LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mercury14 said:
Way to get your ass kicked by your own (completely non-Keynsian!) source. You just found me a LOAD of evidence that the stimulus worked. Not only that, but it's estimates were even higher than Moody's. You're really awful at this AJ. Really, I couldn't have asked for better help in our little debate. From now on I'm just going to refer you back to your own link. Thanks man. :D
Click to expand...

Ask him what 130% of $1.00 is....;)
 
busybody said:
Estimated?

CBO? A biased source

Council of Economic Advisors? NIGGERS own "people""



Best you can DO, NIGGER POON?
Click to expand...


Who cares about the CBO or CEA? The independent study that AJ insists is a quality, non-Keynsian source says the stimulus was even more effective than either of those entities.
 
NeverEndingMe said:
wow, nice family picture. which one are you?
Click to expand...

Their club doesn't accept people like me.

You, on the other hand, are kneeling and servicing the little pasty cocks of these racist fucks (as usual), so unfortunately the photographer couldn't get you in the shot.
 
vetteman said:
Oh look, the three blind mice.:eek:
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you, dizzybooby and A_J the Stupid came up with a name for yourselves. Do you all have embroidered Members Only jackets identify your bad-ass crew?
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
It was simply overshadowed by the beginning of the "Summer of Recovery II."

Then, when the Brotherhood took over, we started whistling "Dixie..."

*spit*
Click to expand...

But didn't Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Jimmie Crapper, claim the Brotherhood was secular, peaceful and desperately wanted democracy?
 
mercury14 said:
You're suggesting is that any (objective) study which concludes that government intervention was successful is "Keynsian". That's a false premise from the start since the conclusion does not mean that the analysis itself was Keynsian in the least bit. You're just assuming (or rather hoping) that it was the case. You haven't provided one shred of evidence for your point.

The Moody's report has a methodology section. I suggest you read it. Additionally, are you leveling the same criticism at IHS/Globalinsight and Macroeconomic Advisors?

You're accusing Moody's of bias on a massive scale. Corruption even. Laughable and dismissible.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. I am looking at authors and methodology, one which they try to make purely mathematical thus we see why it is so terribly flawed. I think you misunderstand what is going on with the stimulus and the reports. There are several schools of economics and some tend to be input/output based. Here are the numbers, if I put in the numbers, then I will get these outputs. This is the bias of this report you so much like and the reason why it fails, as did the stimulus, to report accurately what has transpired economically. They did not go out and count beans, they used math, modeling and estimations. Now these things tend to work quite nicely when an economy is humming along smoothly, but their Diffy-Q methods (much the same as it is in Glowball Warning) fall apart in times of crises because they ignore so many of the small complex factors that go into a feedback loop (chaotic system) of an economy, the translation here being that they treat a chaotic problem with linear methods and they ignore the greatest single strange attractor all together, Human Action (Ludwig Elder von Mises)...

This is why Bernake throws his hands up. His math and his calculations say, this should be working, but it cannot, for it cannot measure in any possible way, the psychology of the traders, who are now living in a world of fear, uncertainty, and complexity of process in the sphere of the business world, which is why I implored you to look into Praxeology, and spend some time reading von Mises (if you want him in a nutshell, try "The Last Knight of Liberalism" by Hülsmann, downloadable at Mises.org).

You have embraced one school of economics for momentary benefit in an argument you rather wish to win (one which you declared yourself done with, what? three times now), for whatever reason I cannot fathom, for the reality of the news and the world bear unquestionable testimony as to the incorrectness of many of its basic assumptions such as the nebulous multipliers of government spending, which an Austrian would say should be not 1.57, but more like 0.57 for as posited by so many and which I referenced in Bastiat's parable, government spending retards in unseen ways by taking money that would have been spent by willing bettors and spending it in ways that have no detriment to government what-so-ever, for it can always inflate and tax its way out of bad bets.

I embraced a school of economics some time past, and will continue to look through its lens and will cite those who also share the same lens, because like von Mises, I came to my conclusions starting on the Left, with the Socialists of the Chair (although I would not have known the term at the time and would have bristled at the idea of actually being a Socialist instead of just thinking I could manage Capitalism "smarter") and began learning the arguments of my opposition (you remember G. H. W. B.'s "vodoo' economics) in order to destroy the arguments of the radical brain-dead rich guys and discovered that in all actuality, it was my positions that I could not defend, e.g., that demand makes and economy, that taxes have no impact because the rich can afford them, that businesses pay taxes, and so on and so forth.

This is why I knew the stimulus, and again, patiently, to point out my consistency, I said the same thing about G. W. B.'s stimulus, was actually a putative thing to a struggling economy and every temporary gain that you expect, and that does actually transpire for money is a wonderful veneer, with an economy as with people, but it eats away at the heart in so many unseen negative ways, that in the long run, the economy is hardly benefited, but rather harmed by having dollars raided from the pool of investment capital that would have been better utilized by studiers and gamblers than by politicians whose primary focus is on politics.

As to your next set of remarks, as pointed out in the rebuttals, it was done by Keynesian, therefore a proponent of government interventions in the market, a Middle-Way type at best, a Statist at worst and they clearly did not perform the study to show what happened, but how the jobs were created, and that, after-all was their intended purpose, for what ever reason, to sell you a laminated lemon. That which the veneer created was obviously destroyed and we can see that through the number of excuses being offered by the proponents of Interventionalism.

__________________
You loot the private sector, strip every dollar of 40¢ for overhead, and then give the other 60¢ to your political base in order to revitalize the looted.

What's not to like about that plan?

The Wealth of a Nation works best trickle-down. A Republic and an Economy work best trickle-up. A Socialist believes just the opposite.
A_J, the Stupid

(An Economy is the set of all transactions. Government is mutual cooperation for successful transacting. Wealth is the outcome of successful transactions.)
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
There are several schools of economics and some tend to be input/output based. Here are the numbers, if I put in the numbers, then I will get these outputs. This is the bias of this report you so much like and the reason why it fails, as did the stimulus, to report accurately what has transpired economically.
Click to expand...

They're not "Input/Output based", dumbass. They are mathematical models and as such have both inputs and outputs, as opposed to your economic theories, which consist largely of random anecdotes and fact pulled straight from your ass.

Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
They did not go out and count beans, they used math...
Click to expand...

Counting is not math. DERP!

Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
Now these things tend to work quite nicely when an economy is humming along smoothly, but their Diffy-Q methods (much the same as it is in Glowball Warning) fall apart in times of crises because they ignore so many of the small complex factors that go into a feedback loop (chaotic system) of an economy, the translation here being that they treat a chaotic problem with linear methods and they ignore the greatest single strange attractor all together, Human Action (Ludwig Elder von Mises)...
Click to expand...

In classical economics, theories are adjusted as more and more identified variables become quantifiable. In AJ economics, entire schools of thoughts are deemed invalid when additional variables are discovered. Math is HARD!
 
JUNE 25, 2011 7:00 A.M.
Speechworld vs. Realworld
The widening gulf between Obama’s rhetoric and reality

The Democrats seem to have given up on budgets. Hey, who can blame them? They’ve got a ballpark figure: Let’s raise $2 trillion in revenue every year, and then spend $4 trillion. That seems to work pretty well, so why get hung up on a lot of fine print? Harry Reid says the Senate has no plans to produce a budget, but in April the president did give a speech about “a new budget framework” that he said would save $4 trillion over the next twelve years.

That would be 2023, if you’re minded to take him seriously. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, did. Last week he asked Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, if he’d “estimated the budget impact of this framework.”

“No, Mr. Chairman,” replied Director Elmendorf, deadpan. “We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech.”

“We don’t estimate speeches”: There’s an epitaph to chisel on the tombstone of the republic. Unfortunately for those of us on the receiving end, giving speeches is what Obama does. Indeed, having no other accomplishments to his name (as Hillary Clinton pointed out), giving speeches is what got the president his job. You remember — the stuff about “hope” and “change.” Were the CBO in the business of “estimating speeches,” they’d have run the numbers and concluded that under the Obama plan, vague abstract nouns would be generating 87 percent of GDP by 2016.

...

“America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”

Gee, thanks. If America were a Kandahar wedding, that would be the cue to fire your rifle in the air and grab the cutest nine-year-old boy. Naturally, not everyone sees eye to eye. Like Afghanistan, ours is a fractious land. But as Obama said:

“Our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong, no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach.”
Click to expand...

Climb ev’ry mountain. Ford ev’ry stream.

Are you sure we can afford ev’ry stream? Yes, it’s far less rugged than it sounds. In compliance with EPA regulations, no real hills and dales were harmed in the making of this glib rhetorical imagery.

“At his best,” wrote the New York Times of Obama’s speech, “the president can be hugely persuasive.”

Er, if you say so. He’s mostly persuasive in persuading you there’s no urgency about anything: All that stuff about Americans sweating and straining for the most distant horizon is his way of saying you can go back to sleep for another couple of decades.

If we hadn’t been assured by the New York Times that this man is the Greatest Orator of All Time, there would be something offensive in the leader of the Brokest Nation in History bragging that we’re not the guys to shirk a challenge, however grueling and demanding it may be, no sirree. The salient feature of America in the Age of Obama is a failed government class institutionally committed to living beyond its means, and a citizenry too many of whom are content to string along. Remember Peggy Joseph of Sarasota, Fla.? “I never thought this day would ever happen,” she gushed after an Obama rally in 2008. “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.” Is Peggy really the gal you’d want to hike a steep hill with?

In Speechworld, nation-building can be done through flatulent rhetoric. In Realworld, nations are built by people, and in America the productive class is battered and reeling. Obama wasted a trillion dollars on a phony stimulus that stimulated nothing but government, and wants to try it one mo’ time. That’s what yokes “nation-building” near and far. According to the World Bank, the Western military/aid presence now accounts for 97 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP. The bit that’s left doesn’t function, not least because it doesn’t need to. How can, say, Helmand develop an economic base when everybody with a whit of sense is making massively inflated salaries as a translator for the Yanks or a security guard for some EU outreach project? When the 97 percent revenue tide recedes with the American withdrawal, what’s left will be the same old 3 percent ugly tribal dump Afghanistan was a decade ago. It will leave as little trace as the Obama stimulus.

The sheer waste is appalling, immoral, and deeply destructive. In Kandahar as in California, all that matters is excess: It’s not working? Then you need to spend more. More more more. What does it matter? You’re not spending anything real. America would have to find $15 trillion just to get back to having nothing in its pocket. But who cares? As long as we’re united in our commitment to excess, no CBO debt-to-GDP ratio graph is too steep for us to take to the next level, and no horizon — 2060, 2080, 2104 — is too distant to serve as a plausible estimate for significant deficit reduction.

In Realworld, political speeches would be about closing down unnecessary federal bureaucracies, dramatically downsizing or merging others, and ending makework projects and mission creep. The culture of excess that distinguishes the hyperpower at twilight would be reviled at every turn. But instead the “hugely persuasive” orator declares that there’s nothing to worry about that even more government can’t cure. In Speechworld, “no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach.” In Realworld, that’s mainly because we’re going downhill. And the horizon is a cliff edge.
Click to expand...
Mark Steyn
NRO
 
talking about racists, are you looking in the mirror?




IrezumiKiss said:
Their club doesn't accept people like me.

You, on the other hand, are kneeling and servicing the little pasty cocks of these racist fucks (as usual), so unfortunately the photographer couldn't get you in the shot.
Click to expand...
 
But, NIGGER POON will re-print an old news story

HOPE AND CHANGE: Forecasts For Growth Drop, Some Sharply. “The likelihood of a negative surprise is bigger than the likelihood of a positive surprise.” But it’ll be unexpected when it comes . . .
 
Beco said:
No club accepts people like you.....
Click to expand...

He’s just as bad as LT, bitches about everything and the only thing he does is hold his hand out looking for a free hand out.

I hate people who bitch about the world while looking for a free lunch
 
NeverEndingMe said:
He’s just as bad as LT, bitches about everything and the only thing he does is hold his hand out looking for a free hand out.

I hate people who bitch about the world while looking for a free lunch
Click to expand...

Okay, that's it, if I have to listen to this, next time, we're going dutch!



:mad:







;) ;)
 
June 26, 2011
Economic Slavery: Modern-Day Indentured Servitude
By Frank Ryan

The "tax the rich" hysteria gripping this nation is absolute insanity. Cries to raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 or some other magical number are unbelievable.

As a CPA, I find the "tax the rich" schemes to be pure junk science. To that end, the illogical precepts underpinning these arguments must be exposed. (Incidentally, by way of full disclosure, I would not be personally affected by these tax increases. I merely want to expose the scheme for the fraud that it is.)

Many in Congress have attempted to make earning an income distasteful, so those pitiable enough to earn an income are subjected to public scorn. Politicians and many in the media are collectively pushing policies to "punish those people" by taxing them into economic slavery and involuntary servitude.

The scheme perpetuated by those demanding higher taxes goes something like this:

The wealth gap has widened since the "Bush" tax credits.
So raise the taxes on the wealthiest in the nation.
The higher taxes will pay down the nation's deficit.
Money can then be redistributed to those in need.
Click to expand...
These reasons are pure fiction!

To start, it is inaccurate to equate wealth with income. The super-rich (billionaires) contribute significantly to political candidates who then perpetuate this myth. By deflecting taxes from the super-wealthy, the super-rich are supporting candidates who favor taxing income and not assets.

Myth 1: Income is not wealth. Assets are wealth.

[for elaboration of each point: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/economic_slavery_modern-day_indentured_servitude.html]
...
Myth 2: Tax increases will not affect tax receipts. Taxes are a cost to a taxpayer.
Myth 3: Income redistribution works. See the history of the Soviet Union for more details.
Myth 4: The tax code is not progressive.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
291
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
435
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top