Obama nut swingers

[Screwzer2]

Originally Posted by sokoboo

Every President since Nixon has been a Keynesian, both political parties are dominated by Keynesian economics.

Really? What about Reagan's supply side economic principles and the Laffer curve?

Originally Posted by sokoboo

Free markets do exist, that is where you fail. ....

As far as you harping for an example of free market, if you claim both US Steel and are monopolies you should be willing to accept that the internet is free. Great examples of freedom int eh internet has been the topple of oppressive regimes in the middle east that even the most zealous military interventionist could not dream of. The vast amount of wealth creation, and learning created could never have been achieved by a central planner. The internet is the only thing keeping our economy afloat and it is the freest thing we have.

I love your use of the Internet as the a shining example of free markets. Thank God our government decided to invent it.

[Screwzer2]

Originally Posted by emiller22207

Do you believe that Hayek believed free markets existed in the modern economy of his time? If so, please specify which country and large industry? Did Hayek believe that governments should intervene with regulations because, indeed free markets don't exist naturally in a modern economy and therefore limited government intervention to prevent externalities and unfair competitive practices (monopolies) are fully justified?

That's the rub.

Its great to have a puritanical philosophy of what a free market should be, its an entirely different issue when it comes to practice. Rather than the tax-grabbing greed Sack-boo suggested, I submit the greed of a nation's government is expressed more on its willingness to game the system. Witness China, Japan, et al.

Any time there are laws and regulations passed to keep markets free and open, there's someone out there trying to game the system. Its only by the collective action of civilized society that we keep individual greed from fawking up the system. Without it, you have the lawlessness of Somalia.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

I love your use of the Internet as the a shining example of free markets. Thank God our government decided to invent it.

Um, no.


Leonard Kleinrock was a UCLA professor and could be considered the grandfather of the internet. Not Al Gore.

[Screwzer2]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Um, no.


Leonard Kleinrock was a UCLA professor and could be considered the grandfather of the internet. Not Al Gore.

Who said anything about Al? Who do you think owns UCLA (hint: State of California).

Thanks for making my point.

The reason the internet is free and not subject to a 25¢ per message charge is precisely because it was developed with the people's money.

Had ATT invented it, we'd be in an entirely different place right now, with AOL being our browser of choice (since all other's wouldn't work in a proprietary system).

[rockota]

Originally Posted by paragon

and you are a liar.

support your assertion or admit that you are trying to be a douchebag

I'm a liar for what? The support is in this very thread - open your eyes. Hell, the entire Wiki page was posted here and highlighted with the same numbers that the poster mentioned.

You seem quite defensive on this. Have to wonder why. At least you've taken the "call him names" approach which is so familiar on this board. Well done for consistency.

Post 169 contains all you need.

[emiller22207]

Originally Posted by sokoboo

Every President since Nixon has been a Keynesian, both political parties are dominated by Keynesian economics. in 2007 Ron Paul was laughed off the stage for criticizing Greenspan and Bernanke and talking monetary policy. The problem of the two party system is that eventually the differences become nuanced and a matter of degree and rhetoric instead of substance. Keynesian economics is another way to grow government....

When you see a market imperfection, how do you mitigate it? Give us all an example..

Free markets do exist, that is where you fail. It is government manipulation that is the cause, not the effect of most market errors and unfair competitive practices. The question is do you want free markets or socialism.

Obama claims he too wants a market based system. He claims that his signature health care plan mitigated the market error of soaring healthcare costs and exponentially rising insurance premiums. He did not end a market, in fact he increased the size of one. You claim to do exactly what Obama does. The difference is maybe a slight change of tactic or degree but that is the extent of it.
In the same way Bush claimed to want to intervene to save the free market, by imposing socialism...

You might feel there is a difference but your feeling and 98 cents will leave you 2 cents short of an dollar.


As far as you harping for an example of free market, if you claim both US Steel and are monopolies you should be willing to accept that the internet is free. Great examples of freedom int eh internet has been the topple of oppressive regimes in the middle east that even the most zealous military interventionist could not dream of. The vast amount of wealth creation, and learning created could never have been achieved by a central planner. The internet is the only thing keeping our economy afloat and it is the freest thing we have.

The argument that because no free markets exist now is bunk. It is the same rheroric the slaves holders used. "slavery always existed we cant live in a slave free world" "suppose the slaves rise up and kill us" it is bull shit and you should be ashamed of it

Per usual, you've avoided answering my simple questions directly and instead responded with hyperbolic distortion. You would make a great politician. Unlike you, I don't avoid answering direct questions.

You asked for an example of a market imperfection and how one might correct it. Environmental externalities associated with industrial production are probably the most obvious. Before the Clean Water Act, it was not uncommon for rivers in cities with heavy industry to catch on fire due to all the industrial pollution. The Clean Water Act addressed that by requiring industrial emitters to file permits and limit the amount of toxic chemicals they were dumping into the public waterways.

You're adamant that free markets do exist in modern economies, and provide the internet as an example. Access to the internet is hardly free (it's controlled by a small number of telecommunications giants in the US), nor is it unregulated. In terms of content providers, are you suggesting Google, Microsoft, and the like don't have uncompetitive practices and yield their market power? Try again, bad example.

Your analogy to slave holders is nothing but hysterical hyperbole.

[rustywagoneersdotcom]

Originally Posted by Joe_W

always fun when the passive-aggressive name calling starts...

I'm just mad that nobody bit on my 'Ron Paul is Republican and part of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM' bait a while ago.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by rustywagoneersdotcom

I'm just mad that nobody bit on my 'Ron Paul is Republican and part of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM' bait a while ago.

I thought about it...

[Joe_W]

Originally Posted by rustywagoneersdotcom

I'm just mad that nobody bit on my 'Ron Paul is Republican and part of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM' bait a while ago.

CJHeap is in self-imposed exile

[rustywagoneersdotcom]

Originally Posted by petro812

but then you went and did this...

As if nobody has ever heard of the stuff.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...698&highlight=

[Mustard Dog]

Originally Posted by Joe_W

CJHeap is in self-imposed exile

[sokoboo]

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

Really? What about Reagan's supply side economic principles and the Laffer curve?

Supply side economics is was the result of the failure of the Keynesian model. It is an example of more tinkering that was doomed from the beginning. Cutting taxes does increase wealth, that is pretty much a no brainier so imo it is better than the Keynesian model.
Both the Keynesian model and the supply side model has as it core premises raising revenue for government. Hense the motivation is the same , growing government, while the technique is slightly different.
What happened to deficits under Regan?

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

I love your use of the Internet as the a shining example of free markets. Thank God our government decided to invent it.

Seriously? Yeah lets all go back to the internet the government invented.... LOL when what the internet invented by the government, and for how long was a it largely worthless.... The free market did with the internet what the government could never have conceived in its wildest dreams....
Free Markets do not have invent money, but they are sure good at despising it multiplying it and investing it. Maybe you think government should do that instead

[sokoboo]

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

The reason the internet is free and not subject to a 25¢ per message charge is precisely because it was developed with the people's money.

You mean like the post office, and toll roads...

Access to the internet is not free, do you not pay an ISP?(maybe you live in parents basement and pay nothing) It is relatively free of government regulation....

The reason the internet is free is because the government is not smart enough to tax it yet, and if they did tax it, it would cripple the economy.

[paragon]

Originally Posted by rockota

I'm a liar for what? The support is in this very thread - open your eyes. Hell, the entire Wiki page was posted here and highlighted with the same numbers that the poster mentioned.

You seem quite defensive on this. Have to wonder why. At least you've taken the "call him names" approach which is so familiar on this board. Well done for consistency.

Post 169 contains all you need.

I am quite defensive. There's no reason to wonder why. It's simply fun to use fact and truth to point out others lies and fabrications. At some point, when you've discounted multiple comments from someone and they come back with the same assertions by only avoiding the facts that discounted their comments, name-calling is all that's left. Otherwise you are a fool to sit and argue with someone bankrupt enough not to acknowledge being wrong for the sake of not having to admit being wrong.

In your case, you don't have a clue what you are talking about while supporting a position. I posted his posts. You can go back and read after those posts he made where it was pointed out he was wrong. You asserted he was right, I asked right about what. You then asserted that we called him liar about something he was right about (thusly calling us liars) and I asked you to provide support of that.

Not doing so is simply being a douchebag because you are either too lazy to follow through with your interjection or you know you are wrong again, but feel obligated to support him because you share certain admiration of a specific ideology.

Therefore, I ask you again, "correct about what". Don't attempt to say he stated this fact or that fact correctly as some sort of absolution to the fact that his other comments were factually incorrect (you know, the ones that were proven incorrect)

[sokoboo]

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

Some good arguments here, and I don't disagree on many of your points, let's disect 'em:

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

<I can't disagree with this, but its hardly the argument I was making or defending. Is it your position that we'd be better off if the banks failed and the .gov didn't intervene? The investment in the auto makers seems to be working out pretty well and probably kept a good chunk of the market from collapsing.>

I ws not responding to an argument you where making I was providing and example you were requesting....

Originally Posted by Screwzer2

You're gonna have to try harder than that. We do have election in this country from time to time at all levels of government. If the .gov doesn't square with the needs and views of the people they serve, eventually the bums get thrown out, and those who weren't in elected office get called on the carpet by the new regime. There's at least as many, if not more, checks on power in government than there are on any corporation.>

Actually no I do not. You made the claim that people are greedy and therefore companies are greedy. Government need to restrict greed. I made the point that the same inherently greedy people work for government.....
It is use that need to work harder. The chances of a throwing out an incumbent are ridiculously small. Because of the two party system, the incumbent get money from all over the country while the challenger generally itself funded. Unless that Challenger is from a different party in which case most people vote for party platform over past performance.
This is my original point.

You do not need the SEC to prosecute fraud...

Government offer a false sense of security. The SEC has ties to Maddoff, it gave the appearance of legitimacy, hense the false sense of security....

[rockota]

Originally Posted by paragon

I am quite defensive. There's no reason to wonder why. It's simply fun to use fact and truth to point out others lies and fabrications. At some point, when you've discounted multiple comments from someone and they come back with the same assertions by only avoiding the facts that discounted their comments, name-calling is all that's left. Otherwise you are a fool to sit and argue with someone bankrupt enough not to acknowledge being wrong for the sake of not having to admit being wrong.

In your case, you don't have a clue what you are talking about while supporting a position. I posted his posts. You can go back and read after those posts he made where it was pointed out he was wrong. You asserted he was right, I asked right about what. You then asserted that we called him liar about something he was right about (thusly calling us liars) and I asked you to provide support of that.

Not doing so is simply being a douchebag because you are either too lazy to follow through with your interjection or you know you are wrong again, but feel obligated to support him because you share certain admiration of a specific ideology.

Therefore, I ask you again, "correct about what". Don't attempt to say he stated this fact or that fact correctly as some sort of absolution to the fact that his other comments were factually incorrect (you know, the ones that were proven incorrect)

Undies in a bunch today, eh? All you seek is in this thread. Hell, you quoted it numerous times.

I do find it hypocritically entertaining that you justify your own use of name calling in this post, though. Certainly helps support your argument. Well done, comrad!

[Evilwhitey]

Originally Posted by sokoboo

You mean like the post office, and toll roads...

The reason the internet is free is because the government is not smart enough to tax it yet, and if they did tax it, it would cripple the economy.

I've got to agree with this. Look at the legislation that has come out over the past year regarding the interwebs. Much of it lays the foundation for SERIOUS Govt control and eventual taxation and at least partial ownership. It's in EVERYONE'S best interest to keep the .gov away from the net.

[paragon]

Originally Posted by rockota

Undies in a bunch today, eh? All you seek is in this thread. Hell, you quoted it numerous times.

I do find it hypocritically entertaining that you justify your own use of name calling in this post, though. Certainly helps support your argument. Well done, comrad!

why wouldn't I justify my own use of name calling? should I be name calling unjustly? or should I be name calling without any reason? is that what you are getting at.


All you seek is in this thread. I've participated, I quoted, I responded, I refuted and I'm correct. You made a blanket statement, can't back it up and now have to be obtuse in order to acknowledge it.

Certainly helps support your argument. Well done, comrad!

[rockota]

Originally Posted by paragon

why wouldn't I justify my own use of name calling? should I be name calling unjustly? or should I be name calling without any reason? is that what you are getting at.


All you seek is in this thread. I've participated, I quoted, I responded, I refuted and I'm correct. You made a blanket statement, can't back it up and now have to be obtuse in order to acknowledge it.

Certainly helps support your argument. Well done, comrad!

I'm not exactly sure why you're so upset. It's like someone kicked your puppy or took your blankie away. You and others started attacking the poster stating he was wrong while quoting numbers that support his claims. It's entertaining. You did it, Screwy did it, I laughed at it, I pointed it out, you called me names.

Like I said... well done. You certainly proved your assertion, and the name calling definitely made your argument that much stronger.

If you took a step back, you'd see he's factually correct. Doesn't matter to me if you dont' like the facts - it doesn't change anything.

[paragon]

Originally Posted by rockota

I'm not exactly sure why you're so upset. It's like someone kicked your puppy or took your blankie away. You and others started attacking the poster stating he was wrong while quoting numbers that support his claims. It's entertaining. You did it, Screwy did it, I laughed at it, I pointed it out, you called me names.

Like I said... well done. You certainly proved your assertion, and the name calling definitely made your argument that much stronger.

If you took a step back, you'd see he's factually correct. Doesn't matter to me if you dont' like the facts - it doesn't change anything.

I'm so upset, I'm crying and stuff. I want my blankie back

Me and others "started attacking" the poster stating he was wrong about what he posted. Numbers have nothing to do with what he posted. He attempted to use numbers to justify his position and it was pointed out that he was attempting use something out of context to support his original assertion, that was shown to be false.

I don't need to take a step back and see he's factually incorrect. I was involved in the discussion from the beginning. Cherrypicking "numbers" does not make his assertion correct.

You seem really invested in his being correct as your entertainment value. The only thing I asked was you to show what you are referring to, that "we" are wrong about so that I could help you understand why you were wrong.

You refused, and just like the OP, it would be pointless to go back and forth if you are unwilling to simply point it out. Therefore it's more fun to pick at your anemic trolling

[rockota]

Originally Posted by paragon

I'm so upset, I'm crying and stuff. I want my blankie back

Me and others "started attacking" the poster stating he was wrong about what he posted. Numbers have nothing to do with what he posted. He attempted to use numbers to justify his position and it was pointed out that he was attempting use something out of context to support his original assertion, that was shown to be false.

I don't need to take a step back and see he's factually incorrect. I was involved in the discussion from the beginning. Cherrypicking "numbers" does not make his assertion correct.

You seem really invested in his being correct as your entertainment value. The only thing I asked was you to show what you are referring to, that "we" are wrong about so that I could help you understand why you were wrong.

You refused, and just like the OP, it would be pointless to go back and forth if you are unwilling to simply point it out. Therefore it's more fun to pick at your anemic trolling

You won an argument on the internet. Well done.

highlighted irony for you

[paragon]

Originally Posted by rockota

You won an argument on the internet. Well done.

which argument? point it out

[rockota]

Originally Posted by paragon

which argument? point it out

Holy fawk...

I'm done with you in this thread. You win. Congrats. You're the smarter person. Numbers mean nothing unless they mean everything. Got it. well done.

[sokoboo]

Good primer of Supply Side Economics verse Free Markets
Schiff Pretty much destroys then burries Laffer
http://blog.mises.org/8635/supply-si...ore-recession/

Pay close attention to how Schiff and Laffer define real wealth. This is fundamental.

[rustywagoneersdotcom]

Originally Posted by sokoboo

Good primer of Supply Side Economics verse Free Markets
Schiff Pretty much destroys then burries Laffer
http://blog.mises.org/8635/supply-si...ore-recession/

Here's the thing you don't get. And it may be a fault on my part.

There are a dozen or more folks on here, whom, if they posted this link, I'd be clapping for. I'd like to be doing the same right now. But you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot.