Ahem.. Unless you're suggesting the education system in the US isn't doing what the parents want because they voted for the legislature of their choice? If they'd voted Rep ad-infinitum, presumably it wouldn't be what the parents wanted, because if it was, they'd have voted the respective party in, in the first place?

Quote
Interestingly, our colleges and universities are top notch, although apparently that is not as true as it was even a few years ago.

You'd expect that; they have enough prestige and money invested in them.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 28, 2013, 01:57:35 AM
Only things have moved on.. Half of the worlds construction cranes are in China. China is building about a million times (Not a million, but a hell of a lot) the combined road network of the UK per month! I attended a corporate dinner earlier this year and chatted to the director who sells to China; the trade they do is phenomenal. He said the biggest shock he got initially, was how capitalist they are! And how much they learn very quickly; English is spreading like the plague because they know that's how they communicate with customers and suppliers around the world...



I'm aware.  Between Vancouver, Canada, San Francisco/Oakland, and LA, the West Coat here almost has to be the biggest trading partner with the PRC in North America and the West, including Europe.  And has been doing business with them the longest.  With more people going back and forth and setting up businesses in each others countries.  There are plenty of very smart very well educated people in China - I recently met a woman who was here in the US taking a sabbatical doing research for a book she is writing.  She has advanced degree, spoke English well, and is a professor at a top university there.


The Chinese cities are doing extremely well, every aspect of China - including culture, society, business, is changing so fast it almost can't be kept up with.  There are more millionaires in China than anywhere else.  But the countryside and less well educated are way behind.  Those factory workers you hear about making $1 a day don't exist anymore because they make a lot more than that - but still way behind our factory workers as far as pay, benefits, safety, hours - and amount of education.  It can't all be done instantaneously - it's amazing what has happened in the last 20 years, but everyone isn't going to benefit at the same rate. 

We were talking about what is the most literate and educated country in the world - for everything that is going well there, it isn't China.  Yet.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 28, 2013, 01:57:35 AM
... Hmmm, if some of your parents are the same as ours (and I suspect they are), many parents don't know best..Some can't even look after themselves, are barely able to communicate in speech or the written word, so what reason would they have to know what is best for their offspring? It's easier to give a three year old a can of coke, turn on the TV and DVD player (Or just TV) and let the electric box do the stimulation. Too many parents don't have the capability to read to their children or stimulate their minds (Because they too were bereft of it as children)..It isn't the fault of the democrats (I know you want it to be so; desperately) but it doesn't stack up when compared with the rest of the world..take France, or China for example. Ahem.. Unless you're suggesting the education system in the US isn't doing what the parents want because they voted for the legislature of their choice? If they'd voted Rep ad-infinitum, presumably it wouldn't be what the parents wanted, because if it was, they'd have voted the respective party in, in the first place?...



You clearly are not aware of how much our enemy within hates us, our country, our history and culture, our system of government, and our system of free exchange.  These people have taken over our institutions and are destroying them and us from within.  Like a bunch of termites.  They are probably about 10-12% of the country, and even that figure includes the drug addled and disgruntled Occupy thuggy types, so the cognizant among them are maybe 5-8%.  But that small group is extremely focused and committed.  From that tiny base they are in leadership roles in the Media, the bureaucracy (federal, state, and  municipal) - including the various departments of education and school administrations, they run the NGO organizations  - everything from the Sierra Club to the ACLU to various foundations to unions (and very especially the public sector unions), and much of the leadership of the D Party.  From these influential power bases, certainly by control of the Media, they have been very successful slowly pushing the D Party Leftward, made it 'cool' to vote for, support, and self identify with the 'Progressive' movement, and have leveraged their tiny minority into control of their party and an ability to garner about 50% of the votes.


I know you are going to poo-poo this, but that's what has been going on and is going on.  It took decades to get here, but it's where we are.  I think a lot of people woke up with the election of Obama, but maybe not enough.  Maybe the full horror of ObamaCare will wake others up when the worst of it is fully implemented, but maybe not.  Maybe if we get the support of the majority of Americas we will be outvoted anyway - they are trying to mint 10s of millions of illegal immigrants as new Democrat voters right now before that can happen.




You know, I've mentioned this before, but I don't think it's fully been understood.  When you look at statistics for the US and from that make assumptions about everyone -in this case parents in general - you really need t realize those stats include 30 million non-English speaking illegal aliens, 10s of millions of people living in the inner cities who are barely functioning, the drugged out alcoholic homeless, and so on.  What those stats average out to does not reflect the average American.   

When viewing statistics in order to draw conclusions, one needs more information than just the stats they are shown, and even then it is necessary to be aware of mean, median, and mode, and the bell shaped curve, and think about how each of those might apply to said stats.


NowhereInTime

What I don't get, Paper*Boy, is what it is about the way things are that would be improved by ignoring all leftward driven socioeconomic philosophy?  We've tried conservative economics; supply side and austerity, and both have been repeadtedly discredited as remedies for economic growth.  Even the IMF and the EU have pubically backed off austerity as a tool to control government spending.  The mess we're in, stagnant wages, high unemployment, high consumer debt, high government borrowing, is all original sin from Supply Side economic theory.  Even David Stockman has repudiated a large part of Supply Side.  It's a one way vacuum of wealth to those who already have it.  How is this a good thing?

NowhereInTime

Quote from: NowhereInTime on July 29, 2013, 10:55:44 AM
What I don't get, Paper*Boy, is what it is about the way things are that would be improved by ignoring all leftward driven socioeconomic philosophy?  We've tried conservative economics; supply side and austerity, and both have been repeadtedly discredited as remedies for economic growth.  Even the IMF and the EU have pubically backed off austerity as a tool to control government spending.  The mess we're in, stagnant wages, high unemployment, high consumer debt, high government borrowing, is all original sin from Supply Side economic theory.  Even David Stockman has repudiated a large part of Supply Side.  It's a one way vacuum of wealth to those who already have it.  How is this a good thing?
In addition here's analysis from a Nobel Prize winning Princeton economist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/krugman-stranded-by-sprawl.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Sardondi

Quote from: NowhereInTime on July 29, 2013, 01:21:29 PM
In addition here's analysis from a Nobel Prize winning Princeton economist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/krugman-stranded-by-sprawl.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
"a Nobel Prize winning Princeton economist" - aka Paul Krugman. Heh. Paul frickin' Krugman. Who it seems was last within shooting distance of being correct when he expressed doubts as to the efficacy of Gerry Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" initiative in which Ford said if we wore "WIN" buttons and thought good thoughts about the economy we could destroy inflation. Which was uncharacteristic of Krugman, since thinking things so is one of his specialties. Krugman is a particular fan of China's command economy with a veneer of free market trade. He goes all tingly-legged at the thought of transforming the US into China, with its....uh, vigorous centralized power. He'd love to see the US become China, economically, politically, socially. He loves all that power at the top and the ability for the elites to dispense with wasting time with the little people. What a joke.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on July 29, 2013, 10:55:44 AM
What I don't get, Paper*Boy, is what it is about the way things are that would be improved by ignoring all leftward driven socioeconomic philosophy?  We've tried conservative economics; supply side and austerity, and both have been repeadtedly discredited as remedies for economic growth.  Even the IMF and the EU have pubically backed off austerity as a tool to control government spending.  The mess we're in, stagnant wages, high unemployment, high consumer debt, high government borrowing, is all original sin from Supply Side economic theory.  Even David Stockman has repudiated a large part of Supply Side.  It's a one way vacuum of wealth to those who already have it.  How is this a good thing?


First off, those deficits were forced on Reagan by the Congress.  I've posted on that before.  If you were around during that time you will recall that when Reagan would sent up his annual budget (which is a traditional courtesy - tax and spending bills all must originate in the House per the Constitution), Speaker Tip O'Neill would call a news conference and declare RRs budget 'dead on arrival'.  He knew among Reagans top priorities were funds to rebuild a military decimated by Carter and to fund the Contras, so he held that spending hostage to the rest of what the Ds wanted to spend.  Presidents aren't dictators.  At least they didn't used to be.  It's tough to get what they want if the other party controls either the House or the Senate.

Anyway you do know that in the 8 years of lower tax rates, tax revenue doubled under Reagan, even (because of) with tax cuts?  (The right tax cuts.  Some taxes are more destructive than others.)  You can look it up, as Yogi used to say.  Those deficits belong to the Ds.  And with the economy booming, nearly everyone was better off (not just 'the rich'. that is a D Party lie).  It freed up venture capital and kicked off the boom in computing, communications, and medicine, and all the related jobs - I think that is extremely hard to overlook, yet people insist on doing so.

Supply side worked and worked brilliantly.  Anyone that thinks otherwise just cannot have been conscious when Carter was President.  It kicked off an expansion that lasted from 1982 to 2008.  Of course here were issues and items that can be pointed to that were mistakes, how could there not be when dealing with something on this scale  The biggest mistake was these free trade agreements and all the offshoring (the factory towns an factory workers were decimated, huge blunder, I agree).  Next was capitulating to the deficits - Reagan should have called their bluff and shut down the government instead of allowing those deficits (even though the media will always blame both the shutdowns and the deficits on the Rs).  Next was agreeing to the expansion of govt and all the new agencies and departments. 

(By the way, the Bushes were neither Conservative nor Supply-siders, so I won't include them in this defense.  Bush I is the person that famously came up with the 'VooDoo Economics' term when he ran against RR in the 1980 primary, and later as Pres did everything he could to distance himself from RR - he got elected because people hoped he would be a continuation of RRs presidency, he was fired because he wasn't ('read my lips').  Bush II cut taxes in his first term while working with Ted Kennedy to waste money on more educrats, then went along with Nancy Pelosi and her spending when the Ds retook Congress in 2006 - which is when the deficits really took off again.  He also vastly expanded Medicare without funding it, not to mention two unnecessary wars). 

Even though the Bushes weren't great, try this anyway - instead of looking at the annual deficits from 1980 on and who was President, look instead at who controlled the Congress



As far as austerity - by the time the IMF and World Bank arrive, things are usually just too far gone for anything to save the country economically.  Capitalism is not magic - some things can't be fixed.  The WB and IMF are Keynesian institutions anyway, I wouldn't expect them to get anything right under any conditions.



Paul Krugman - I don't know much about him except that what little of his columns I've read I disagree with.  He is a Keynesian, and as far as I'm concerned that has been completely discredited.  It is the official economic philosophy of the tax and spenders though, so it won't ever die.  The main problem with it - other than it doesn't work - is it predicts static outcomes rather than dynamic ones.  What that means is when the government changes the tax rates or the amount of spending on a program, they expect people to keep doing exactly what they have been doing under the new rules.  Problem is, people adjust their behavior.

As far as Krugmans Nobel in Econ, I don't know a thing about it.  He may have come up with a valid theory about some aspect of international trade, or it may be BS, I have not looked into it.  I will say though, that people like Arafat have won the Peace prizes, and Obama won a Peace prize too but hadn't even been in office long enough to have done anything at the time, so just getting a Nobel doesn't necessarily mean anything other than the committee is very Liberal.  Many of the various prizes are absolute jokes, others are very good, so it is a mixed bag.



The thing about Economics is it is explanatory and predictive.  It attempts to explain the various interactions and transactions taken among people.  It's about understanding human nature and human behavior, how people react to incentives and opportunity.  A solid economic theory should be able to predict an outcome due to a change in economic terms.  If it doesn't, it isn't valid.  No matter how much people wish it to be.  So the key is seeing what predictions are made, who made them, and what the outcomes are, over time.  What are the various track records of various 'economists' (many are really politicians and not economists at all).  Don't let the Media or people like Paul Krugman interpret it for you - they have an agenda.   Read some columns by Walt Williams and Thomas Sowell - these two are top notch economists and their work is easy to understand. 

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Sardondi on July 29, 2013, 02:18:24 PM
"a Nobel Prize winning Princeton economist" - aka Paul Krugman. Heh. Paul frickin' Krugman. Who it seems was last within shooting distance of being correct when he expressed doubts as to the efficacy of Gerry Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" initiative in which Ford said if we wore "WIN" buttons and thought good thoughts about the economy we could destroy inflation. Which was uncharacteristic of Krugman, since thinking things so is one of his specialties. Krugman is a particular fan of China's command economy with a veneer of free market trade. He goes all tingly-legged at the thought of transforming the US into China, with its....uh, vigorous centralized power. He'd love to see the US become China, economically, politically, socially. He loves all that power at the top and the ability for the elites to dispense with wasting time with the little people. What a joke.
With due respect, both Dr Krugman and I disagree with your assertion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/opinion/krugman-hitting-chinas-wall.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Quote from: NowhereInTime on July 29, 2013, 10:55:44 AM
What I don't get, Paper*Boy, is what it is about the way things are that would be improved by ignoring all leftward driven socioeconomic philosophy?  We've tried conservative economics; supply side and austerity, and both have been repeadtedly discredited as remedies for economic growth.  Even the IMF and the EU have pubically backed off austerity as a tool to control government spending.  The mess we're in, stagnant wages, high unemployment, high consumer debt, high government borrowing, is all original sin from Supply Side economic theory.  Even David Stockman has repudiated a large part of Supply Side.  It's a one way vacuum of wealth to those who already have it.  How is this a good thing?



Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, following are descriptions and examples of Supply Side and Demand Side economics -

Supply Side encourages the producers to produce more, thus more investment in equipment, factories, warehouses, inventory, etc and more goods and services available.  There are more people hired and trained and more business and construction start-ups.  Entrepreneurs, companies, and investors are encouraged by lower business and capital taxes, reducing non-useful regulations, and a government that is business friendly.  Even with lower tax rates, that much more activity often brings in more tax revenue than before.  It's why tax collections often go up when rates are lowered and down when rates are increased.   That's often, not always.  The main thing to note is all the government has to do is get out of the way.

An example would of course be the Reagan administration.  When Reagan took office, inflation was 13.5%, unemployment was 7%, and interest rates were 21%.  We were in a period o stag-flation - economic stagnation and high inflation.

Carter's Fed chief Paul Volcker stepped up to do his part when Reagan was elected by wringing inflation out of the economy.  This was done by increasing the Federal Funds rate (interest) and ending Carter's easy money policy.  It took 2 bitter years of recession, and in the short term unemployment went up.  By cutting taxes, cutting back unnecessary regulations, and encouraging producers with his speeches, by 1982 the recovery was under way.  Reagan was reelected and we had a boom for 25 years with only a couple very short very shallow recessions.

A version of this also happened under JFK



Demand Side is also called 'Pump-Priming.  The government increases spending to buy goods and services from the private sector and hire more employees, in an attempt to kick start the economy.  This is often accompanied by higher taxes to  pay for it, or additional borrowing.  There is a sense of suspicion towards the 'rich' and the private sector.  New regulations are imposed often in order to control production, wages, prices, and for the greater good.  It amounts to an increase in central planning by the bureaucracy

An example would be FDR and the Great Depression, or Obama and his Presidency.  As far as Obama, government spending has skyrocketed.  Taxes have gone up.  Borrowing and the deficit are out of control.  The Administration is issuing new regulation as fast as they can be printed up.  Obama is standing in the way of jobs in energy and his ObamCare is destroying jobs across the board as employers shed insurance obligations before the worst of it hits.  We are told about the 1% ers, how the rich aren't paying their fair share, entrepreneurs are told 'you didn't build that', and that Obama is going to 'fundamentally transform' the US. 

And look where we are.



You tell me which has been 'discredited'.


The Keynesian Demand Side didn't work for FDR and it isn't working for Obama.  It didn't work in the USSR or in the PRC.  It's not working in much of the EU.  This is what Rush and others meant when they said they hoped he would not be able to accomplish what he wanted to do when he was first elected - we knew it wouldn't work and to the extent it was implemented would only exacerbate the problem.  And that we would waste time while he and his policies were failing years out of peoples lives when thy should be saving for their kids educations and for retirement.

We are now 5 years in, and just this weekend Obama said he is going to 'pivot' and 'focus on the economy'.  He then laid out a series of old tired ideas (if they can be called that).  A couple columnists pointed out that was the 10th time he has said something along the lines of 'now focusing on the economy'.  And not one single positive policy has been implemented to date.  He is in over his head, doesn't know what to do, and his Marxist/Keynesian leanings show no way forward (and that's being charitable, I personally believe his destructiveness is being done on purpose - no one can be this incompetent in every aspect of governance).  But even if he is sincere, Keynes and Marx were wrong, and their policies can only fail. 


Our best hope for now is that the bust part of the boom and bust cycle eventually runs it's course despite these obstacles, and the economy rights itself the way it did under the last years of FDR, or that Obama leaves office early and different policies are implemented.  I fear that by the time his term is over, our debt will be so large we can't dig out and the currency will ultimately be destroyed and economy ruined.  It may already be inevitable.  It may have been inevitable by the end of Bush II. 
But as it is, we are going down as a country without even a fight.

Afixer

Quote from: astroguy on January 13, 2013, 10:33:54 AM
....  And then I hear (well, refuse to listen to but read about) the rants this past week on C2C by people who think being able to own and use a gun should be as free of everything as being able to breathe air, and I'm trying to understand that position.

What part of "The right to bear arms" do you not understand? Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they wrote that. An unarmed public is defenseless. Had the British only had guns we would all still be paying taxes to the crown. Here ya' go ... I think every able body man should own at least one gun and know how to use it. I truly hope to never see a Mad Max scenario but how are you going to protect your family against evildoers if it comes to pass. Bring your brood over to my house I guess.
Should we limit ourselves to single shot peashooters? If that's all you can handle then so be it.
But if you can handle a weapon with more fire power than you shouldn't have some candy ass bureaucrat telling you that you don't need one.

anunnaki


Any/all types: Large Capacity Magazines :
You may be confronted by an angry mob, disappointed by a Jury Trial Decision that wants to take out their anger on you.

All the Time:
You can never predict when you might need it. Like a spare tire in the trunk, you hope you never need it, but when you do, you'll be glad you always carried it, and not left it in the garage !

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Afixer on July 30, 2013, 09:11:43 PM
What part of "The right to bear arms" do you not understand? Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they wrote that. An unarmed public is defenseless. Had the British only had guns we would all still be paying taxes to the crown. Here ya' go ... I think every able body man should own at least one gun and know how to use it. I truly hope to never see a Mad Max scenario but how are you going to protect your family against evildoers if it comes to pass. Bring your brood over to my house I guess.
Should we limit ourselves to single shot peashooters? If that's all you can handle then so be it.
But if you can handle a weapon with more fire power than you shouldn't have some candy ass bureaucrat telling you that you don't need one.

You're not new here; so I guess you haven't read the 16 LONG pages in this thread? I wonder where the picture you posted is? Is a recent photo of modern life?

Less than 50 people in America last year were killed with rifle rounds fired from weapons equipped with 30 rd magazines.

More than that were struck by lightning and died of toothpaste poisoning: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-15-panama-toothpaste_N.htm

However, I can guarantee you just about every single US and NATO soldier and contractor killed by rifle rounds fighting freedom fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed with a rifle equipped with a 30 rd mag.

Now tell me again why the Feds want to ban them. And give a real good reason this time.

Quote from: Afixer on July 30, 2013, 09:11:43 PM
What part of "The right to bear arms" do you not understand? Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they wrote that. An unarmed public is defenseless. Had the British only had guns we would all still be paying taxes to the crown. Here ya' go ... I think every able body man should own at least one gun and know how to use it. I truly hope to never see a Mad Max scenario but how are you going to protect your family against evildoers if it comes to pass. Bring your brood over to my house I guess.
Should we limit ourselves to single shot peashooters? If that's all you can handle then so be it.
But if you can handle a weapon with more fire power than you shouldn't have some candy ass bureaucrat telling you that you don't need one.

They're tards bro.

"The right of the people, shall not be infringed."  SHALL NOT.

It's the most clear cut amendment in the Bill of Rights. If they don't like it, they can go ahead and try to amend it. But they don't want to do that, so instead we get snark and sophistry. The mark of true thinkers, movers, and shakers.

Afixer

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 31, 2013, 12:30:42 AM
You're not new here; so I guess you haven't read the 16 LONG pages in this thread? I wonder where the picture you posted is? Is a recent photo of modern life?

No I'm not new here ... but since Art retired (for real last time) and I no longer could stomach George Boory I stopped listening to C2C and have relied on my collection of Arts old downloaded shows so I wasn't active here. I guess my point has been brought up somewhere in the long 16 pages of post I didn't read thru. The picture?
In a way it is modern life. Mark Furman was quoted as saying (in an old Art Bell interview) "We are still living in the wild west ... only the criminals have cars instead of horses". Ergo the picture. It's from the John Wayne movie "True Grit" ( in which he received his only academy award for best actor BTW).
True Grit (9/9) Movie CLIP - Bold Talk for a One-Eyed Fat Man (1969) HD

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Jackpine Savage on July 31, 2013, 03:49:05 AM
They're tards bro.

The person who made the thread (astroguy) is far from a retarded person.. He actually asked a question. So presumably anyone who asks a question that you don't feel should be asked, is retarded? Incidentally, he has more intelligence (and can back it up) than you could comprehend.


Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod