|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: because this is the notion of keynsian economics that leftists have adopted, if they raise the minimum wage to 20/hour, and the effect is negative, they will say we should have spent more, they honestly believe that they can find the magic number, and it'll be magical, lol.
Keynesian economics is the standard economic theory at all leading universities because it's been empirically proven valid.
And you just made up another straw man argument about what Keynesians believe. WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS? Stop telling us what you like to pretend we believe. You're about 0 for 105 on your fantasy beliefs of what the other side thinks.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: and when the economy crumbles, or slows down, they will ALWAYS say they should have spent more or the wage should have been higher ( and you know they'll blame them evil republicans for it no matter what )
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/?_r=0
No, they won't ALWAYS say that. 
CAN YOU PLEASE STOP MAKING UP STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS?!?!?
Krugman, who won a Nobel prize in economics, very clearly explains why it wasn't enough. If you want to debate the specifics of his article, feel free to do so.
I can't believe how deep in fantasy land you are.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (11/27/15 04:24 PM)
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Krugman, who won a Nobel prize in economics, very clearly explains why it wasn't enough. If you want to debate the specifics of his article, feel free to do so.
And Obama won a Nobel peace prize... Your point that krugman won a popularity contest among a bunch of socialists really doesn't affirm his positions, except if you're a crazy liberal
***STRAWMAN STRAW MAN LIBERAL RUSH LIMBAUGH!
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Obama won a Nobel peace prize... Your point that krugman won a popularity contest among a bunch of socialists really doesn't affirm his positions, except if you're a crazy liberal
I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Obama won a Nobel peace prize... Your point that krugman won a popularity contest among a bunch of socialists really doesn't affirm his positions, except if you're a crazy liberal
I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
You would also have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe we can tax and spend our way to prosperity
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Obama won a Nobel peace prize... Your point that krugman won a popularity contest among a bunch of socialists really doesn't affirm his positions, except if you're a crazy liberal
I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
You would also have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe we can tax and spend our way to prosperity
Yeah that's Krugman-suggested that if we had a space alien invasion that would fix the economy.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
You would also have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe we can tax and spend our way to prosperity
We've done it many times, so you'd have to pretty stupid to ignore history.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said: Yeah that's Krugman-suggested that if we had a space alien invasion that would fix the economy.
His point was obviously way over your head, like so much here.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
You would also have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe we can tax and spend our way to prosperity
We've done it many times, so you'd have to pretty stupid to ignore history.
Depends on how the money is spent, again why doesn't Greece, India, Africa, and every other struggling economy just spend their way into economic prosperity? It's not that simple.
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said: Yeah that's Krugman-suggested that if we had a space alien invasion that would fix the economy.
His point was obviously way over your head, like so much here.
Haha, I kick your ass in debate over and over. I'm MUCH smarter than you are. I notice MUCH more than you do about this forum, and about the world in general.
You're really bad at critical thinking and thinking for yourself, as you've shown.
Could have something to do with your genetics though.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said: Haha, I kick your ass in debate over and over. I'm MUCH smarter than you are. I notice MUCH more than you do about this forum, and about the world in general.
You're really bad at critical thinking and thinking for yourself, as you've shown.
Could have something to do with your genetics though.
You're a lot better than me with ad-hominems, I'll give you that much.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Poll: Economics [Re: qman]
#22586649 - 11/28/15 02:24 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
You would also have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe we can tax and spend our way to prosperity
We've done it many times, so you'd have to pretty stupid to ignore history.
Depends on how the money is spent, again why doesn't Greece, India, Africa, and every other struggling economy just spend their way into economic prosperity? It's not that simple.
I've brought this point up many times to him, he doesn't care, or is so willfully ignorant, he refused to see the facts for what they are, everyone with a 3rd grade education knows that throwing money at problems doesn't fix them, hell, just look at the welfare state, 20 TRILLION dollars later, the poor are just as poor, good job war on poverty!
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: Poll: Economics [Re: qman]
#22586679 - 11/28/15 02:30 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll agree the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. But you have to be pretty damn smart to win it in Economics, and pretty damn stupid to believe that one is meaningless.
You would also have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe we can tax and spend our way to prosperity
We've done it many times, so you'd have to pretty stupid to ignore history.
Depends on how the money is spent, again why doesn't Greece, India, Africa, and every other struggling economy just spend their way into economic prosperity? It's not that simple.
Because they can't take on all that debt. Once a recovery is done, the debt is supposed to be paid down.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: I've brought this point up many times to him, he doesn't care, or is so willfully ignorant, he refused to see the facts for what they are, everyone with a 3rd grade education knows that throwing money at problems doesn't fix them, hell, just look at the welfare state, 20 TRILLION dollars later, the poor are just as poor, good job war on poverty!
We didn't spend $20 trillion to fix poverty. 
If we did, poverty would be a thing of the past. We spent the money on foreign wars and corporate welfare.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: I've brought this point up many times to him, he doesn't care, or is so willfully ignorant, he refused to see the facts for what they are, everyone with a 3rd grade education knows that throwing money at problems doesn't fix them, hell, just look at the welfare state, 20 TRILLION dollars later, the poor are just as poor, good job war on poverty!
We didn't spend $20 trillion to fix poverty. 
If we did, poverty would be a thing of the past. We spent the money on foreign wars and corporate welfare.
"Derp derp poverty would be a thing of the past if we only spend the magical number of $20 Trillion"

|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said: Haha, I kick your ass in debate over and over. I'm MUCH smarter than you are. I notice MUCH more than you do about this forum, and about the world in general.
You're really bad at critical thinking and thinking for yourself, as you've shown.
Could have something to do with your genetics though.
You're a lot better than me with ad-hominems, I'll give you that much.
Poor guy- I'm smarter, better looking, and have more money/assets than you. You should take a few tips from me.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said: Haha, I kick your ass in debate over and over. I'm MUCH smarter than you are. I notice MUCH more than you do about this forum, and about the world in general.
You're really bad at critical thinking and thinking for yourself, as you've shown.
Could have something to do with your genetics though.
You're a lot better than me with ad-hominems, I'll give you that much.
Poor guy- I'm smarter, better looking, and have more money/assets than you. You should take a few tips from me.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: We didn't spend $20 trillion to fix poverty. 
If we did, poverty would be a thing of the past. We spent the money on foreign wars and corporate welfare.
"Derp derp poverty would be a thing of the past if we only spend the magical number of $20 Trillion"


No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year
That comes from a conservative source, which you should know by now usually means deception. Your second graph is far more accurate. Where's that $1 trillion in your second graph?!? Hey look, it's not there! 
In fact, it would only cost $175 billion to eliminate poverty in the US.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: We didn't spend $20 trillion to fix poverty. 
If we did, poverty would be a thing of the past. We spent the money on foreign wars and corporate welfare.
"Derp derp poverty would be a thing of the past if we only spend the magical number of $20 Trillion"


No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year
That comes from a conservative source, which you should know by now usually means deception. Your second graph is far more accurate. Where's that $1 trillion in your second graph?!? Hey look, it's not there! 
In fact, it would only cost $175 billion to eliminate poverty in the US.
Uhh the two graphs just allocate the "welfare" spending in different categories. Take a look again, ad-hominem boy.
You're having a really hard time comprehending this stuff, maybe it's because you're a liberal but maybe it's because of your genetics.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said: Uhh the two graphs just allocate the "welfare" spending in different categories. Take a look again, ad-hominem boy.
You're having a really hard time comprehending this stuff
Can you please point out the welfare in your 2nd graph?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
I'm not even going to read this source, but...
Quote:
In fact, it would only cost $175 billion to eliminate poverty in the US.
if that were indeed true, wouldn't that prove that the democrats really have no interest in eliminating poverty? they could have done it years ago and haven't, why not? could it be because democrats rely on poverty to secure their power?
|
|